The Heights Historic Districts

[Tiko]

The bungalow just up the street just got reduced about 7% and has been for sale for at least six months. The sweet, elderly owner supposedly had a buyer until the yellow signs and Mr. Truxillo's victory flag appeared and the buyer got scared off. The seller is the kind of person who is really getting hurt in this.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Tiko

[samagon]

The bungalow just up the street just got reduced about 7% and has been for sale for at least six months. The sweet, elderly owner supposedly had a buyer until the yellow signs and Mr. Truxillo's victory flag appeared and the buyer got scared off. The seller is the kind of person who is really getting hurt in this.

it's stories like this that make me wonder if it is even necessary for someone to be denied a permit (coa) before action is taken against this restrictive ordinance.

[Heights Homeowner]

I was in the market for a 2-1 for almost two years. Combined with the experiences of several friends (all young couples) looking for the same thing, I can tell you that over the past four years, 2-1 bungalows that are in good condition in the Heights sell like hotcakes. I paid list, friends bid up by 10-15%, even after the market crashed. Most good ones are gone within a week if priced properly. I did not even get a chance to make an offer on three bungalows because they sold before listing. The realtor just listed for back up offers. I even tried bidding on two as-is foreclosure/bank owned bungalows that needed 50-60k in work (all 2-1's). I bid up by over 20% and lost each time. One time in Woodland Heights to a . . . wait for it . . . young couple who have done a lot of renovation to it. The market is huge for bungalows. People snap them up like hotcakes. Why? Because they are unlike anything else in the City. Anyone can get a townhome, 1970s tract home, McVic, and so on. But the bungalows are unique and historic. And there are plenty of people who appreciate this more than having extra rooms to decorate.

Just got off the phone with a dear friend who has had their BUNGALOW on the market since the moratorium. Several buyers have bailed or not been willing to make an offer because of the ordinance. Their bungalow is really cute. Definitely a candidate for some kind soul to come along and spend more money than it will be worth once renovated. They read your comments. They would like one of your friends to buy their bungalow for 10-15% over the list price. They would even settle for a buyer like you who offered 20% over the list price. Please make an offer. Since you obviously know that the "market is huge for bungalows" and your and your friends are so desparate for bungalows you are willing to pay any price, they need you to write an offer tomorrow. Please put them out of their misery of rejection by potential buyers who aren't clued in to the extreme value of their property. These buyers crazy realtors don't seem to be able to convince their clients that not only should they not pay less than the list price, they should pay significantly more than the seller is asking because after all, everyone can get a townhome or a new construction period looking home with all the modern ameneties but very few have the honor of buying such a desirable property, particularly at a price far more then the seller's dreamed they can get for it. My friends hotcake property is so cold you could use it as a freezer pack for your beer cooler. You and your friends can email your offer to: info@ResponsibleHistoricPreservation.org. I'm sure those three realtors would be more than happy to submit the offer on your behalf for any bungalow you want to buy, especially since they will make more 10-15% more in commission from you and your friends too. What a deal!

[Heights Homeowner]

it's stories like this that make me wonder if it is even necessary for someone to be denied a permit (coa) before action is taken against this restrictive ordinance.

Without going into detail, it isn't a denial of a reasonable coa that folks are waiting for before taking action. Every thing has its time and it isn't time, but its coming unless some sanity surfaces. People are being harmed by the ordinance, that's true but it all has to fall in place. Patience is a virtue in this situation.

One Term Mayor

Anyone But Annise

Anyone But Ed

[Heights Homeowner]

Just got off the phone with a dear friend who has had their BUNGALOW on the market since the moratorium. Several buyers have bailed or not been willing to make an offer because of the ordinance. Their bungalow is really cute. Definitely a candidate for some kind soul to come along and spend more money than it will be worth once renovated. They read your comments. They would like one of your friends to buy their bungalow for 10-15% over the list price. They would even settle for a buyer like you who offered 20% over the list price. Please make an offer. Since you obviously know that the "market is huge for bungalows" and your and your friends are so desparate for bungalows you are willing to pay any price, they need you to write an offer tomorrow. Please put them out of their misery of rejection by potential buyers who aren't clued in to the extreme value of their property. These buyers crazy realtors don't seem to be able to convince their clients that not only should they not pay less than the list price, they should pay significantly more than the seller is asking because after all, everyone can get a townhome or a new construction period looking home with all the modern ameneties but very few have the honor of buying such a desirable property, particularly at a price far more then the seller's dreamed they can get for it. My friends hotcake property is so cold you could use it as a freezer pack for your beer cooler. You and your friends can email your offer to: info@ResponsibleHistoricPreservation.org. I'm sure those three realtors would be more than happy to submit the offer on your behalf for any bungalow you want to buy, especially since they will make more 10-15% more in commission from you and your friends too. What a deal!

Update since the last posting. Email from my friends. It seems we've created quite a domestic dispute. One is more than happy to settle for the 10 to 15% over list offer. However, their spouse is a CPA, number-cruncher type and thinks, based on your exuberance for bungalows like theirs that 20 to perhaps even 25% would be more like it. You know those pencil pushing, bean counter, accounting types. It's always about the dollars and sense, uhhh, I mean cents. I have encouraged them to hold the line at 10 to 15%. They don't want to seem overly greedy but truthfully, if you offer 20% over the list, I secretly think they will get over the appearance of being money-grubbing bungalow owners, selling out to the highest bidder and cash the check anyway. I'll bet you could even convince them to retract their ballot to repeal the district, but keep it quiet. You wouldn't want to have another accusation of buying support for the ordinance. Leave that to Parker. She's good at it. A pro, actually. You couldn't possibly compete with her although we haven't forgotten your threats that those who opposed the ordinance changes for our neighborhood won't be able to get their projects approved. That comment must mean you are either on the HAHC or have exceptional influence in the historic preservation office so you have likely learned MAP's SOP first hand so making promises to gain support for your draconian ordinance likely comes easily for you.

My friends are eagerly awaiting their more than full price offer for their little hotcake.

[s3mh]

Just got off the phone with a dear friend who has had their BUNGALOW on the market since the moratorium. Several buyers have bailed or not been willing to make an offer because of the ordinance. Their bungalow is really cute. Definitely a candidate for some kind soul to come along and spend more money than it will be worth once renovated. They read your comments. They would like one of your friends to buy their bungalow for 10-15% over the list price. They would even settle for a buyer like you who offered 20% over the list price. Please make an offer. Since you obviously know that the "market is huge for bungalows" and your and your friends are so desparate for bungalows you are willing to pay any price, they need you to write an offer tomorrow. Please put them out of their misery of rejection by potential buyers who aren't clued in to the extreme value of their property. These buyers crazy realtors don't seem to be able to convince their clients that not only should they not pay less than the list price, they should pay significantly more than the seller is asking because after all, everyone can get a townhome or a new construction period looking home with all the modern ameneties but very few have the honor of buying such a desirable property, particularly at a price far more then the seller's dreamed they can get for it. My friends hotcake property is so cold you could use it as a freezer pack for your beer cooler. You and your friends can email your offer to: info@ResponsibleHistoricPreservation.org. I'm sure those three realtors would be more than happy to submit the offer on your behalf for any bungalow you want to buy, especially since they will make more 10-15% more in commission from you and your friends too. What a deal!

You get an F for reading comprehension. I said bungalows that are in good condition sell like hotcakes. I also said that bungalows in need of significant repair that are put out to bid in bank owned/foreclosure sales generate lots of interest. Bungalows that need significant renovation that are not put out for bids in as-is/foreclosure/bankowned sales have never sold like hotcakes, even back when builders were out buying them. If your friend is having trouble selling, it is more than likely because they have a realtor that has given them an unrealistic expectation of what their house is worth in order to get hired. I have said that people will not get as much money for neglected bungalows as they did when builders were buying them. But, most people will still make out like a bandit if they bought 10-20 years ago. And the lending environment has much more to do with slow moving renovations than the historic ordinance. It has become very difficult, if not impossible, to do a construction loan with a first lien mortgage. The only way you can do it is with some of the FHA products. But, those have maximums that are @270. So, the cost of renovation plus the sale price have to equal @270 (plus any cash the buyer can bring to the table). If you are trying to sell a bungalow that needs extensive renovation and have it listed for $275k, you are going to have a hard time finding a buyer, even if builders were still allowed to knock it down. But if you listed the same house for $225k, you would get a lot of interest. Of course people who are listing neglected bungalows for $275k probably bought 10-15 years ago for 90-120k and will only see their investment double. If only I could be so lucky to have such a burden like that.

According to the Leader, Heights West only got 20% in favor of repealing the district. There is absolutely no way to rationalize that other than the fact that the anit-preservationist message failed.

[SilverJK]

You get an F for reading comprehension. I said bungalows that are in good condition sell like hotcakes. I also said that bungalows in need of significant repair that are put out to bid in bank owned/foreclosure sales generate lots of interest. Bungalows that need significant renovation that are not put out for bids in as-is/foreclosure/bankowned sales have never sold like hotcakes, even back when builders were out buying them. If your friend is having trouble selling, it is more than likely because they have a realtor that has given them an unrealistic expectation of what their house is worth in order to get hired. I have said that people will not get as much money for neglected bungalows as they did when builders were buying them. But, most people will still make out like a bandit if they bought 10-20 years ago. And the lending environment has much more to do with slow moving renovations than the historic ordinance. It has become very difficult, if not impossible, to do a construction loan with a first lien mortgage. The only way you can do it is with some of the FHA products. But, those have maximums that are @270. So, the cost of renovation plus the sale price have to equal @270 (plus any cash the buyer can bring to the table). If you are trying to sell a bungalow that needs extensive renovation and have it listed for $275k, you are going to have a hard time finding a buyer, even if builders were still allowed to knock it down. But if you listed the same house for $225k, you would get a lot of interest. Of course people who are listing neglected bungalows for $275k probably bought 10-15 years ago for 90-120k and will only see their investment double. If only I could be so lucky to have such a burden like that.

According to the Leader, Heights West only got 20% in favor of repealing the district. There is absolutely no way to rationalize that other than the fact that the anit-preservationist message failed.

You don't think the 20% number could have anything to do with the extreme short notice, short term, during holidays, and general apathy of the public to return/signup for anything? That number means the 1/5 of your neighbors were soo pissed off about the ordinace, they went out of their way to try to get their historic designation taken away. 20% is a pretty big number fool.

What about my house? It did not need any renovations. It was exactly what you describe as the most desirable type of bungalow.

Edited January 13, 2011 by SilverJK

[Heights Homeowner]

You get an F for reading comprehension. I said bungalows that are in good condition sell like hotcakes. I also said that bungalows in need of significant repair that are put out to bid in bank owned/foreclosure sales generate lots of interest. Bungalows that need significant renovation that are not put out for bids in as-is/foreclosure/bankowned sales have never sold like hotcakes, even back when builders were out buying them. If your friend is having trouble selling, it is more than likely because they have a realtor that has given them an unrealistic expectation of what their house is worth in order to get hired. I have said that people will not get as much money for neglected bungalows as they did when builders were buying them. But, most people will still make out like a bandit if they bought 10-20 years ago. And the lending environment has much more to do with slow moving renovations than the historic ordinance. It has become very difficult, if not impossible, to do a construction loan with a first lien mortgage. The only way you can do it is with some of the FHA products. But, those have maximums that are @270. So, the cost of renovation plus the sale price have to equal @270 (plus any cash the buyer can bring to the table). If you are trying to sell a bungalow that needs extensive renovation and have it listed for $275k, you are going to have a hard time finding a buyer, even if builders were still allowed to knock it down. But if you listed the same house for $225k, you would get a lot of interest. Of course people who are listing neglected bungalows for $275k probably bought 10-15 years ago for 90-120k and will only see their investment double. If only I could be so lucky to have such a burden like that.

According to the Leader, Heights West only got 20% in favor of repealing the district. There is absolutely no way to rationalize that other than the fact that the anit-preservationist message failed.

Okay everybody, let's just pretend to agree that s3mh is the area expert on the real estate and lending industry. He knows what sells, and why. He knows how much to pay and what these bungalows are worth. Blah, blah, blah... Never mind that I never mentioned the condition of my friends bungalow but since he is knows all, omnipotent, really, he must also know that too. I never said it was neglected but why deal with facts now, right? We just hate those sticky little factoids anyway.

Here's the reality, unless a property has been renovated and expanded, it isn't a hotcake anymore. They are sitting on the market with no buyer in sight. Properties that were once desirable for renovation and expansion just don't have the same appeal and buying pool. That leaves a whole lot of property that isn't the value it once was, prior to June. That's okay with our little friend s3, but generally not okay with those property owners. I'm not sure who he thinks his audience is on this forum though. Clearly his speculation about the condition of these homes, how smart their realtor is, and how long ago they were purchased, and for how much is something that he he needs promote to validate his overpriced purchase. A couple of months ago, one property in the east district, waited for their 90-day waiver obtained before the moratorium, demolished the dilapadated structure on it and got $30,000 more than he had asked for it as a renovation candidate which he tried to sell for more than a year with no takers. Sold it for $280,000. Not really an indication that the market for property that needs to be torn down or renovated can't get the $275,000 it used to, as ole s3mh claims. Just that if you can tear it down because it isn't a worthy candidate for renovation, you can still get what it is worth. If you can't, you're screwed, thanks to the ordinance.

Back to s3mh, DUDE, your vast knowledge of the lending industry is very interesting. Only FHA can is doing renovation loans now? Is that what you are saying? And you know this how? Are you a mortgage broker? A realtor? Or just a property owner with a single experience for your expertise? Or maybe your hysterical preservation buddies, David and Sharie Beale have told you these very interesting facts. You might want to check your sources though. Folks checked at Keller Williams, the firm that fired them, and they said that the Beales haven't sold enough real estate to say they have. One or two transactions over several years doesn't exactly make them experts in the real esate biz. And apparently Sharie dear wasn't much of an expert on historic preservation either since she was asked to resign from the HAHC commission. Or was that for ethics violations, I forget? No matter. She had to go and your friend MAP decided not to just let her term run out. She was an albatrose around Parker's neck and once the ordinance passed, and Parker didn't need her little minions to support her anymore, she gave the boot to Beale. She should have known she was getting the axe when the City Attorney lectured the entire commission about ethics and it addressed the exact same complaints about the Beales and their questionable practices. I laughed myself silly after Feldman lectured them and David Beale had to decline his speaking opportunity or his little wifey would have to recuse herself from voting. It was priceless - but I digress.

My friends are waiting for the excellent offer that one of your friends is going to make for their well maintained, previously well priced (pre-ordinance change) hotcake bungalow that hasn't gotten a contract in 7 months. Please email the offer for their highly desirable property. After all, some family might want a 2/1 bungalow, right? They might even be willing to settle for a full price offer so spread the word that they are willing to forego an offer at 10-20% over list. They are very reasonable folks.

One Term Mayor

Anyone But Annise

Anyone But Ed

[samagon]

You don't think the 20% number could have anything to do with the extreme short notice, short term, during holidays, and general apathy of the public to return/signup for anything? That number means the 1/5 of your neighbors were soo pissed off about the ordinace, they went out of their way to try to get their historic designation taken away. 20% is a pretty big number fool.

Srsly, what is the avg percent of the population that votes in an election? Using that as a guide, I'd say it was a landslide in favor of removing the designation. Edited January 14, 2011 by samagon

[Heights Homeowner]

According to the Leader, Heights West only got 20% in favor of repealing the district. There is absolutely no way to rationalize that other than the fact that the anit-preservationist message failed.

No way to rationalize the 20% huh? You keep telling yourself that. It is a big help to us for you to think that way. Just because you have no other explantion, doesn't mean there isn't one. We realize that people with questionable ethics don't understand that process has everything to do with it and there are folks who actually care about the methods employed in this sham of a vote who understand it too. So keep repeating to yourself, "they only got 20%, no way to rationalize, we won, they lost, they only got 20%, no way to rationalize, we won, they lost, they only got 20%, no way to rationalize, we won, they lost, they only got 20%, no way to rationalize we won, they lost." You'll believe it eventually and we will thoroughly enjoy proving the rationalization you think is non-existent. And we are looking forward to pulling the trigger on the future plans. Please visit your therapist because you are going to need your xanax and your anti-aniety med. Shoot, you might even need a script from the doc for anti-psychotic drugs by the time we are done.

One Term Mayor

Anyone But Annise

Anyone But Ed

[RedScare]

Srsly, what is the avg percent of the population that votes in an election? Using that as a guide, I'd say it was a landslide in favor of removing the designation.

In the 2009 election in which Mayor Parker achieved a runoff, 178,777 of 935,000 registered voters cast a vote. So, after months of campaigning, millions of dollars spent on adds, and untold news articles about the upcoming election, only 19.1% bothered to cast a vote. Mayor Parker received 31% of those votes. So, less than 6% of voters cast ballots for Mayor Parker. In contrast, over 20% cast 'NO' votes in a hastily called and time limited survey in the west district, a better percentage than the City elections.

Makes you go, 'Hmmm'.

More election fun facts:

In the 2009 election, running unopposed, Ed Gonzalez received only 16.28% of the votes of registered voters in District H.

Edited January 14, 2011 by RedScare

[Heights Homeowner]

Srsly, what is the avg percent of the population that votes in an election? Using that as a guide, I'd say it was a landslide in favor of removing the designation.

The percentage of the total population over age 18 who voted in the 2008 election, a very high turn-out year, was only 58%. Presidential elections have the highest turnout compared to non-Presidential election year turnout. If you look at voting stats for Harris County, for someone in our area like, say Shelia Jackson Lee, the turn-out of voters in 2010 was slightly less than 37%. Lee won with 70% of the vote with 3 others running against her. Stats in the John Whitmire race were around 38%, only had 1 candidate to run against him and in a Republican year with supposedly high turnout due to voter unrest, and as a Democrat, he won with 60% of the vote. Both local area politicians, both popular, one Congressional, one State. Neither race had total turn out of even 40% of voters. The odd year voter turnout stats for local elections are even worse.

Let's looks at 2009, a non-congressional, odd year election - local stats for races like MAP and Council, in round numbers. Percentage of registered voters voting in the mayoral race - 19%. This is the overall indication of the number of voters, presuming most vote for the mayor and it averaged across the city. Then, starting with the district races, Stardig - 23%, Johnson - 14%, Clutterbuck - 23%, Adams - 19%, Sullivan - 18%, Hoang - 15%, Pennington - 25%, Gonzalez - 16%, Rodriguez - 13%. Notice, the higher voting percentages in the "power-money" districts, of A, C, and G - all over 20%, (Memorial, River Oaks, Southhampton, Tanglewood, etc.) Then take a look at the stats for the At-Large, elected city wide. At-Large 1 - Costello's race - 19%, At-Large 2 - Lovell's race - 19%, At-Large 3 - Noriega - 19%, At-Large 4 - Bradford - 19%, At-Large 5 - Jones - 19%. All city wide elections - 19%, 178,777 ballots cast of the 935,073 registered voters.

In summary, City-Wide turnout in 2009 - 19%. Local race for Council turn out between a low of 13% to a high of 25%. Lowest turnouts for high minority population districts. Middle of the road turn-out, middle class districts. Highest in the upper middle to wealthy districts. Pretty typical stuff. So yes, 20-25% voter turnout for our little vote given all the underhanded tricks employed by Parker and Company is a landslide for anything local. Even if we consider voter turnout compared to even year, non-Presidential elections, we would have prevailed because it was only one side. They were too chicken to show the "support" vote so it was a one-sided vote and we still had better turn-out than the mayor got for her own election. If both sides had voted, and comparing our stats to the 2010 elections for a Representative Lee and Sen. Whitmire, if we had the same turn out they did, a 20-25% vote to repeal the distict, they couldn't have won. At best, they would have had 17 to 18%.

Here is link for the results from the Harris County Clerk's website - didn't make up these numbers. They are the real deal and the fact is we got out the vote better for just one side, than the politicians who are going to vote on this did for their own elections - LOL!

http://www.harrisvotes.com/HISTORY/110309/Cumulative/cumulative.pdf

s2mh can keep repeating "we won, they lost" but given the numbers for a local election, there does seem to be an explanation for the low turnout. I guess all those who didn't vote for in the 2009 election, MAP's election - and they actually had a real vote, so voters must have been living under a rock to not know they had to vote. We got to vote with a ballot, called a survey, which looked identical to the petition they already signed, conducted in the two weeks before Christmas, followed up with a postcard from the sitting mayor that said don't vote. Indeed, no reasonable explanation for that kind of turnout!

[Heights Homeowner]

In the 2009 election in which Mayor Parker achieved a runoff, 178,777 of 935,000 registered voters cast a vote. So, after months of campaigning, millions of dollars spent on adds, and untold news articles about the upcoming election, only 19.1% bothered to cast a vote. Mayor Parker received 31% of those votes. So, less than 6% of voters cast ballots for Mayor Parker. In contrast, over 20% cast 'NO' votes in a hastily called and time limited survey in the west district, a better percentage than the City elections.

Makes you go, 'Hmmm'.

More election fun facts:

In the 2009 election, running unopposed, Ed Gonzalez received only 16.28% of the votes of registered voters in District H.

We must have been on the same wave length this morning. :-)))) I just posted the same, with lots of detail but didn't point out that Parker had less than 6%.

Here is the link again to these stats:

http://www.harrisvotes.com/HISTORY/110309/Cumulative/cumulative.pdf

[samagon]

You get an F for reading comprehension. I said bungalows that are in good condition sell like hotcakes. I also said that bungalows in need of significant repair that are put out to bid in bank owned/foreclosure sales generate lots of interest. Bungalows that need significant renovation that are not put out for bids in as-is/foreclosure/bankowned sales have never sold like hotcakes, even back when builders were out buying them.

You get an F for lying one way in one post, and then saying something exactly opposite of that in another post.

lets review what you have said:

Bungalow renovations are not rare, they are the norm. I looked at over thirty bungalows when I was looking to buy. Everyone had been renovated. In fact it is rare to find a bungalow in the Heights that hasn't been renovated. And most of the time a bungalow has trouble selling is because of crappy renovations that have killed off the original architecture or make the interior look more like the Wooldands than the 1920s.

and then you say:

I live next to one that would need significant work to restore. I also live next to a rental that would not be as big of a challenge to restore, but would need more than granite countertops to get up to the standards of the Heights.

so out of one side of your mouth, you say that there are few bungalows in the heights that haven't been renovated, yet you happen to live next to two structures that need renovation, more than just granite countertops.

I suppose that this is just an exceedingly rare specific case of 2 of the rare structures in the heights that require work, and that it is just bad luck you are sandwiched between them. at first I am of your bad luck, and then I am at you.

and you wonder why people call you a liar. you can't even be consistent in your lying!

Edited January 14, 2011 by samagon

[Marksmu]

You get an F for lying one way in one post, and then saying something exactly opposite of that in another post.

lets review what you have said:

and then you say:

so out of one side of your mouth, you say that there are few bungalows in the heights that haven't been renovated, yet you happen to live next to two structures that need renovation, more than just granite countertops.

I suppose that this is just an exceedingly rare specific case of 2 of the rare structures in the heights that require work, and that it is just bad luck you are sandwiched between them. at first I am of your bad luck, and then I am at you.

and you wonder why people call you a liar. you can't even be consistent in your lying!

Woohoo! S3MH - liar liar pants on fire! Its fun to say Its proven and its more than 10 minutes old, so we must forever protect the historical status of SM3H as a liar. I will work on the ordinance, but in the mean time we will need an administrator to go ahead and tag S3MH's future statements with a disclaimer that says "it is an exceedingly high probability that all content in this post is completely untrue, based loosely in the truth, or is a figment of my imagination being asserted as fact"

I read the posts from SM3H, and I have to think that he/she is a she....lots of folks call him a he, but I believe he is a she.

[SilverJK]

either way, their posts lack Truthyness.

[little frau]

I read the posts from SM3H, and I have to think that he/she is a she....lots of folks call him a he, but I believe he is a she.

I've thought that from day one last summer.

[samagon]

Woohoo! S3MH - liar liar pants on fire! Its fun to say Its proven and its more than 10 minutes old, so we must forever protect the historical status of SM3H as a liar. I will work on the ordinance, but in the mean time we will need an administrator to go ahead and tag S3MH's future statements with a disclaimer that says "it is an exceedingly high probability that all content in this post is completely untrue, based loosely in the truth, or is a figment of my imagination being asserted as fact"

I read the posts from SM3H, and I have to think that he/she is a she....lots of folks call him a he, but I believe he is a she.

I have tried very hard to refer to s3mh as s3mh and neither he nor she, just because IDK (granted after I saw some others saying he, I fell in line assuming they knew more than me).

Heh, it's so tough online, unless someone says something (or the name gives it away), to tell sometimes. It's much easier in car forums where mostly it's guys, and if it's women (for whatever reason, some sociologist needs to investigate the patterns involved) women are always proud to announce they are women. and then they wonder why men who have underdeveloped maturity end up being extremely forward.

Someone should put a warning label on car forums that says "beware, 90% of the people who post here are mentally underdeveloped when it comes to interacting with women and someone will say something lewd to you within 90 seconds of finding out you are of the opposite sex"

Anyway, that was a way off topic aside, and other than knowing wither to refer to s3mh as he, or she, it matters not.

[s3mh]

You get an F for lying one way in one post, and then saying something exactly opposite of that in another post.

lets review what you have said:

and then you say:

so out of one side of your mouth, you say that there are few bungalows in the heights that haven't been renovated, yet you happen to live next to two structures that need renovation, more than just granite countertops.

I suppose that this is just an exceedingly rare specific case of 2 of the rare structures in the heights that require work, and that it is just bad luck you are sandwiched between them. at first I am of your bad luck, and then I am at you.

and you wonder why people call you a liar. you can't even be consistent in your lying!

Both the bungalows I live next to have been renovated. One has subsequently been abandonded and will need to start all over again. The other was renovated to make it suitable as a rental and will need to be renovated to be brought up to the typical standard for bungalows.

And I completely stand by the original statement. Few bungalows in the Heights haven't been renovated. Almost all of them have been renovated at some point over the past 90 years. A scant few have all original everything still left in them. The one on Ashland that got renovated and is still on the market was one of those. Original plumbing, plaster walls, etc. I know it takes a little bit of thinking, but it is possible to have a 90 year old bungalow need to be renovated more than once.

[s3mh]

The percentage of the total population over age 18 who voted in the 2008 election, a very high turn-out year, was only 58%. Presidential elections have the highest turnout compared to non-Presidential election year turnout. If you look at voting stats for Harris County, for someone in our area like, say Shelia Jackson Lee, the turn-out of voters in 2010 was slightly less than 37%. Lee won with 70% of the vote with 3 others running against her. Stats in the John Whitmire race were around 38%, only had 1 candidate to run against him and in a Republican year with supposedly high turnout due to voter unrest, and as a Democrat, he won with 60% of the vote. Both local area politicians, both popular, one Congressional, one State. Neither race had total turn out of even 40% of voters. The odd year voter turnout stats for local elections are even worse.

Let's looks at 2009, a non-congressional, odd year election - local stats for races like MAP and Council, in round numbers. Percentage of registered voters voting in the mayoral race - 19%. This is the overall indication of the number of voters, presuming most vote for the mayor and it averaged across the city. Then, starting with the district races, Stardig - 23%, Johnson - 14%, Clutterbuck - 23%, Adams - 19%, Sullivan - 18%, Hoang - 15%, Pennington - 25%, Gonzalez - 16%, Rodriguez - 13%. Notice, the higher voting percentages in the "power-money" districts, of A, C, and G - all over 20%, (Memorial, River Oaks, Southhampton, Tanglewood, etc.) Then take a look at the stats for the At-Large, elected city wide. At-Large 1 - Costello's race - 19%, At-Large 2 - Lovell's race - 19%, At-Large 3 - Noriega - 19%, At-Large 4 - Bradford - 19%, At-Large 5 - Jones - 19%. All city wide elections - 19%, 178,777 ballots cast of the 935,073 registered voters.

In summary, City-Wide turnout in 2009 - 19%. Local race for Council turn out between a low of 13% to a high of 25%. Lowest turnouts for high minority population districts. Middle of the road turn-out, middle class districts. Highest in the upper middle to wealthy districts. Pretty typical stuff. So yes, 20-25% voter turnout for our little vote given all the underhanded tricks employed by Parker and Company is a landslide for anything local. Even if we consider voter turnout compared to even year, non-Presidential elections, we would have prevailed because it was only one side. They were too chicken to show the "support" vote so it was a one-sided vote and we still had better turn-out than the mayor got for her own election. If both sides had voted, and comparing our stats to the 2010 elections for a Representative Lee and Sen. Whitmire, if we had the same turn out they did, a 20-25% vote to repeal the distict, they couldn't have won. At best, they would have had 17 to 18%.

Here is link for the results from the Harris County Clerk's website - didn't make up these numbers. They are the real deal and the fact is we got out the vote better for just one side, than the politicians who are going to vote on this did for their own elections - LOL!

http://www.harrisvotes.com/HISTORY/110309/Cumulative/cumulative.pdf

s2mh can keep repeating "we won, they lost" but given the numbers for a local election, there does seem to be an explanation for the low turnout. I guess all those who didn't vote for in the 2009 election, MAP's election - and they actually had a real vote, so voters must have been living under a rock to not know they had to vote. We got to vote with a ballot, called a survey, which looked identical to the petition they already signed, conducted in the two weeks before Christmas, followed up with a postcard from the sitting mayor that said don't vote. Indeed, no reasonable explanation for that kind of turnout!

Excuses, excuses, excusses. This thing has been going on for months. Unless you are willing to call your neighbors idiots (which I think you are), then you would have to admit that every homeowner in the Heights knew about this and knew the survey vote was coming. After all the huffing and puffing, and a lot of realtor and builder cash spent on mailers, websites and meeting, the anti-preservationists didn't come close. You can spin all kinds of fantasy scenarios about the majority of Heights residents leaving for their winter homes on Thanksgiving, or thinking that the survey form was junk mail, or that there is some guy that owns 346 consecutive lots who would have thrown the vote the other way but for the rules, and so on. But the hard facts are that you couldn't get it done. Wake up and smell the coffee. People in the Heights didn't send in their surveys because they are intelligent, understood the issues and made a conscious decision to keep their historic districts with the revised ordinance.

And have you heard who announced they are running for Mayor? So far, no one. In fact, no one is even being talked up as a potential threat to MAP. Whether that is because MAP is popular outside the anti-preservationist and the few whinny council members who don't like a mayor who is more Margaret Thatcher than Bill White, well, that is for you all to worry about.

[RedScare]

It ain't over. No matter how many times you post, it still ain't over. No matter how many ways you attempt to make the couple hundred supporters into a majority, it ain't over. So, keep it up,because every time another resident reads your selfish attempts to control their property, we gain another supporter. In case you are wondering, this is the only reason we respond to your made up arguments. You are our best advertisement against the ordinance.

Thanks for your help.

[samagon]

someone sent me this Oscar Wilde quote...

Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.

Thought immediately of the historic district and S3MH.

[20thStDad]

Time to explore that "ignore" function on the board...

[Heights Homeowner]

Excuses, excuses, excusses. This thing has been going on for months. Unless you are willing to call your neighbors idiots (which I think you are), then you would have to admit that every homeowner in the Heights knew about this and knew the survey vote was coming. After all the huffing and puffing, and a lot of realtor and builder cash spent on mailers, websites and meeting, the anti-preservationists didn't come close. You can spin all kinds of fantasy scenarios about the majority of Heights residents leaving for their winter homes on Thanksgiving, or thinking that the survey form was junk mail, or that there is some guy that owns 346 consecutive lots who would have thrown the vote the other way but for the rules, and so on. But the hard facts are that you couldn't get it done. Wake up and smell the coffee. People in the Heights didn't send in their surveys because they are intelligent, understood the issues and made a conscious decision to keep their historic districts with the revised ordinance.

And have you heard who announced they are running for Mayor? So far, no one. In fact, no one is even being talked up as a potential threat to MAP. Whether that is because MAP is popular outside the anti-preservationist and the few whinny council members who don't like a mayor who is more Margaret Thatcher than Bill White, well, that is for you all to worry about.

And your efforts went on for how long before you could manage you lie and cheat your way to getting the designation? YEARS AND YEARS!! We also loved when Sharie baybay said, out loud, at a public hear, that she pestered her neighbors 7 or 8 times to get them to sign. And what the heck is a survey vote?? Either its a survey or its a vote. And my neighbors did think a card was coming that would be their vote. They didn't understand what the survey was by the city. They certainly didn't think the city would call their vote a survey. Why would they? It wasn't what the ordinance said they would receive. So, I guess if you are calling them idiots because they didn't know what it was the city sent them because it wasn't a card, it was a survey (which frankly most people just throw out when they receive them in the mail) and it didn't have a yes or no vote...then I suppose in your little mind, they would be idiots. But I give my neighbors much more credit to know the difference between a card, with which one would vote on and an opinion survey and I give them credit in reading the ordinance to know what to expect. But then again, they aren't omnipotent like you, oh wise one. Your little group is the ones who don't seem to know the difference between a card, with a vote and an opinion survey. And you don't seem to have much reading comprehension either or you would know that the LAW wasn't followed. But of course, we know you know the difference very well and you read the ordinance because your Coalition of Crazy helped draft it. You just couldn't follow the ordinance because it would show you don't have the support you claim you do. So once again, you had to cheat.

And while we are talking about neighbors, your groups whole premise is that your neighbors are idiots so you have to decide what is right for their property because they obviously can't. On the other hand, we know our neighbors are perfectly capable, intelligent folks who don't need you to decide anything for them or their property.

Enjoy your little victory party because it soon will be over and you will have to show actual, real, verifiable support for your position. And you can't or you wouldn't have been afraid to send a real ballot with a yes and no option.

It is far, far from a done deal. Out of curiosity, which of the council members are you calling whiny? The ones who think you should follow the laws of the state and of the city? Funny how they think the law should be followed, eh? It's always something.

No point debating politics with you. You have no idea what you are talking about related to announcing and filing and raising funds. I make it a habit of not discussing politics with folks who are to ignorant to warrant the discussion.

One Term Mayor

Anyone But Annise

Anyone But Ed

[Heights Homeowner]

Excuses, excuses, excusses. This thing has been going on for months. Unless you are willing to call your neighbors idiots (which I think you are), then you would have to admit that every homeowner in the Heights knew about this and knew the survey vote was coming. After all the huffing and puffing, and a lot of realtor and builder cash spent on mailers, websites and meeting, the anti-preservationists didn't come close. You can spin all kinds of fantasy scenarios about the majority of Heights residents leaving for their winter homes on Thanksgiving, or thinking that the survey form was junk mail, or that there is some guy that owns 346 consecutive lots who would have thrown the vote the other way but for the rules, and so on. But the hard facts are that you couldn't get it done. Wake up and smell the coffee. People in the Heights didn't send in their surveys because they are intelligent, understood the issues and made a conscious decision to keep their historic districts with the revised ordinance.

And have you heard who announced they are running for Mayor? So far, no one. In fact, no one is even being talked up as a potential threat to MAP. Whether that is because MAP is popular outside the anti-preservationist and the few whinny council members who don't like a mayor who is more Margaret Thatcher than Bill White, well, that is for you all to worry about.

Just remembered you didn't comment on your best gal pal, Sharie getting tossed from the HAHC. Wonder why? Maybe you ARE the David and Sharie show?!?!?! Would explain why you think you know about real estate, even though clearly they know nothing about real estate. Would also explain why you threatened people who oppose the ordinance and why you think you have the stroke to get our renovations rejected. But the David and Sharie Show has been canceled. There will be no syndication, no re-runs. Its over. The David and Sharie show got the boot from Parker and got slapped up side the head by city attorney David Feldman on their way out as the door was hitting them in the ass. Fired from Keller Williams and fired from the HAHC, both for ethical violations. So, if you are the now defunct David and Sharie Show, in the words of Donald Trump - You're Fired! Sharie was the laughing stock of the HAHC anyway. Some of the most surprising commission members have been blabbing about how ridiculous Sharie's comments were and how they dreaded David's appearance arguing against homeowners over the stupidest, most trivial things. We heard they had a party to celebrate her departure and MAP popped the cork on the champagne because she was rid of the wacko Beales' before anyone filed formal ethics complaints and a true investigation began into their unsavory conduct. :P

[SilverJK]

Excuses, excuses, excusses. This thing has been going on for months. Unless you are willing to call your neighbors idiots (which I think you are), then you would have to admit that every homeowner in the Heights knew about this and knew the survey vote was coming. After all the huffing and puffing, and a lot of realtor and builder cash spent on mailers, websites and meeting, the anti-preservationists didn't come close. You can spin all kinds of fantasy scenarios about the majority of Heights residents leaving for their winter homes on Thanksgiving, or thinking that the survey form was junk mail, or that there is some guy that owns 346 consecutive lots who would have thrown the vote the other way but for the rules, and so on. But the hard facts are that you couldn't get it done. Wake up and smell the coffee. People in the Heights didn't send in their surveys because they are intelligent, understood the issues and made a conscious decision to keep their historic districts with the revised ordinance.

And have you heard who announced they are running for Mayor? So far, no one. In fact, no one is even being talked up as a potential threat to MAP. Whether that is because MAP is popular outside the anti-preservationist and the few whinny council members who don't like a mayor who is more Margaret Thatcher than Bill White, well, that is for you all to worry about.

I'm definitely willing to call at least one of my neighbors an idiot...

[Heights Homeowner]

I'm definitely willing to call at least one of my neighbors an idiot...

The folks with the Coalition of Crazies yellow "Yes to the City" yard signs comes to mind...

[Heights Homeowner]

Looks like the area builders are going to compensate for the historic restriction ordinance by building all around. I was out driving today, winding my way through the hood and saw all the development West of the West District. For fun, I decided to drive South of 11th, then drove up North of 20th. All I can say is WOW! It won't hurt the builders at all to have to build outside these districts. It is definitely time to buy something outside the district before the prices go up more. The areas adjacent are going to be very attractive b/c all the run-down, commercial stuff will eventually be gone and there won't be any HAHC nonsense to deal with. My 1915 unremarkable bungalow with its 1980's renovation can stay frozen in time so people can look back and say "gee, this is what an old home that couldn't be improved past 2010 looked like." I'll be doing the community a favor by increasing the available rental opportunities. There are already 4 rental properties on my block, one a slum lord 4 plex, so one more rental can't hurt, right?

If you want to live in a city regulation free zone, buy West of Ashland, North-East of 20th and Yale, much of Sunset Heights and all of the Woodland Heights outside the soon to be Historic District or Stude 2. It all looks very promising and thanks to Parker and her ill-conceived ordinance, those areas will never be able to acheive historic district status. The balloting process they dreamed up will never acheive a return of a majority, even at 51%, let alone 67%. It is a complete JOKE and everyone knows it. They tried so hard to design a process that prevented the existing districts majority opposing it to undo them, that she screwed every other area. Rocket scientists they aren't!

Sell in historic districts, buy in the HAHC free zone historic neighborhoods!

One Term Mayor

Anyone But Annise

Anyone But Ed

[samagon]

The balloting process they dreamed up will never acheive a return of a majority, even at 51%, let alone 67%.

One Term Mayor

Anyone But Annise

Anyone But Ed

I'm not as optimistic.

say for instance there are 20 votes returned for an area that has 50 houses (huge voter turnout).

they are 12 against, 8 for.

landslide victory for preservation of individual rights, right?

the way I understand the ordinance, not so quick. what if 8 of the against votes are on the boundary of the proposed historic district? the way I read the ordinance, they can rewrite the proposed district map to not include those homeowners, toss their votes out (how can they vote to not be in the district, if they aren't in the area to become the district?). rather than doing a re-vote and wasting the taxpayers money with all that, they just recount the ballots received! 4 against, and 8 for? voila!!!! 66.7% support for the HD!!!!! huzah!

that was my understanding of the 'legal and fair' process, I hope to all things holy I am wrong though.

[SCDesign]

I think samagon has it right. The preservationists will whittle away at the non-historic areas a block at a time. My biggest concern is that 15 peopls will get together and create a new "district" of 150 homes and make a submittal. That sumbittal will immediately put those 150 homes under the rules fo the Historic Ordinace until the "vote" is done. They will use the same approach of "no vote is a yes vote", since they are getting away with it this time, and so effectively the new district will have to get 34% of owners to vote against to district, and most of those "disticts" probably won't be nearly as informed as the ones that have been in the fight to date. That's not going to happen so the new districts will start popping up everywhere starting very soon. I would hate to own property there during this mess.

Edited January 18, 2011 by SCDesign