Jump to content

The Heights Historic Districts


Tiko

Recommended Posts

To be fair they say "that isn't the spirit of the law" and that you are intentionally "making it look worse than it will be"

But in reality, until the law is practiced, no one knows how the law will be enforced, however the wording is there for them to be extremely draconian in their enforcement.

What is very frustrating is to see people who are in vehement support of the ordinance having made it very clear through their misunderstanding that they have never read it, they are just for it. How can someone be for something without knowing what capability it has?

Anyway, the real question that needs to be asked, is: If that isn't within the spirit of the ordinance, why was it written that way?

The first revision to the ordinance had no change in the language about maintenance/repairs etc. But you all ran around claiming that the City would be able to control paint color, HVAC, and even content of political yard signs under the revised ordinance. This was not based on anything the City had ever done in the past, but pure speculation on reading the ordinance in a vacuum. So there was a case where the law had been practiced, and the anti-preservation people ignored the practice to try to scare people into believing that there was some intent on the part of the City that did not exist. This was largely the reason the anti-preservationists could barely get half the needed votes to do away with the historic districts. They had no good argument for allowing builders to run wild in the Heights and had to resort to scare tactics to try to fool people into believing that the ordinance would do all kinds of things it would not do. As a result, a big opportunity was lost to work together to create a better ordinance. A fast track procedure for minor changes would have been a great idea. But issues like that never came up because the vast majority of the dialog with the City was either all in or all out.

As noted above, the HAHC is perfectly reasonable. They have approved three new construction projects in the Heights in the past two sessions (two were 3500 sq ft houses). While lot value for a neglected bungalow will go down, the value of an empty lot looks to be going up ($320k asking price for a lot in the Heights East--probably 40-50k too high, but who knows). In the short run, the building boom in the historic districts will slow a bit as the McVic builders flee to the non-district areas. But that is good for the Heights too. Areas north of 20th and on the periphery of the districts will see more development than they would have without the ordinance. Inside the districts, there will never again be the horrific contemporary odd balls, monsterous fake New Orleans junk packed 4 to a 2 home lot and cruddy, oddball rennovations (closed in porches, goofy circular windows and other oddities that wreck the character of historic homes).

The Heights will be even better than ever under the Historic Ordinance. People looking to buy won't have to worry about what might go up next door anymore. People looking to rennovate won't have to worry about ending up with lot value after being surrounded by McVics. Crow all you want about how Eastwood is now better than the Heights because of the Historic Ordinance. Or about how the Heights are "stagnating" because someone thinks they can still get lot value (just saw a great bungalow on Columbia sell within a week of listing--some stagnation). Just like the claims about paint color and HVACs, the reality is nothing like what the anti-preservationists will ever be able to recognize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that you're opposed to this ordinance. If lies have been told or misrepresentations made, the specifics would do a lot towards persuading people to your point of view.

My comment regarded your repeated substitution of the word 'hysterical' for 'historical'; it puts me in mind of people who use terms like "Femi-Nazis".

Surely there are wittier and more convincing ways to make a point.

For reference as to why everyone replaces historical with hysterical...

.....content of political yard signs under the revised ordinance.....

Although it was mentioned once that it was a point that the ordinance as was written gave the capability for this to be governed, and even stated by the person that made the comment that it was not believed that this would be the way the law was interpreted, or enforced.

However, this has been referenced on more than multiple occasions this person I quoted, to create a 'negative hysteria' if you will, and I'm sure it isn't used just in here. I'm sure this person mentions it to every person possible to continue to sow seeds of dissension and confusion regarding the ordinance.

You had mentioned you applaud this person's writing and standing up, I wish I could agree with you. A person who disagrees with something without truths and facts is not standing up at all, they are just blowing hot air (or mashing on a keyboard, as it were). in fact, I would go so far as to state that a person such as s3mh does more to harm their plight than gain support by making false statements, and not even knowing the text of the ordinance in full before making claims about what it does and doesn't achieve, or can achieve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first revision to the ordinance had no change in the language about maintenance/repairs etc. But you all ran around claiming that the City would be able to control paint color, HVAC, and even content of political yard signs under the revised ordinance. This was not based on anything the City had ever done in the past, but pure speculation on reading the ordinance in a vacuum. So there was a case where the law had been practiced, and the anti-preservation people ignored the practice to try to scare people into believing that there was some intent on the part of the City that did not exist. This was largely the reason the anti-preservationists could barely get half the needed votes to do away with the historic districts. They had no good argument for allowing builders to run wild in the Heights and had to resort to scare tactics to try to fool people into believing that the ordinance would do all kinds of things it would not do. As a result, a big opportunity was lost to work together to create a better ordinance. A fast track procedure for minor changes would have been a great idea. But issues like that never came up because the vast majority of the dialog with the City was either all in or all out.

As noted above, the HAHC is perfectly reasonable. They have approved three new construction projects in the Heights in the past two sessions (two were 3500 sq ft houses). While lot value for a neglected bungalow will go down, the value of an empty lot looks to be going up ($320k asking price for a lot in the Heights East--probably 40-50k too high, but who knows). In the short run, the building boom in the historic districts will slow a bit as the McVic builders flee to the non-district areas. But that is good for the Heights too. Areas north of 20th and on the periphery of the districts will see more development than they would have without the ordinance. Inside the districts, there will never again be the horrific contemporary odd balls, monsterous fake New Orleans junk packed 4 to a 2 home lot and cruddy, oddball rennovations (closed in porches, goofy circular windows and other oddities that wreck the character of historic homes).

The Heights will be even better than ever under the Historic Ordinance. People looking to buy won't have to worry about what might go up next door anymore. People looking to rennovate won't have to worry about ending up with lot value after being surrounded by McVics. Crow all you want about how Eastwood is now better than the Heights because of the Historic Ordinance. Or about how the Heights are "stagnating" because someone thinks they can still get lot value (just saw a great bungalow on Columbia sell within a week of listing--some stagnation). Just like the claims about paint color and HVACs, the reality is nothing like what the anti-preservationists will ever be able to recognize.

I honestly didn't read any of what you wrote, I scanned it, but saw no answer to my question, which I really want to hear your answer:

Again, I ask, if the framers of the ordinance had no intention of allowing such overzealous things happen, why is it written is such a way as to allow it? Why don't you answer that one S3MH? I encourage anyone who approves of the ordinance in its current state to please answer that question for me. And for the record, I'm not talking about political yard signs either, you are the only person who keeps bringing that up.

I bet that if the ordinance was written in a much more specific manner that it would have gained even more support than it had, and in addition, they would not have had to resort to such underhanded tactics of getting it approved. But that's just my opinion and I have no way of supporting it as anything more.

I went ahead and bolded the important parts for you, hopefully you won't miss it this time.

Edited by samagon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first revision to the ordinance had no change in the language about maintenance/repairs etc. But you all ran around claiming that the City would be able to control paint color, HVAC, and even content of political yard signs under the revised ordinance. This was not based on anything the City had ever done in the past, but pure speculation on reading the ordinance in a vacuum. So there was a case where the law had been practiced, and the anti-preservation people ignored the practice to try to scare people into believing that there was some intent on the part of the City that did not exist. This was largely the reason the anti-preservationists could barely get half the needed votes to do away with the historic districts. They had no good argument for allowing builders to run wild in the Heights and had to resort to scare tactics to try to fool people into believing that the ordinance would do all kinds of things it would not do. As a result, a big opportunity was lost to work together to create a better ordinance. A fast track procedure for minor changes would have been a great idea. But issues like that never came up because the vast majority of the dialog with the City was either all in or all out.

As noted above, the HAHC is perfectly reasonable. They have approved three new construction projects in the Heights in the past two sessions (two were 3500 sq ft houses). While lot value for a neglected bungalow will go down, the value of an empty lot looks to be going up ($320k asking price for a lot in the Heights East--probably 40-50k too high, but who knows). In the short run, the building boom in the historic districts will slow a bit as the McVic builders flee to the non-district areas. But that is good for the Heights too. Areas north of 20th and on the periphery of the districts will see more development than they would have without the ordinance. Inside the districts, there will never again be the horrific contemporary odd balls, monsterous fake New Orleans junk packed 4 to a 2 home lot and cruddy, oddball rennovations (closed in porches, goofy circular windows and other oddities that wreck the character of historic homes).

The Heights will be even better than ever under the Historic Ordinance. People looking to buy won't have to worry about what might go up next door anymore. People looking to rennovate won't have to worry about ending up with lot value after being surrounded by McVics. Crow all you want about how Eastwood is now better than the Heights because of the Historic Ordinance. Or about how the Heights are "stagnating" because someone thinks they can still get lot value (just saw a great bungalow on Columbia sell within a week of listing--some stagnation). Just like the claims about paint color and HVACs, the reality is nothing like what the anti-preservationists will ever be able to recognize.

are you just a troll, or do you actually believe in what you just said? "barely get half the needed votes" Are you serious? If it would have been the other way around, where the card had to be signed and returned for the ordinance to stay, do you really think think it would have did as well? Take off the blinders and work with your neighbors. The ordinance is in effect already, why not work with the anti-ordinance folks (quit calling them anti-preservation) on coming up with a solution that more people will tolerate? Do you really not care about 1/4 of your neighbors?

You are the same person how said "we will remember who opposed us" and made your threats about preventing people from getting COAs, so yeah I would say the speculative vacuum reading was warranted. Keep on spewing your worthless rhetoric though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first revision to the ordinance had no change in the language about maintenance/repairs etc. But you all ran around claiming that the City would be able to control paint color, HVAC, and even content of political yard signs under the revised ordinance. This was not based on anything the City had ever done in the past, but pure speculation on reading the ordinance in a vacuum. So there was a case where the law had been practiced, and the anti-preservation people ignored the practice to try to scare people into believing that there was some intent on the part of the City that did not exist. This was largely the reason the anti-preservationists could barely get half the needed votes to do away with the historic districts. They had no good argument for allowing builders to run wild in the Heights and had to resort to scare tactics to try to fool people into believing that the ordinance would do all kinds of things it would not do. As a result, a big opportunity was lost to work together to create a better ordinance. A fast track procedure for minor changes would have been a great idea. But issues like that never came up because the vast majority of the dialog with the City was either all in or all out.

As noted above, the HAHC is perfectly reasonable. They have approved three new construction projects in the Heights in the past two sessions (two were 3500 sq ft houses). While lot value for a neglected bungalow will go down, the value of an empty lot looks to be going up ($320k asking price for a lot in the Heights East--probably 40-50k too high, but who knows). In the short run, the building boom in the historic districts will slow a bit as the McVic builders flee to the non-district areas. But that is good for the Heights too. Areas north of 20th and on the periphery of the districts will see more development than they would have without the ordinance. Inside the districts, there will never again be the horrific contemporary odd balls, monsterous fake New Orleans junk packed 4 to a 2 home lot and cruddy, oddball rennovations (closed in porches, goofy circular windows and other oddities that wreck the character of historic homes).

The Heights will be even better than ever under the Historic Ordinance. People looking to buy won't have to worry about what might go up next door anymore. People looking to rennovate won't have to worry about ending up with lot value after being surrounded by McVics. Crow all you want about how Eastwood is now better than the Heights because of the Historic Ordinance. Or about how the Heights are "stagnating" because someone thinks they can still get lot value (just saw a great bungalow on Columbia sell within a week of listing--some stagnation). Just like the claims about paint color and HVACs, the reality is nothing like what the anti-preservationists will ever be able to recognize.

So if the Ordinance was not originally designed to control paint color, why then did they have to go back and SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE IT?? Paint color control was allowed in the original draft and specifically excluded in the version that became law.

The anti-ordinance crowd is the only reason that was modified. If it were not for them, it would now be law that you have to ask some donkey's permission to change your house color! The government has an extremely poor track record on abuse of power and use of power for personal gains....I want them to have as little control over myself and my property as possible.

You support the ordinance because you perceive it to do what you want. But when there is a new government in power who does not agree with you any longer, how do you think you will feel when an ordinance is passed requiring you to tear down your old well maintained shack if any repair requiring a permit ever has to be made? After all a very good case can be made that the older well maintained shacks are huge fire hazards, and a danger to the public. Many have extremely old wiring without grounds, many have uninsulated aluminum wiring, they are old dry wood just ready for a match, none of them have the newer fire retardant drywall or other features that make the PUBLIC safer....you see where I am going? It does not take a huge imagination to come up with a reason that we the public can create to cause you to lose the rights on YOUR home....You got your way this time...but power is fickle...those who abuse it lose, and then the next administration comes in and usually goes to far in their efforts to undue the previous administrations problems.

Look to Washington. Everyone hated Bush, now we have something far worse, a polar opposite.....wait till 2012....if you are an Obama lover you are very likely to HATE the next president.....going too far always has repercussions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They had no good argument for allowing builders to run wild in the Heights and had to resort to scare tactics to try to fool people into believing that the ordinance would do all kinds of things it would not do.

I don't have time to address the rest of the nonsense from this post at the moment but this is a perfect example of the appropriate use of the term "hysterical" preservationist. Really - allowing builders to run wild?? The builder boogey man running wild through the Heights is deserving of the term hysterical. This is the typical language of these people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have time to address the rest of the nonsense from this post at the moment but this is a perfect example of the appropriate use of the term "hysterical" preservationist. Really - allowing builders to run wild?? The builder boogey man running wild through the Heights is deserving of the term hysterical. This is the typical language of these people.

Here is some hysterical language:

http://blogs.chron.com/houstonpolitics/2011/03/the_gestapo_at_city_hall.html

Maybe CM Jones will be the anti-preservationist candidate for mayor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is some hysterical language:

http://blogs.chron.com/houstonpolitics/2011/03/the_gestapo_at_city_hall.html

Maybe CM Jones will be the anti-preservationist candidate for mayor.

Looks like you found another place to post your sob story about lot value and having your view ruined. It also appears there are quite a few people who would rather suffer Jolanda Jones' antics than than your social engineering agenda masquerading as preservation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is some hysterical language:

http://blogs.chron.com/houstonpolitics/2011/03/the_gestapo_at_city_hall.html

Maybe CM Jones will be the anti-preservationist candidate for mayor.

Anyone know how much historic preservation costs the city? How much to run the commission? How much for the historic preservation staff? Did MAP cut anyone there? I'm sure we could save hundreds of thousands of dollars by eliminating this department entirely. Randy Pace, Thomas McWhorter, Courtney Spillane, Diana DuCroz, probably others, would save us plenty. Without having the cost of managing the commission, we could save a bit more.

Were there any cuts to that department? Then there is the big salaries of the directors. Without preservation to manage, maybe we would only need one, not two. Or maybe they could focus on the real job of planning instead of this nonsense. My guess is there will be no cuts to the historic staff. The Governor saw fit to slice the budget for the Texas Historic Commission. Why can't our mayor?

Maybe our next mayor will? What do you think?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like you found another place to post your sob story about lot value and having your view ruined. It also appears there are quite a few people who would rather suffer Jolanda Jones' antics than than your social engineering agenda masquerading as preservation.

Did anyone watch the council battle yesterday over not just preservation but redistricting. The knives were out for Parker. She is very unpopular with her own council. Several of them, Clutterbuck and Adams in particular went for the jugular yesterday.

I think its item 18:

http://houstontx.city.swagit.com/player.php?refid=03022011-3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is some hysterical language:

http://blogs.chron.c..._city_hall.html

Maybe CM Jones will be the anti-preservationist candidate for mayor.

I think you mean *anti-ordinance*

nice use of hysterical language while attempting to call out... hysterical language.

now for my hysterical language rant...

I suppose CM Jones is one of your right wing conservative teabaggers you constantly imply are the only ones against the ordinance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you mean *anti-ordinance*

nice use of hysterical language while attempting to call out... hysterical language.

now for my hysterical language rant...

I suppose CM Jones is one of your right wing conservative teabaggers you constantly imply are the only ones against the ordinance?

He always uses "anit-preservation" instead of anti-ordinance" which is yet another fine example of why we use the term hysterical preservationist. Everything is the extreme. We can't be for preservation and against the ordinance because he can only conceive of preservation in terms of giving the city control. Extremism earns you extreme description hence the reference by Jones (not that I advocate use of that term).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is some hysterical language:

http://blogs.chron.c..._city_hall.html

Maybe CM Jones will be the anti-preservationist candidate for mayor.

I have a feeling that you and Jones have more in common than you have differences. Just because she is on the right side of an issue for once in her life does not make her a viable candidate for anything other than a Democrat controlled district.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone watch the council battle yesterday over not just preservation but redistricting. The knives were out for Parker. She is very unpopular with her own council. Several of them, Clutterbuck and Adams in particular went for the jugular yesterday.

I think its item 18:

http://houstontx.cit...efid=03022011-3

Its the Mayor's report, not item 18.

Wong at 15:00 makes a great argument...that gifford, or whatever her name is makes it crystal clear....quoting roughhand, not exact...Gifford: "we do not need any of the property owners support to start a historic district"

That is truly a sad statement, and reflects the true arrogance of this administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He always uses "anit-preservation" instead of anti-ordinance" which is yet another fine example of why we use the term hysterical preservationist. Everything is the extreme. We can't be for preservation and against the ordinance because he can only conceive of preservation in terms of giving the city control. Extremism earns you extreme description hence the reference by Jones (not that I advocate use of that term).

No, anti-preservation is accurate. This thread alone is full of posts bashing on bungalows as not being deserving of preservation because they are too small for modern families and have no architectural value because they are out of a Sears catalog. Then there are the arguments about diversity of housing being something that is better for the Heights than preserving historic structures. And tons of talk about how new construction in the Heights is the reason the Heights has been successful instead of the work of preservationists. The argument that people who are anti-ordinance are actually pro-preservation is based on the fake argument that deed restrictions are all you need to preserve the historic character of the Heights. That is like saying that regulating emmissions from the ship channel is a bad way to control air pollution in Houston because people who want clean air should just drive less and use fewer petroleum products. And as I have said numerous times, if the people who were against the ordinance were really for preservation, they would have come forward with ways to make a better revised ordinance rather than sending fliers out trying to kill off the historic districts altogether. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing extreme about the ordinance. There is no great imposition on property rights. People are still building in the Heights. People are still selling their homes for a nice profit in the Heights (although there is a bit of a glut of high-end overbuilt houses). People are still rennovating their housing in the Heights. Thus, the anti-preservationists are forced to make outlandish claims about due process and constitutional law, and find themselves in the company of CM Jones and her extremely ignorant Gestappo comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its the Mayor's report, not item 18.

Wong at 15:00 makes a great argument...that gifford, or whatever her name is makes it crystal clear....quoting roughhand, not exact...Gifford: "we do not need any of the property owners support to start a historic district"

That is truly a sad statement, and reflects the true arrogance of this administration.

it isn't arrogance, it is the truth, unfortunately...

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.

Unfortunately, S3MH hasn't gotten back to me on why things like this are written in the ordinance, if there are no intentions to use the ordinance that way.

Obviously, from Gifford's quote there, the intention was absolutely to use it in the way it was written (at least by some).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, anti-preservation is accurate. This thread alone is full of posts bashing on bungalows as not being deserving of preservation because they are too small for modern families and have no architectural value because they are out of a Sears catalog. Then there are the arguments about diversity of housing being something that is better for the Heights than preserving historic structures. And tons of talk about how new construction in the Heights is the reason the Heights has been successful instead of the work of preservationists. The argument that people who are anti-ordinance are actually pro-preservation is based on the fake argument that deed restrictions are all you need to preserve the historic character of the Heights. That is like saying that regulating emmissions from the ship channel is a bad way to control air pollution in Houston because people who want clean air should just drive less and use fewer petroleum products. And as I have said numerous times, if the people who were against the ordinance were really for preservation, they would have come forward with ways to make a better revised ordinance rather than sending fliers out trying to kill off the historic districts altogether. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing extreme about the ordinance. There is no great imposition on property rights. People are still building in the Heights. People are still selling their homes for a nice profit in the Heights (although there is a bit of a glut of high-end overbuilt houses). People are still rennovating their housing in the Heights. Thus, the anti-preservationists are forced to make outlandish claims about due process and constitutional law, and find themselves in the company of CM Jones and her extremely ignorant Gestappo comment.

As an owner of an original bungalow who has been forced to stop renovations in midstream due to this ridiculous ordinance as well as the diminished value of my home, I am uniquely qualified to call you out as a pathological liar. An ordinance that causes me to stop renovations because the renovations approved and permitted in 2009 for my garage are now outlawed on my house is the very definition of extreme. I hope you stay in your crappy house in your district, because I'd give you an earful if I ever saw you on my block.

And, no, my wonderful half-renovated bungalow is not historic, though that doesn't mean I don't care for it dearly, and don't want architecturally ignorant morons telling me what I can't do with it.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its the Mayor's report, not item 18.

Wong at 15:00 makes a great argument...that gifford, or whatever her name is makes it crystal clear....quoting roughhand, not exact...Gifford: "we do not need any of the property owners support to start a historic district"

That is truly a sad statement, and reflects the true arrogance of this administration.

I was refering to the redistricting issue, where the knives were really out. That is item 18. The preservation issue was in the Mayor's Report and was tame compared to the redistricting issue.

And it's Gafrick...LOL!

Edited by Heights Homeowner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, anti-preservation is accurate. This thread alone is full of posts bashing on bungalows as not being deserving of preservation because they are too small for modern families and have no architectural value because they are out of a Sears catalog. Then there are the arguments about diversity of housing being something that is better for the Heights than preserving historic structures. And tons of talk about how new construction in the Heights is the reason the Heights has been successful instead of the work of preservationists. The argument that people who are anti-ordinance are actually pro-preservation is based on the fake argument that deed restrictions are all you need to preserve the historic character of the Heights. That is like saying that regulating emmissions from the ship channel is a bad way to control air pollution in Houston because people who want clean air should just drive less and use fewer petroleum products. And as I have said numerous times, if the people who were against the ordinance were really for preservation, they would have come forward with ways to make a better revised ordinance rather than sending fliers out trying to kill off the historic districts altogether. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing extreme about the ordinance. There is no great imposition on property rights. People are still building in the Heights. People are still selling their homes for a nice profit in the Heights (although there is a bit of a glut of high-end overbuilt houses). People are still rennovating their housing in the Heights. Thus, the anti-preservationists are forced to make outlandish claims about due process and constitutional law, and find themselves in the company of CM Jones and her extremely ignorant Gestappo comment.

As is so typical of your posts, you are full of inaccuracies and lies.

First, there are very few Sears catalog houses. Mine wasn’t. Get informed. And they are too small for most modern families. One of my good friends just put their house on the market for that reason – it’s even a 3 bedroom, 2 baths but the rooms are small and there is no storage. They have toddler and want another soon. They are busting at the seams…their words, not mine.

Second, the reason people are now willing to sink big bucks into renovations is because the builders got rid of so many of the structures that would never get renovated and the property values went up enough to warrant the extra costs in renovation vs. new build. But again, you know nothing about that industry. And clearly you know nothing about the Heights. I was around when very few wanted to live here – you weren’t. You are clueless and just believe the nonsense the extremists spew constantly.

Third, plenty of people involved advocated for many changes to the ordinance that made it better and were called anti-preservation. And it is a bold faced lie that we didn’t want the changes to the ordinance. We want it where there is support for it. Broad Acres loves it and we are happy for them. They also have huge houses which makes it easy to love. And not a single person has made the argument that deed restrictions preserve the historic character but they do prevent townhouses and condos and high rises that were the proponent’s lies about why we needed the city to control our property.

And lastly, every single lawyer we talk to, involved in this or not, thinks this won’t hold up for a second in a courtroom, particularly in Texas and most especially in Houston. And Parker is risking your precious ordinance over some bungalows – not all – that should be demolished. The process that she used is going to get overturned in court and it will open the door to killing the whole thing. If she had any sense, she would let these contested districts go and not run the risk of losing it all – but clearly she doesn’t. And council is so furious with her that she might just lose a lot more over this.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, anti-preservation is accurate. This thread alone is full of posts bashing on bungalows as not being deserving of preservation because they are too small for modern families and have no architectural value because they are out of a Sears catalog. Then there are the arguments about diversity of housing being something that is better for the Heights than preserving historic structures. And tons of talk about how new construction in the Heights is the reason the Heights has been successful instead of the work of preservationists. The argument that people who are anti-ordinance are actually pro-preservation is based on the fake argument that deed restrictions are all you need to preserve the historic character of the Heights. That is like saying that regulating emmissions from the ship channel is a bad way to control air pollution in Houston because people who want clean air should just drive less and use fewer petroleum products. And as I have said numerous times, if the people who were against the ordinance were really for preservation, they would have come forward with ways to make a better revised ordinance rather than sending fliers out trying to kill off the historic districts altogether. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing extreme about the ordinance. There is no great imposition on property rights. People are still building in the Heights. People are still selling their homes for a nice profit in the Heights (although there is a bit of a glut of high-end overbuilt houses). People are still rennovating their housing in the Heights. Thus, the anti-preservationists are forced to make outlandish claims about due process and constitutional law, and find themselves in the company of CM Jones and her extremely ignorant Gestappo comment.

Here's one for you. I live in a historic district (HW), live in a historic bungalow which we renovated 4 years ago (before the stupidity). I even signed the original petition once our work was done, and went back to get a COA after the fact to qualify for the tax break. And I hate what has been done to me and to others who were duped. Heck, they even used our house as an EXAMPLE of what an acceptable addition is in their advertising during the debate. So, S3MH, am I anti-preservation??? Nope, anti-ordinance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus, the anti-preservationists are forced to make outlandish claims about due process and constitutional law, and find themselves in the company of CM Jones and her extremely ignorant Gestappo comment.

I hate to sound like a broken record but remember my admonition that it is better to remain silent and appear ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt? But you can't remember it so I will once have to point out another fine example. Here goes...

When you call someone "extremely ignorant" it is best not to follow it with a word you misspell. Gestapo has one "p" not two. Perhaps you have confused the word Gestapo with Geppetto? After all, they both start with a "G" and mostly have the same letters, right?

Definition of IGNORANT

1a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>

2: unaware, uninformed

— ig·no·rant·ly adverb

— ig·no·rant·ness noun

See ignorant defined for English-language learners »

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as I have said numerous times, if the people who were against the ordinance were really for preservation, they would have come forward with ways to make a better revised ordinance rather than sending fliers out trying to kill off the historic districts altogether. ]

no, some of us against the ordinance want to see the city focus on the actual issue of preservation, starting with commercial properties in highly visible districts. Unlike you, I actually know firsthand of what it takes to actually keep a 100 year old frame house standing. It may look nice on the outside, but underneath the granite counter, it's $10s of thousands of a commitment for a 2-1. You and your short-timer urban adventurer friends will leave the Heights for West U or the suburbs soon enough for your latent gated-community dreams, meanwhile I'll still be here, in my old house. My old house that's been pictured in the Chron next to the headline "preserving a piece of history" -- no thanks to you or the ordinance, of course.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's one for you. I live in a historic district (HW), live in a historic bungalow which we renovated 4 years ago (before the stupidity). I even signed the original petition once our work was done, and went back to get a COA after the fact to qualify for the tax break. And I hate what has been done to me and to others who were duped. Heck, they even used our house as an EXAMPLE of what an acceptable addition is in their advertising during the debate. So, S3MH, am I anti-preservation??? Nope, anti-ordinance.

Did not mean to neg rep your post....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, anti-preservation is accurate. This thread alone is full of posts bashing on bungalows as not being deserving of preservation because they are too small for modern families and have no architectural value because they are out of a Sears catalog. Then there are the arguments about diversity of housing being something that is better for the Heights than preserving historic structures. And tons of talk about how new construction in the Heights is the reason the Heights has been successful instead of the work of preservationists. The argument that people who are anti-ordinance are actually pro-preservation is based on the fake argument that deed restrictions are all you need to preserve the historic character of the Heights. That is like saying that regulating emmissions from the ship channel is a bad way to control air pollution in Houston because people who want clean air should just drive less and use fewer petroleum products. And as I have said numerous times, if the people who were against the ordinance were really for preservation, they would have come forward with ways to make a better revised ordinance rather than sending fliers out trying to kill off the historic districts altogether. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing extreme about the ordinance. There is no great imposition on property rights. People are still building in the Heights. People are still selling their homes for a nice profit in the Heights (although there is a bit of a glut of high-end overbuilt houses). People are still rennovating their housing in the Heights. Thus, the anti-preservationists are forced to make outlandish claims about due process and constitutional law, and find themselves in the company of CM Jones and her extremely ignorant Gestappo comment.

Ok... lets just pretend your right, and all anti-ordinance people hate bungalows and want them all smashed. Preservation isn't limited to houses. I personally have spent a lot of time and money on preserving other artifacts, allowing future generations to enjoy them. Art, writings, furniture, vehicles, photographs, these are just some examples of things i've painstakingly worked to preserve. So even if everything in your post was accurate (which it couldn't be farther from) it still is a gross generalization to call anti-ordinance people anti-preservation.

Maybe you chewed on the window seals of a bungalow as a kid?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok... lets just pretend your right, and all anti-ordinance people hate bungalows and want them all smashed. Preservation isn't limited to houses. I personally have spent a lot of time and money on preserving other artifacts, allowing future generations to enjoy them. Art, writings, furniture, vehicles, photographs, these are just some examples of things i've painstakingly worked to preserve. So even if everything in your post was accurate (which it couldn't be farther from) it still is a gross generalization to call anti-ordinance people anti-preservation.

Maybe you chewed on the window seals of a bungalow as a kid?

Lame, lame, lame. What in the world would let you take the logical leap that my reference to "anti-preservation" was anything other than historic homes in the Houston Heights? You don't refute someone's argument by taking their argument completely out of context and beyond all logical limits in order to manufacture a point. It is plainly obvious that I am taking issue with the blue sign people who claim to be pro-preservation but anti-ordinance. As evidenced by many of the posts in this thread bashing historic preservation in the Heights, I have more than enough evidence to call out the claim that these people are just anti-ordinance. If they had problems with the ordinance, they would have worked with the preservation coalition to craft a better ordinance. But from the get go, it was about trying to kill off the districts and not about inventing a better mouse trap. The anti-preservationists were even given the opportunity to kill of the districts and failed miserably, for the very reason I call them anti-preservationists--it was clear to everyone in the Heights that their goal was NOT preservation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, my district is still pending. It has not been approved yet, so your celebration is premature. As for being a bungalow hater, MY bungalow is used in the Historic District staff report as an example of a "contributing structure".

Is YOURS?

Didn't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I call them anti-preservationists--it was clear to everyone in the Heights that their goal was NOT preservation.

A little like the pot calling the kettle black, n'est pas? No one from the hysterical preservationist coalition cares a hoot about preservation. There is NO effort to raise funds to preserve anything. The GHPA, a joke of a preservation organization, TURNS DOWN donated buildings, truly historic ones, because it costs too much to maintain and renovate them. Historic preservation groups all over the country actually SAVE historic structures and raise money to do it. This group is about one thing and one thing only - controlling development. It has NOTHING to do with preserving anything. 99% of them have never lifted a finger beyond regulation and restriction of their neighbors. If you want to restrict development, them work towards that end but to do it under the guise of preservation is hypocritcal and demeans true preservation efforts.

As far as working to get a better ordinance, if it weren't for the efforts of those opposed to the ordinance, the ordinance would have been absolutely dreadful. Even the mayor has said it is better due to some of the problems WE pointed out in the original draft. So, stop lying about that issue. We worked hard to get changes. Just because you weren't privy to the changes we were asking for or that they didn't make it into the final draft doesn't mean that we didn't try. Some of our most important changes were not even considered. Why? Because there was ZERO cooperation on the part of Lovell. Gafrick wasn't much better. Those at city hall have had a certain mindset for years and years and there was no talking to them about any of the details. Clearly, as evidenced by your postings, you again have no expertise about what the reality of the process was. Always the uninformed expert on the forum...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little like the pot calling the kettle black, n'est pas? No one from the hysterical preservationist coalition cares a hoot about preservation. There is NO effort to raise funds to preserve anything. The GHPA, a joke of a preservation organization, TURNS DOWN donated buildings, truly historic ones, because it costs too much to maintain and renovate them. Historic preservation groups all over the country actually SAVE historic structures and raise money to do it. This group is about one thing and one thing only - controlling development. It has NOTHING to do with preserving anything. 99% of them have never lifted a finger beyond regulation and restriction of their neighbors. If you want to restrict development, them work towards that end but to do it under the guise of preservation is hypocritcal and demeans true preservation efforts.

As far as working to get a better ordinance, if it weren't for the efforts of those opposed to the ordinance, the ordinance would have been absolutely dreadful. Even the mayor has said it is better due to some of the problems WE pointed out in the original draft. So, stop lying about that issue. We worked hard to get changes. Just because you weren't privy to the changes we were asking for or that they didn't make it into the final draft doesn't mean that we didn't try. Some of our most important changes were not even considered. Why? Because there was ZERO cooperation on the part of Lovell. Gafrick wasn't much better. Those at city hall have had a certain mindset for years and years and there was no talking to them about any of the details. Clearly, as evidenced by your postings, you again have no expertise about what the reality of the process was. Always the uninformed expert on the forum...

Just curious - have you made any posts which do not include the words 'lie' 'liar' 'lying' 'lies', etc?

Your point could better be made by quoting chapter and verse of the ordinance, and citing specific examples (quotes) of the inconsistencies - or lies, if you must - of those you accuse.

I really want to believe you.

{edit - double post]

Edited by dbigtex56
Link to comment
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...