Jump to content
HAIF - Houston's original social media

Historic Districts in Houston


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I was here before you "preservationists". It is because of people like me that you thought the Heights was worth moving to. If I were to tell you to go f yourself, would you find that offensive? Becau

This is not a bully and name calling situation so much as forcefully pointing out the callousness of your position. You and others claim that your position and this ordinance protects the character a

http://swamplot.com/houstons-historic-districts-will-remain-as-they-are/2011-01-04/ It is over. All districts surveyed failed to muster the 51% needed to opt out. Yes, I know. You all are going

Posted Images

Got the video...The HAHC voted 7-3 against approval. Douglas Elliot played the fool and did all the talking....."the overall scale and scope of the house is out of character"....."I know you can't even see the house due to the apartment complex next door, but"......"we've been having a lot of complaints from the Heights about large structures"....."the addition is large compared to the original house"....it was pitiful to watch them all fiddle with their ipads refusing to make eye contact with the owner while she spoke.  This is a 1700 sf addition to a 1300 sf house, smaller than the scale of houses up and down the street. 

 

 

 

The addition complied with the requirements of the ordinance and Elliot acknowledged that was not the problem. The owner implored them for recommendations and Elliot got all twisted up and told her to go the demolition route, adding "I know that sounds silly" and the owner pushed back that she wanted to preserve as much as possible. The owner showed that the house was surrounded by large additions and the only thing out of character is her current run down shack next to a hideous apartment complex. The next door neighbor on the other side wrote a letter begging for approval because the current structure devalues the neighborhood.

 

 

 

Phoebe Tudor said NOTHING, collected her check and left.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to hear the opinion of the HAHC Apologist who regularly chastises us for daring criticize the historic district ordinance...and who regularly applauds houses with massive additions added to the back...even posting HAR.com links bragging about the asking prices. I wonder what he thinks of this denial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to hear the opinion of the HAHC Apologist who regularly chastises us for daring criticize the historic district ordinance...and who regularly applauds houses with massive additions added to the back...even posting HAR.com links bragging about the asking prices. I wonder what he thinks of this denial.

 

He/She/It has not chimed in on this thread one time since this perfect example of over-reaching started...its funny how indefensible stances often garner silence from the opposition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He/She/It has not chimed in on this thread one time since this perfect example of over-reaching started...its funny how indefensible stances often garner silence from the opposition.

 

In defense of that person, even though it is indefensible, I'm sure he would have found a way to try!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I told you so. I have always said that all the effort made to try to destroy the preservation ordinance took away from the opportunity to craft a better ordinance. As a result, too much was left to subjective determination by the HAHC. The HAHC was way too permissive at first. Builders and realtors who only see value in square feet put up giant additions in the back of tiny bungalows. Those "humper house" designs have gotten out of control and now HAHC is trying to reign them back into something that is appropriate for the scale of the historic archictecture. That determination could have and should have been made when the ordinance was amended. But that discussion did not take place because a noisy minority dominated the discussion with their demand for complete abolition of historic preservation.

But for those of you who live in the anti-preservation echo chamber, this action by the HAHC did not happen in a vacuum. A lot of people support the historic ordinance. Another district was created next to Woodland Heights recently. If the HAHC was such an awful boogey man, this district would have never happened. But it did. Reality check moment for anti-historic district folks again. People who support the districts are not going to sit on their hands and let realtors and builders define what the neighborhood will look like. It is now a political process. A lot of pressure is being put on HAHC to take into consideration scale. I think this could and should be put in objective terms (% expansion of original foot print or other relevant guidelines). But it never was because last time the ordinance was adressed by council, it was all about killing it off. So, the HAHC is now taking into account scale in response to what the community has demanded. It is the right thing to do, but not the best way to go about it. But, the best way to go about it was never an option because so much energy was expended dealing with the small minority that has been trying to get rid of the districts altogether.

For those of you who think this is the beginning of the end of the districts, you woefully underestimate the support of the districts and what this episode really brings to light. The argument right now against the districts is that people should be able to build giant houses behind bungalows. But those giant houses behind bungalows that have already been built just make an excellent argument for stricter protection. The "humper house" was named the design cliche of the year on swamplot. If anything, the proliferation of the humper houses has galvanized support for the districts and for stronger enforcement of the historic preservation ordinance. The real overreach here is coming from the builders and realtors. When the 90 day waiting period was enacted, the idea was that 90 days would give people enough time to find someone willing to renovate instead of demolish a building. But the 90 day waiting period just became a cost of doing business. Builders continued to demolish and build anything fake New Orleans looking thing they wanted as if there was no ordinance at all. Now, with some teeth in the ordinance, the builders are again overreaching by putting up the giant humper houses instead of actually trying to expand the square footage without disturbing the visual scale of the original architecture. But this overreach will again result in an equal and opposite reaction--a more restrictive ordinance. So, the more people try to get rid of the ordinance, the stronger it gets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problems with camelbacks from a neighborhood perspective.  Wouldn't want to live in one of the things, but whatever.  They will get integrated into the neighborhood with the hundreds and hundreds of other architectural oddities that exist EVERYWHERE in this neighborhood, its just unfortunate for property owners that are going to get ramrodded while this current preservation fad lasts.  50 years from now, people are going to discuss how these certain houses ended up as crazy looking as they do, and maybe someone will even idiotically try to "preserve the camelbacks!"  I doubt they'll blame the "realtors and builders" for their existence, though. Everybody knows why these are being built.

Edited by JJxvi
Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking news from the HAHC!  Attention all potential buyers of HD homes, attention all potential sellers of HD homes....the peak is in, prepare yourselves for market adjustment.....3,000 sf is too big to get CoA, adjust property value to accommodate life how it was in 1929 when we packed 6 kids into 1200 sf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

is s3mh's wall of text revisionist history, or am I just mis-remembering? I am too lazy to go back through the thread, but I could have sworn that the people who were against this were not just wanting to keep it from passing, or removing their property from it, but that it was far too subjective, and the way that it could be adjusted at any time was far too over-reaching.

 

Hell, I only have skin in the game because my property could very easily be added to a historic district by city council members. Specifically, section 33-221

 

 

Sec. 33-221. Designation.
 (a)  The city council may designate buildings, structures, objects and sites as landmarks and protected landmarks, may designate areas as historic districts, may designate sites as archaeological sites, and may define, amend and delineate the boundaries of any landmark, protected landmark, historic district or archaeological site as provided in this article. 
 ( B)  To encourage public participation and the resultant preservation of historical, cultural and archeological resources, the city council shall be authorized to offer owners of properties considered for designation tax exemptions and other incentives that the city council may determine appropriate, at the time of the proposed designation. 
 ©  Prior to action by the city council, the HAHC shall review each application for designation and make a recommendation with respect to the application, but designation shall be made only by city council.

 

I chose to buy the house I currently own specifically so I wouldn't have to bother with a restrictive covenant, and it stands to reason that along the same lines, I would never choose to live in a historic district, and as a matter of fact, all this ordinance does for me is entice me to tear my house down as soon as I can afford to build another house that has no defining historic merit at all so that I will be excluded when (not if) the city council shifts their gaze in my direction.

 

Please don't get me wrong, I enjoy my house, I enjoy the historic nature of my house and I want to do what I (emphasis on I) can do to preserve it, but I like someone else looking over my shoulder telling me how to do it at their subjective whim so much less that I would be willing to take a wrecking ball to my house to avoid it.

Edited by samagon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking news from the HAHC! Attention all potential buyers of HD homes, attention all potential sellers of HD homes....the peak is in, prepare yourselves for market adjustment.....3,000 sf is too big to get CoA, adjust property value to accommodate life how it was in 1929 when we packed 6 kids into 1200 sf.

Have no fear the jack-boot architecture facists of the HAHC have plenty of experience stuffing people into small confines, boxcars, etc.

Edited by TGM
Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Germantown, they had no choice but to deal with the devil.....that or TxDoT eats their livers with fava beans.  Yeah that's a good example of how popular these HD's are.

Edited by fwki
Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge for yourself.  I think the HAHC has completely lost the plot.  Any Houston politician who enables or in any way supports this type of zoning control over one's domicile needs to be thrown out of public service.  Vote with your vote:



1207 Harvard gets toasted by the zoning commission.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I told you so. I have always said that all the effort made to try to destroy the preservation ordinance took away from the opportunity to craft a better ordinance. As a result, too much was left to subjective determination by the HAHC. The HAHC was way too permissive at first. Builders and realtors who only see value in square feet put up giant additions in the back of tiny bungalows. Those "humper house" designs have gotten out of control and now HAHC is trying to reign them back into something that is appropriate for the scale of the historic archictecture. That determination could have and should have been made when the ordinance was amended. But that discussion did not take place because a noisy minority dominated the discussion with their demand for complete abolition of historic preservation. But for those of you who live in the anti-preservation echo chamber, this action by the HAHC did not happen in a vacuum. A lot of people support the historic ordinance. Another district was created next to Woodland Heights recently. If the HAHC was such an awful boogey man, this district would have never happened. But it did. Reality check moment for anti-historic district folks again. People who support the districts are not going to sit on their hands and let realtors and builders define what the neighborhood will look like. It is now a political process. A lot of pressure is being put on HAHC to take into consideration scale. I think this could and should be put in objective terms (% expansion of original foot print or other relevant guidelines). But it never was because last time the ordinance was adressed by council, it was all about killing it off. So, the HAHC is now taking into account scale in response to what the community has demanded. It is the right thing to do, but not the best way to go about it. But, the best way to go about it was never an option because so much energy was expended dealing with the small minority that has been trying to get rid of the districts altogether. For those of you who think this is the beginning of the end of the districts, you woefully underestimate the support of the districts and what this episode really brings to light. The argument right now against the districts is that people should be able to build giant houses behind bungalows. But those giant houses behind bungalows that have already been built just make an excellent argument for stricter protection. The "humper house" was named the design cliche of the year on swamplot. If anything, the proliferation of the humper houses has galvanized support for the districts and for stronger enforcement of the historic preservation ordinance. The real overreach here is coming from the builders and realtors. When the 90 day waiting period was enacted, the idea was that 90 days would give people enough time to find someone willing to renovate instead of demolish a building. But the 90 day waiting period just became a cost of doing business. Builders continued to demolish and build anything fake New Orleans looking thing they wanted as if there was no ordinance at all. Now, with some teeth in the ordinance, the builders are again overreaching by putting up the giant humper houses instead of actually trying to expand the square footage without disturbing the visual scale of the original architecture. But this overreach will again result in an equal and opposite reaction--a more restrictive ordinance. So, the more people try to get rid of the ordinance, the stronger it gets.

 

You don't get to turn this around on us.  We stated long ago that the ordinance was far too vague and that because of its being so vague it was subject to abuse and favortism.  It seems to me now that the only folks getting approvals now are the folks who have been deemed worthy by the HAHC, and that its not a property by property basis. 

 

The HAHC is making up the rules as they apply to individuals.  Any ordinance that is so vauge that it can be interpreted should be void on its face. This is a travesty and its application is inexcusable.  The HAHC has literally stolen these individuals property rights from under them....(assuming they owned before the ordinance)

 

Either way, its a travesty.  A small shack does not support the lifestyle of a growing family.  The HAHC does not care.  This is going to reverberate throughout the heights and only hasten the depreciation of the rest of the remaining shacks property values.  This should not be happening in the name of preservation.  I can only hope that a bulldozer accidentally, and in the middle of the night, flattens this property.  If it were my house, I would allow it to crumble to nothing just to spite the gestappo.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is ever created a HAIF Hall of Fame, post #1007 will certainly win for best 180 performed by a poster. He didn't even attempt to fit it into his narrative of HAHC Uber Alles. He simply claims that he always told us, as if we didn't read the previous 1006 posts in this thread. Flip flopping on this scale should be banned everywhere but during presidential debates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge for yourself.  I think the HAHC has completely lost the plot.  Any Houston politician who enables or in any way supports this type of zoning control over one's domicile needs to be thrown out of public service.  Vote with your vote:

1207 Harvard gets toasted by the zoning commission.

 

Who is the holier than thou dweeb with the beard, and why is he qualified to make decisions on someone's home?

Link to post
Share on other sites

and we kept hearing that they were easy to work with.....now they are exercising their dislike of her design for a denial even though she appears to have followed the rules as written?  Travesty - I agree that the gentlemen with the beard simply could talk himself to sleep with such nonsense.  I loved the comment about letter her demolish the house - that comment alone should get him thrown off of this board in my opinion.

There isnt a chance in ____ that I will be renovating any of my properties while the HAHC is in control - I may paint them some bright offensive color though since that cant be dictated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge for yourself.  I think the HAHC has completely lost the plot.  Any Houston politician who enables or in any way supports this type of zoning control over one's domicile needs to be thrown out of public service.  Vote with your vote:

1207 Harvard gets toasted by the zoning commission.

 

Wow.

 

Just, wow.

 

 

So Council approves an ordinance that basically requires camelbacks.  HAHC finds camelbacks distasteful, and refuses to approve.

 

Message: only buy a property with intent to renovate if you don't plan to increase square footage. Good luck with that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have no fear the jack-boot architecture facists of the HAHC have plenty of experience stuffing people into small confines, boxcars, etc.

 

I would allow it to crumble to nothing just to spite the gestappo [sic]. 

 

HAHC Uber Alles

 

 

 

 

 

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies[1][2]) is an argument made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Nazi and fascist comparisons began in this thread a very long time ago. In fact, the HAHC has now eclipsed passe Nazi references. What we need here is a term to describe capricious and arbitrary rulings, as HAHC just made a ruling, not on the rules in the ordinance, but rather based on "complaints from the neighborhood". Ironically, these complaints were of HAHC's own rulings.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow is all I can say.  I live down the street from this house and I have to say, it is just about the ONLY house on the street that does NOT fit in w/ the surrounding houses.  Most of the houses on the blockface are large and just about every house across the street is a two story - in fact one of them is a 3-story uber-house that must be at least 3,500 square fee.

 

Not to mention that it is right next-door to a hideous apartment building, and I would LOVE to see this house remodeled, as would everyone on our street.  We used to call it the Haloween house because the previous  owner/tenants painted it black and orange one year...

 

I hope the new owners get their approval for the remodel and addition shortly.


Cheers

James

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Nazi and fascist comparisons began in this thread a very long time ago. In fact, the HAHC has now eclipsed passe Nazi references. What we need here is a term to describe capricious and arbitrary rulings, as HAHC just made a ruling, not on the rules in the ordinance, but rather based on "complaints from the neighborhood". Ironically, these complaints were of HAHC's own rulings.

This is exactly my point. The anti-historic district people have done nothing from the beginning but gone all talk radio on this issue without providing anything constructive to make the process better. At least RUDH produced a lengthy document of proposed changes to the Walmart development while simultaneously opposing the same and refrained from the completely off the wall accusations and name calling that have come from anti-historic district people.

Calling the HAHC "fascist" or comparing them to Nazis is so indefensibly over the top that it shows that those opposing the districts have nothing but an irrational hatred for any sort of land use restriction that is not based on an particular set of principles, but, instead, comes from the same sort of inflamatory talk radio garbage that appeals to a small minority of people. Last I checked, Nazis and facists did not provide the right to appeal their decisions to a democratically elected counsel with a further right to challenge that body's decision to a democratically elected, independent judiciary. But, of course, those facts do not matter when you are practicing irrational ideological zealotry. Demogoguery plays well inside the echo chamber of the anti-ordinance supporters. But it completely turns off anyone who might be on the fence and just reinforces the determination of supporters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling the HAHC "fascist" or comparing them to Nazis is so indefensibly over the top.

 

That particular line is indeed indefensible, and I'd agree it's indefensible because it is over the top talking point, which shouldn't have really been taken as more than a frustrated outburst.

 

More worryingly, all of the less over the top accusations of the HAHC are indefensible as well. That's because what they are being accused of is what people were afraid they were going to do with the wording of the Ordinance, and it's all coming true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Point taken on the Nazi references. It's old hat and over the top.

I will apologize in advance to anyone of Turkish background for my substitute phrase to describe the members of HAHC.

I'm offering up the term "Byzantine" as I think it fits rather well.

Byzantine definition

jargon, architecture

A term describing any system that has so many labyrinthine internal interconnections that it would be impossible to simplify by separation into loosely coupled or linked components.

The city of Byzantium, later renamed Constantinople and then Istanbul, and the Byzantine Empire were vitiated by a bureaucratic overelaboration bordering on lunacy: quadruple banked agencies, dozens or even scores of superfluous levels and officials with high flown titles unrelated to their actual function, if any.

Access to the Emperor and his council was controlled by powerful and inscrutable eunuchs and by rival sports factions.

[Edward Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"].

(1999-01-15)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly my point. The anti-historic district people have done nothing from the beginning but gone all talk radio on this issue without providing anything constructive to make the process better. At least RUDH produced a lengthy document of proposed changes to the Walmart development while simultaneously opposing the same and refrained from the completely off the wall accusations and name calling that have come from anti-historic district people.

Calling the HAHC "fascist" or comparing them to Nazis is so indefensibly over the top that it shows that those opposing the districts have nothing but an irrational hatred for any sort of land use restriction that is not based on an particular set of principles, but, instead, comes from the same sort of inflamatory talk radio garbage that appeals to a small minority of people. Last I checked, Nazis and facists did not provide the right to appeal their decisions to a democratically elected counsel with a further right to challenge that body's decision to a democratically elected, independent judiciary. But, of course, those facts do not matter when you are practicing irrational ideological zealotry. Demogoguery plays well inside the echo chamber of the anti-ordinance supporters. But it completely turns off anyone who might be on the fence and just reinforces the determination of supporters.

 

Faux outrage becomes you.

 

It is no surprise that you would fixate on a little wordplay in order to deflect attention away from the fact that your favorite government bureaucracy is doing exactly what we predicted they would. I don't blame you, though. If my favorite bureaucrats had dropped me in the grease as HAHC has done you, I'd not want to defend them either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like the Kelmans are appealing the HAHC denial of CoA to the City Council.  From their petition on Change.org:
"...We appeal to the City of Houston Feb 14, so the more signatures we get, the merrier.

Please send the petition along if you care about historic preservation and restoration for growing families."


Or if you more generally care about the history, culture and Charter of Houston, Texas write an email to your Councilman, especially if you are represented by Ellen Cohen in the HD.  This is a chance to expose the ordinance for the toilet tissue it was predicted and now is shown to be.....a poorly crafted zoning ordinance that simply transfers power and money from citizens to government and accomplishes nothing of lasting value for our City.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everybody! I am the owner of 1207 Harvard, Brie Kelman, who was in the tragic video posted earlier. I didn't know about this site until a day or two ago, when I was pointed to it from a fellow Heights mom I have never met on the Heights Kids Group site. WOW - HOW GREAT IT WAS TO FIND ALL OF YOUR SUPPORT AND COMMENTS! Thank you so much! I am amazed, flattered and grateful for all of your thoughtful comments and support.

 

Our appeal to the City of Houston takes place at 2:30 pm on Feb 14, and is an open, public meeting. Please come to support us! I spoke with one of the commissioners ~a week after our denial, and he said that they only hear from neighbors that are complaining about bad development or developments that are too big. He said that if there are neighbors that feel differently, they would love to know that b/c they don't want to act in isolation, differently than the neighborhood wants. Therefore, it would mean a LOT to have any of our supporters there in person and would have a huge impact.

 

WHEN: Feb 14 at 2:30 p.m.

WHERE: 900 Bagby St, Houston TX 77002, City Council Chambers, City Hall Annex

 

Also, you can help by sending the petition along if you care about historic preservation and restoration of neglected properties. I just updated it so that it will be sent to the mayor and ALL city council everytime someone signs. It seems to be working....I had no idea how much impact a simple, online petition made by little old me could make!

I have also recently updated the facebook album for photos of the house (as-is), as well as the proposed (currently denied) plans, as well as a few design inspirations:

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.412758375469031.91045.412263832185152&type=1

 

Again - THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! I can't reiterate enough how shocked and grateful I was when I read through the multiple pages of comments, and I didn't know the video existed until finding it on this site. My husband was traveling for work, so he hadn't seen anything until I found it on this site (not that it made it any easier for him to watch!).

 

p.s. here is a link to the petition in case you haven't signed:

http://www.change.org/petitions/houston-archaeological-and-historical-commission-hahc-approve-application-to-restore-my-1920-home-that-has-been-neglected-for-yrs

Edited by briekelman
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We are pulling for you Briekelman. What they are doing to you is beyond unbelievable. It is appalling. We live in a 1915 bungalow and they use our home as an example of acceptable additions. We were against this ordinance precisely for this reason. It is unclear and subjective. I can only hope your pain is short-lived and possibly be the catalyst for some changes to the ordinance to make it go away ideally, or at least amended. Good luck!!

We are pulling for you Briekelman. What they are doing to you is beyond unbelievable. It is appalling. We live in a 1915 bungalow and they use our home as an example of acceptable additions. We were against this ordinance precisely for this reason. It is unclear and subjective. I can only hope your pain is short-lived and possibly be the catalyst for some changes to the ordinance to make it go away ideally, or at least amended. Good luck!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to HAIF Brie!  And not long from now I hope to also welcome you to 1207 Harvard St in your beautifully restored home, just as you designed it.  I drove by the other day and there are many beautiful homes right on the street that yours will complement nicely. 

 

 

Also great job with the faux historical commission.  Your composure and class contrasted the spineless leadership and arbitrary actions of that political body, owned and appointed by our mayor.  Your coup de grace was after your $/sf arithmetic baffled Commissioner Elliot, self-proclaimed preserver of smallness, and he recommended you go the demolition route.....astonished Brie responds "But I don't want to demolish it, I want to keep it."  That says it all about the failure of the Ordinance and this Committee to serve the best interests of the citizens who bear all of its costs and must live among the far-too-numerous architectural mistakes of its misguided script.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

GOOD TRIUMPHS OVER EVIL

 

 

Though I got caught in court and could not make it to City Council this afternoon, I am happy to post this email I just received from Briekelman...

 

 

 

WE WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THANK YOU SO MUCH EVERYONE! THIS WAS SO EFFECTIVE!!!!

This message is from Brie Kelman who started the petition "Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission (HAHC): Approve application to restore my 1920 home that has been neglected for yrs," which you signed on Change.org.

View the petition  |  View and reply to this message online 

 

 

Congrats, Brie. You never let the preservationists get you down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats!  I wish I could have been able to help you out.  I am just ecstatic for you that you won.  It would be helpful to everyone in the future if you would post, or at the very least memorialize exactly how much extra time and money it cost you to fight the fascists.  That way future individuals doing searches on this topic will know exactly what they are getting themselves into.  Being as subjective as the ordinance is it would be very useful information to others.  I would guess you spent quite a bit of extra money and countless hours...but I would still think it would help others if you can count those countless hours and the dollars!

 

Congrats again!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the others....congratulations! I'm really confounded as to why HAHC tried to change the rules mid-game regarding the second-story setback, rather than adhering to the stated ordinance. It's great to have opinions and all, but their ruling seemed to had no basis and defied any common sense. Good luck with your home! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another astounding HAHC meeting today. Won't get into details but honestly, these folks are making an easy case for overturning/overhauling the ordinance. They have no idea what they are doing. They have no idea what the ordinance says. They have no idea about what design is all about. Clueless. Even funnier is they look like buffoons because they can’t even keep track of the things they have already voted on as a part of the consent agenda.  They are a kangaroo court of bumbling idiots whose day is coming in the not too distant future.

 

Best decision – to deny a two story house a two story addition – and said if the house was new, they would allow it?!?!?!?! 

 

Most comical – requiring a non-contributing house to use contributing materials and design on work that was done without a C of A or permits. 

 

I’m not sure they understand that the law takes a dim view of things that are administered as arbitrary and capricious as the rulings they make.  I think any judge watching any HAHC meeting would be shaking his head in absolute amazement that this is going on in the 4th largest city in the US.  It’s a total joke without the laugh.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I just got the latest DVD from the kangaroo court's March meeting. Houston Planning Director Marlene Gafrick opened the meeting by formally repudiating the published Heights Design Guidelines formerly used by her staff to assess Heights CoA's. Heightstonians are now officially flying blind on property investments with the worse yet to come.

I'll post a YouTube tonight.

Edited by fwki
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, beyond the usual insanity that occurs at the HAHC meetings, I was happy to see Sue Lovell (former city council member) stand up multiple times at the March meeting to support the homeowners in front of the board.  It's worth a watch.  I am not sure who contacted her and coordinated this effort but ......thank you whoever you are!  She was one of the few sane voices there and had many good points to make.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the legal front, the lawsuit was amended and dropped all claims seeking to invalidate the historic ordinance.  This was in response to the City's plea to the jurisdiction.  They did not even try to respond to the plea to the jurisdiction.  All claims are just for money damages for the named plaintiff only (they added a takings claim and kept the equal protection/due process claim).  The claim is that they were damaged by not being able to get more money for their property had they been able to tear it down.  Of course they do not claim that they applied for and were denied a permit to tear it down.  And the property was renovated and sold for over $800k. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

regarding the "official" guidelines they are working on, I simply can't WAIT to see what they come up with now that the 90 day waiver period was taken out of the ordinance.  In the March meeting, one of the board members actually admits that their decisions, prior to the 90 day waiver period being axed, are different from the ones they make now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...