The Heights Historic Districts

[SCDesign]

I was at a meeting where it was said, as were a number of other people (about 20, 12 of which worked for the City). It is not on the record anywhere that I know of but it is well know in many circles. Nobody has to believe me just look at the ordinance and the power it gives and the Historic Districts that have been added in just the last year. Heck, just since June 1. If you have any doubt that the City is playing games with this just look at how they have moved on this to date:

1) The Request for Action to put the temporary suspension of the 90 day waiver was submitted on the Friday afternoon before Memorial Day to go on the Council schedule for the following Wednesday

2) The dates of the public meetings to debate the changes were released 4 days before the biggest meeting was scheduled

3) The mailed notice only included the meeting for the specific area af the addressee and the largest, and probbaly most important meeting, was not inculded

4) The push by the Mayor NOT to repetition to enact these changes when they are completely different than what people had originally agreed to.

Does the City have a track record of openness and honesty? Or does it have a record of reaching, grabbing and taking regardless of what the citizens want or agree to?

One of the biggest arguments people make against making the Heights a Preserved District is that it is too late, it should have been done 30 years ago. If the Heights is Protected wouldn't you expect that development will move to those areas that are not protected? If those areas are now going to be in the position the Heights was in 30 years ago doesn't it make sense for them to step in now to preserve them so they don't make the same "mistake" that was made in the Heights? You MUST look at the "Worst Possible Scenerio" when you give the City this kind of power, and worst case is that EVERYTHING INSIDE OF THE BELTWAY WILL QUALIFY AS HISTORIC WITHIN THE NEXT 10 YEAR! Think about that.

[poyea]

One other thing I just noticed is who would make up the 13 member HAHC panel. This is straight from the proposed amendment:

1. Professional achaeologist

2. Professional historian

3. Achitectural historian

4. Representative of a cultural history organization

5. Registered architect

6. Landscape architect or an urgan planner

7. Professional real estate appraiser certified to perform appraisals for the city.

8. Remodeler or builder registered withthe TRCC, with knowledge of and interest in restoration, historic building renovation and compatible new construction.

9-13. Citizen representatives

If you didn't think this was weighted in any way, read on....

Positions 1-9 shall be appointed by the MAYOR, subject to confirmation by city council.

Postions 10-13 shall be appointed by city council.

If you need 7 votes, good luck.

[LookyHere]

Was this said and gone with the wind, or can you point us in the direction of a source for this information? Or is this just hyperbole?

I wonder the same thing. I have been following this to a degree and feel pretty informed but I have never heard anything about this. Oak Forest and Garden Oaks? I doubt it, plus those neighborhoods are 100% outside the loop.

[LookyHere]

One other thing I just noticed is who would make up the 13 member HAHC panel. This is straight from the proposed amendment:

1. Professional achaeologist

2. Professional historian

3. Achitectural historian

4. Representative of a cultural history organization

5. Registered architect

6. Landscape architect or an urgan planner

7. Professional real estate appraiser certified to perform appraisals for the city.

8. Remodeler or builder registered withthe TRCC, with knowledge of and interest in restoration, historic building renovation and compatible new construction.

9-13. Citizen representatives

If you didn't think this was weighted in any way, read on....

Positions 1-9 shall be appointed by the MAYOR, subject to confirmation by city council.

Postions 10-13 shall be appointed by city council.

If you need 7 votes, good luck.

I have been to a couple variance hearings and I can tell you that the builder in question is well known for siding with new development. I know that's only one vote but I thought it was worth mentioning.

[Marksmu]

I have been to a couple variance hearings and I can tell you that the builder in question is well known for siding with new development. I know that's only one vote but I thought it was worth mentioning.

I do not want to stake the value of my house, my largest single investment, on the HOPE that somebody is going to side with me, or that we can finally get a competent mayor. I have complete control over my home now and I want to have complete control over my own home tomorrow.

I will fight the ordinance, but at the same time I will ignore it if it does go into effect. It is a sad day that we even have to have a discussion whether or not some politician can tell me what type of siding I can have on my house or what color I am allowed to paint it.

Its a sad day indeed.

[20thStDad]

The more I read about it the more this feels like a really bass ackwards way to get around the lack of zoning.

[Marksmu]

The more I read about it the more this feels like a really bass ackwards way to get around the lack of zoning.

These are deed restrictions, not zoning. The Heights has businesses located throughout it. The poultry plant, the solar screens, the gutter places.....they are everywhere...I suspect some folks are nostalgic about those too, but this is not zoning where they don't let you use your home as a business, or vice versa...this is the city actually controlling what your home looks like, not just what you do out of it.

I dont care for zoning much either, but arbitrarily placing after the fact restrictions on peoples homes who did not have them when they were purchased is just Wrong!

Zoning can actually serve a purpose, as much as I hate it....deed restrictions only restrict you from having your home look the way you want...what type of siding, color, etc. Not just that you cant sell cars out of your front yard.

[AtticaFlinch]

I dont care for zoning much either, but arbitrarily placing after the fact restrictions on peoples homes who did not have them when they were purchased is just Wrong!

Precisely. With HOA deed restrictions you have the ability to opt in or out of it by choosing whether or not to buy within a particular neighborhood. If the Historic District laws included a clause exempting grandfathered home owners (from the time legislation was passed), it probably wouldn't bother anyone.

[sevfiv]

From the GHPA:

A great deal of misinformation is circulating about what the proposed changes will mean to property owners in Houston's historic districts. GHPA is determined to clear up these misrepresentations:

* The amended ordinance will not dictate paint colors.

* The amended ordinance will not govern the type of air conditioning units that can be used in historic buildings.

* The amended ordinance will not govern interior remodeling. In the United States, preservation ordinances do not govern the interiors of privately owned residences.

* Routine maintenance and emergency repairs do not and will not require the approval of the Houston Archeological and Historical Commission.

* The ordinance does not require a minimum $50,000 investment in rehab projects for historic houses.

* The ordinance allows and will continue to allow the construction of additions to expand the size of historic houses. Houston Archeological and Historical Commission has approved many such projects; some of these projects have been recognized with Good Brick Awards from GHPA.

GHPA is developing a Web page to further address these other misconceptions. We will provide a link when the page goes live online.

[Marksmu]

From the GHPA:

it did not say:

The GHPA will not tell you what your house must look like

The GHPA will not tell you what materials you may use on your house

The GHPA will not tell you what size your home may be

The GHPA will not tell you what landscaping is required

The GHPA will not make you bring up to their "standards" before issuing any permits to do work

The GHPA will keep their not intrude upon individual homeowners private property rights.

The GHPA will not change their mind and add hundreds of new restrictions at a later point.

There are alot of things they did not say....those are just a few....its safer to keep them out of your business from the get go.

I still cant believe there is actually a discussion on whether or not a POLITICIAN, gets to decide for YOU, what YOUR house should look like. ITS INSANE!

[Porchman]

From the GHPA:

A great deal of misinformation is circulating about what the proposed changes will mean to property owners in Houston's historic districts. GHPA is determined to clear up these misrepresentations:

* The amended ordinance will not dictate paint colors.

* The amended ordinance will not govern the type of air conditioning units that can be used in historic buildings.

* The amended ordinance will not govern interior remodeling. In the United States, preservation ordinances do not govern the interiors of privately owned residences.

* Routine maintenance and emergency repairs do not and will not require the approval of the Houston Archeological and Historical Commission.

* The ordinance does not require a minimum $50,000 investment in rehab projects for historic houses.

* The ordinance allows and will continue to allow the construction of additions to expand the size of historic houses. Houston Archeological and Historical Commission has approved many such projects; some of these projects have been recognized with Good Brick Awards from GHPA.

GHPA is developing a Web page to further address these other misconceptions. We will provide a link when the page goes live online.

Thanks, sev. However, what might help further dispel misconceptions is to state what is being sought in the ordinance. What is the vision? Because the way this reads (and, BTW, the draft does leave a great deal to interpretation), it's a lot about restriction of individual homeowners. The reason I'm concerned is that the sense of such restrictions is going to undo and undermine the greater good. On this thread, we're hearing about recission of the petitions which create historic districts in the first place.

I think most people here in the Heights have a sense of the neighborhood they want. They may personally engage in that neighborhood in different fashion. They might beautifully preserve a bungalow. They might enjoy cocktails on the porch of their new Tricon. However, I don't think the vision of the neighborhood is really not that different for people.

One other issues that muddies the ordinance is it also addresses landmark status. I think that creates some of the misconception on the ordinance, itself. It also potentially waters down the ordination of landmarks.

There has been a lack of clarity in presenting this and agility in responding to concerns. I hope GHPA and other groups dedicated to preservation can develop that common vision of what is being sought. People buy into vision not restriction.

it did not say:

The GHPA will not tell you what your house must look like

The GHPA will not tell you what materials you may use on your house

The GHPA will not tell you what size your home may be

The GHPA will not tell you what landscaping is required

The GHPA will not make you bring up to their "standards" before issuing any permits to do work

The GHPA will keep their not intrude upon individual homeowners private property rights.

The GHPA will not change their mind and add hundreds of new restrictions at a later point.

It's HAHC which would make decisions about such things. GHPA is an independent preservation group. They advocate in a balanced manner unlike AWBA (Angry White Boys of America).

Edited July 28, 2010 by Porchman

[Ross]

I do not want to stake the value of my house, my largest single investment, on the HOPE that somebody is going to side with me, or that we can finally get a competent mayor. I have complete control over my home now and I want to have complete control over my own home tomorrow.

I will fight the ordinance, but at the same time I will ignore it if it does go into effect. It is a sad day that we even have to have a discussion whether or not some politician can tell me what type of siding I can have on my house or what color I am allowed to paint it.

Its a sad day indeed.

The problem with ignoring the ordinance if passed is that violations are misdemeanors punishable by fines. Every day a violation exists is a separate violation. That's right folks, painting your house without approval will make you a criminal. and, with the increased criminalization of trivial crimes, and increased penalties for multiple offenders, you may find yourself in jail at some point for having 50 misdemeanors related to your home.

[LookyHere]

it did not say:

The GHPA will not tell you what your house must look like

The GHPA will not tell you what materials you may use on your house

The GHPA will not tell you what size your home may be

The GHPA will not tell you what landscaping is required

The GHPA will not make you bring up to their "standards" before issuing any permits to do work

The GHPA will keep their not intrude upon individual homeowners private property rights.

The GHPA will not change their mind and add hundreds of new restrictions at a later point.

There are alot of things they did not say....those are just a few....its safer to keep them out of your business from the get go.

I still cant believe there is actually a discussion on whether or not a POLITICIAN, gets to decide for YOU, what YOUR house should look like. ITS INSANE!

I had the City Counsel meeting streaming on line to hear the Heights Walmart speakers and Lovell brought up a couple of these other topics. I couldn't tell you exactly what it was because I was only half paying attention at this point but I definitely heard her say that repairs would not be cause for the city to make you bring your house up to the new standards. She mentioned set back as an example, saying that if you had to do repairs or make changes this would not force you to meet the set back requirements if your house was not in compliance before the ordinance is passed. I believe she also mentioned "not" and "landscaping."

[chester77008]

I am pleased that the Greater Houston Preservation Alliance finally chimed in on the discussion here on HAIF.

The GHPA is currently sponsoring a class at Rice to determine how to make the following neighborhoods historic districts.

- Westmoreland

- Garden Oaks and Oak Forrest

- Broadacres, Shadow Lawn and Shadyside

- Independence Heights and Magnolia Park

- Country Club Place and Idylwood

- Courtlandt Place

Have fun if you live in these neighborhoods!

Check out their advertisement on swamplot if you think this is misinformation.

[Krol]

Wow! Lots of inaccurate information here and a seemingly lack of desire to have accurate information or, at the very least, to dismiss accurate information when it is offered.

Here are some facts: additions will still be allowed, there's nothing about paint color, most requests get approved by historic commission, demolitions of dilapidated property get approved now and will continue to get approved, there are tax incentives for improvements and they will continue, new construction will still be allowed. That's just a start on the facts.

There's a lot of discussion about property rights, but what about when an owner's right to do what he/she wants with his/her property infringes on my property rights to continue to enjoy my property and what I bought into, which was a historic neighborhood.

A small group of builders and realtors who don't even live in Houston Heights are behind the inaccurate information and fear mongering. That is not surprising.

BTW, Nicholson is not in any historic district.

[Porchman]

Check out their advertisement on swamplot if you think this is misinformation.

From Rice's Glasscock School..

Historic Houston Neighborhoods

Houston’s tremendous growth from village on the bayou to town to city came about because of increasing wealth from trade in cotton, lumber and eventually oil. Beginning in the 1890s, architects and landscape designers created suburbs now seen as close-in neighborhoods to house the influx of people. Local historians, including Stephen Fox, will look at several of these unique neighborhoods, including Courtlandt Place, Westmoreland and Independence Heights, to tell the story of the birth, growth and in some cases, the rebirth of some of these neighborhoods. In the opening lecture, Betty Trapp Chapman will examine the roots of Houston’s planned neighborhoods, and Courtney Tardy of the Greater Houston Preservation Alliance will close the series with a look at methods and attempts to preserve Houston’s neighborhoods.Neighborhoods to be discussed:

• Westmoreland
• Garden Oaks and Oak Forest
• Broadacres, Shadow Lawn and Shadyside
• Independence Heights and Magnolia Park
• Country Club Place and Idylwood
• Courtlandt Place

"Misinformation", no. Misinterpretation, yes. This discussion is lacking "ears" and discernment. That's not productive.

[chester77008]

Wow! Lots of inaccurate information here and a seemingly lack of desire to have accurate information or, at the very least, to dismiss accurate information when it is offered.

Here are some facts: additions will still be allowed, there's nothing about paint color, most requests get approved by historic commission, demolitions of dilapidated property get approved now and will continue to get approved, there are tax incentives for improvements and they will continue, new construction will still be allowed. That's just a start on the facts.

There's a lot of discussion about property rights, but what about when an owner's right to do what he/she wants with his/her property infringes on my property rights to continue to enjoy my property and what I bought into, which was a historic neighborhood.

A small group of builders and realtors who don't even live in Houston Heights are behind the inaccurate information and fear mongering. That is not surprising.

BTW, Nicholson is not in any historic district.

Krol,

I did not buy into an historic district. It is being imposed upon me. It is my right to disagree.

Your facts are extremely vague. Since you seem to be in the know...can you please explain exactly how I would be allowed to add on to the size of my bungalow? I would assume I need plans, which cost money. Am I allowed to increase the width of a bungalow? If so, by how much?

[20thStDad]

Wow! Lots of inaccurate information here and a seemingly lack of desire to have accurate information or, at the very least, to dismiss accurate information when it is offered.

Here are some facts: additions will still be allowed, there's nothing about paint color, most requests get approved by historic commission, demolitions of dilapidated property get approved now and will continue to get approved, there are tax incentives for improvements and they will continue, new construction will still be allowed. That's just a start on the facts.

There's a lot of discussion about property rights, but what about when an owner's right to do what he/she wants with his/her property infringes on my property rights to continue to enjoy my property and what I bought into, which was a historic neighborhood.

A small group of builders and realtors who don't even live in Houston Heights are behind the inaccurate information and fear mongering. That is not surprising.

BTW, Nicholson is not in any historic district.

You kind of had me until the bolded part. Sorry, but in no way do your property rights extend beyond your property line. Wanting your surroundings to remain exactly they way they were when you bought is nothing more than a hope, it's certainly not a right.

[Ross]

Wow! Lots of inaccurate information here and a seemingly lack of desire to have accurate information or, at the very least, to dismiss accurate information when it is offered.

Here are some facts: additions will still be allowed, there's nothing about paint color, most requests get approved by historic commission, demolitions of dilapidated property get approved now and will continue to get approved, there are tax incentives for improvements and they will continue, new construction will still be allowed. That's just a start on the facts.

There's a lot of discussion about property rights, but what about when an owner's right to do what he/she wants with his/her property infringes on my property rights to continue to enjoy my property and what I bought into, which was a historic neighborhood.

A small group of builders and realtors who don't even live in Houston Heights are behind the inaccurate information and fear mongering. That is not surprising.

BTW, Nicholson is not in any historic district.

Your property rights stop at your property line. Absent mutually agreed deed restrictions, the color, size, and appearance of your neighbors house is none of your business.

The plain text of the proposed ordinance gives control of paint color, demolition, and improvements to HAHC, which isn't elected, and will not be responsive to homeowners they percieve as not toeing their line. HAHC will, ultimately, be composed of control freaks who love telling other people what to do.

[sevfiv]

Fwiw, the GHPA did not chime in here - I was passing along information I received from them in an email update. And I agree with Porchman - more from GHPA about the intentions and what is being sought in the ordinance would be nice.

I am hoping they include that on the soon-to-be published web site mentioned in the email..

[Marksmu]

Wow! Lots of inaccurate information here and a seemingly lack of desire to have accurate information or, at the very least, to dismiss accurate information when it is offered.

Here are some facts: additions will still be allowed, there's nothing about paint color, most requests get approved by historic commission, demolitions of dilapidated property get approved now and will continue to get approved, there are tax incentives for improvements and they will continue, new construction will still be allowed. That's just a start on the facts.

There's a lot of discussion about property rights, but what about when an owner's right to do what he/she wants with his/her property infringes on my property rights to continue to enjoy my property and what I bought into, which was a historic neighborhood.

A small group of builders and realtors who don't even live in Houston Heights are behind the inaccurate information and fear mongering. That is not surprising.

BTW, Nicholson is not in any historic district.

Krol,

Your facts are not really facts at all...after seeing late last night on here that there were possibly Criminal repercussions for making modifications to an existing home without approval I actually went online and read the ENTIRE ordinance, something I am almost 100% certain that the Mayor, most of our city council, and all her goons have not done.

The ordinance is an outrage. Its one of the largest power grabs I have ever read.

Absolutely no where in the ordinance does it say they cannot control the color of your house. In fact the ordinance controls "any alteration" to the exterior of the home. Alteration is defined on page 1 of the ordinance as "any change to the exterior of the building, structure, object or site. Alteration shall include, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO"

It is not limited to what is written, they have intentionally left the door wide open to what they can control. In fact by stating that they can control the site, they can also automatically control the landscaping, fencing, and everything else they feel like it. THAT IS NOT misinformation, that is black and white written down in the ordinance.

You may want to argue that painting is "ordinary maintenance and repair" Well - ordinary maintenance and repair, does not need approval under the ordinance, unless the maintenance and repair "does not change the design, character, texture, or material of any exterior feature or constitute and alteration" (already defined above to be unlimited)

Well...maybe it doesn't apply to me because nothing historic happened on my property, and my house is an ugly non-historic Jim Weekly home built in the 50's after the original bungalow burned down! Wrong again. If you are within the historic district, then the whole thing applies to you. That is located on page 5 of the ordinance 33-202 "scope"

What is potentially really scary in the ordinance??? I will tell you. The ordinance can potentially be applied retroactively. You see the ordinance applies to the "site" and as defined "site" includes buildings and structures whether ruined, demolished, or relocated where the location retains historical, architectural, or archaeological value and integrity. But what could they do to the site??? They could require you to restore it! Under enforcement - 33-203(a) reads that "the city attorney may institute any legal action necessary to enforce this article or enjoin or otherwise cause the abatement of any violations hereof, including legal action necessary to recover damages, or REQUIRE RESTORATION OR RECONSTRUCTION" (This is admittedly a stretch, and I dont think they would require a person to tear down their new house and put the old one back...but the point is that you dont actually KNOW what they will do....its not in YOUR CONTROL, its in the control of a bunch of people who want to control your property, who are APPOINTED, not elected by the Mayor, who has already clearly stated her agenda, and is intentionally trying to ramrod this through without public opinion)

So, what its just money right? Wrong - the poster above who stated it was a misdemeanor, A CRIME, was correct. Dont ask me how, I really do not understand how they could reach so far, but they have - it will be a CRIME, a misdemeanor, punishable by a minimum of $50 and not more than $500 for each violation found. Not only that, each day that the violation remains uncorrected is a NEW crime....Example. You paint your house Tan on a Saturday - the powers that be decide they dont like tan. They tell you its not historic, make it white. Then they fine you $500 on Monday when they find out You say what a crock of doo doo....but you have a job, and can only paint on the weekends....so you decide to fix it on Saturday...well thats a costly mistake, but Tuesday-Friday are all separate new violations...that delay could potentially cost you $2500 because they dont like the color you chose.

Well...Im not in a historic district now, Im West of Ashland, so I am safe right? - Wrong - the ordinance allows the city council to designate (without chance for objection) buildings, structures, objects, sites, landmarks, and historic districts. They can do it as they see fit, when they feel like it, and you do not get to object in any real way....that is on page 10 "Division 3, Sec 33-221 "Designation" When instigated by the HAHC, you caat comment on it. When instigated by the homeowners you need 67% but when done by HAHC, nothing. They decide, because they know better than you what is good for your property. You are just too stupid to know what you should like.

So, what if you like the ordinance, and you just want to do some minor work that will require a permit - Everything that requires a permit requires inspection (except emergency repairs, which will still need to be certified as compliant afterward, and corrected if deemed inappropriate)

Well you will need plans drawn up to submit, or you will have to offer a photo with detailed instructions and materials of the changes to be made. That costs money and then they have 35 days minimum and as long as 70 days to decide on your application. If they reject it, you can resubmit and their time line starts over.

That is just some of the highlights in this joke of an ordinance...there are many more that I did not take the time to highlight.

The bottom line is that the ordinance, as written can control EVERY aspect of the outside of the house. It specifically exempts the inside of the home for the time being. It allows for massive expansion of areas as they deem fit, simply by having HAHC, in HAHC's own opinion decide that the area is historic.

None of this is MISINFORMATION, its all in the ordinance....look it up yourself.

There's a lot of discussion about property rights, but what about when an owner's right to do what he/she wants with his/her property infringes on my property rights to continue to enjoy my property and what I bought into, which was a historic neighborhood.

It is legally impossible, 100% impossible for my property to infringe upon your rights, if it does not cross your property boundary, or cause a legal nusiance. Your rights END at your property line. You do not get to say what I do on my side, anymore than I get to say what you do on your side. If that were not the case I would just force you to move, because I don't like your attitude and your snobby feelings of entitlement encroaching upon my enjoyment of my property.

This designation of historic has been done AFTER everyone bought without our input. It materially affects the value of our property, and is a taking of our private property rights.

[OutfieldDan]

Wow! Lots of inaccurate information here and a seemingly lack of desire to have accurate information or, at the very least, to dismiss accurate information when it is offered.

Here are some facts: additions will still be allowed, there's nothing about paint color, most requests get approved by historic commission, demolitions of dilapidated property get approved now and will continue to get approved, there are tax incentives for improvements and they will continue, new construction will still be allowed. That's just a start on the facts.

There's a lot of discussion about property rights, but what about when an owner's right to do what he/she wants with his/her property infringes on my property rights to continue to enjoy my property and what I bought into, which was a historic neighborhood.

A small group of builders and realtors who don't even live in Houston Heights are behind the inaccurate information and fear mongering. That is not surprising.

BTW, Nicholson is not in any historic district.

Here are some specific facts and information about the meeting last night:

1. Additions must be approved by HAHC. If they don't like your addition, it's NOT approved. If the addition is visible from the street you may not be able to construct it at all.

2. At last night's meeting it was said that painting your home is OK. However the language is broad enough to allow HAHC to require approval for painting. It seemed last night that they attempted to placate the audience about paint, but in the future HAHC could include paint color in their subjective decisions. One comment from the floor was from a Historic District resident who was DENIED by HAHC to replace his light fixture on his porch. Information provided last night also concerned appropriate window replacements if a homeowner wanted to upgrade to be more energy efficient, and of course HAHC must approve your windows. All windows must be appropriate to the historic look and choices are limited and more expensive in the marketplace.

3. Most requests do NOT get approved by HAHC. Eventually the property owner relents because there is NO option. I would like to see the statistics of approvals of plans as proposed by the homeowner.

4. Demolitions of dilapidated property get approved now and will continue to get approved. This is false. Very few demolitions are approved and very few will be approved in the future under the new law.

5. Tax incentives are limited to a portion of city taxes (small part of total property tax), expire after 15 years, and apply only if the homeowner spends a large amount for restoration. There is no tax break for living in a historic district, or for improving your home unless you spend more than $50,000.

6. New construction will NOT be allowed unless the HAHC approves of it. If your home burns down you will NOT be allowed to rebuild it without a certificate of appropriateness and you will be required to change your home design to be appropriate historically. As an example it was mentioned last night by a HAHC representative that in the Heights, porches would be required and flat roofs that exist now on many commercial properties will be prohibited.

FWIW, the meeting format did not allow anyone who attended the opportunity to speak We could only pose a "question" to be answered by Lovell or her minions. Despite the rules, some did interrupt from the floor and expressed their opinions - which were ALL critical of the new rules. The only questions being answered concerned new procedures until someone interruped from the floor and requested that the "tough questions" be answered. Later, comments from the floor were ignored. It was mentioned that many of the questions were not questions, but instead statements of opinion, and these were discarded with no comments to the audience. Apparently the idea that the meetings are to gauge public reaction is false and instead the design of the meetings is to supress the public's reaction. I guess that there were 200-300 that attended.

Apparently attendees will have to be more disruptive at the next few meetings to get their opinions heard.

Edited July 28, 2010 by OutfieldDan

[SCDesign]

For those of you that didn't go to the meeting last night, which is probably everyone, here is what happened:

First and most important: there were only about 300 people there in an auditorium that probably seats 2,000. Of those 300 probably 250 were against this ordinance. The pictures are going to show a mostly empty venue that will be perfect proof that the public really isn't all that worked up about this issue. If people are against this they need to turn out to these meeting!

This meeting was just about what is being proposed but they did not want to talk about specific areas. They will talk about specific areas when they hold the area meetings. They did take written questions and are supposed to post teh questions and answers in the City website this week. Of course they downplay the impact of the Ordinance but they did everything they could to NOT be specific about what it actually will do.

Highlights:

1) The idea of getting your signature off of the petition, and stopping the designation, is dead. Marleen said that the Planning Committee meeting for the Distric submittal was last week and it was approved by them and sent with support to the City Council. They will not withdraw support or request its removal from the Agenda, so next week it will be named a Historic District

2) They will not do a re-petition. Period. They MAY do a mailed out ballot to remove Historic Designations from districts if it is clear that there is significant oppositions, which will be determined in an as yet undetermined manner. Since they do not believe there was any fraud in the petition process they do not believe there will be fraud in a ballot process, so they are sure that the ballots will be an honest process and there will be no reason for extrordinay measures to insure the it is fair.

3) Preserving the DISTRICT is paramount so everythng in the district will require HAHC inspection. Any work requiring a permit must get a CoA before the permit is issued, on all strucutures whether contributing or not. If your new house burns down you will not be allowed to rebuild the same structure if it is deemed not compatible, you will have to design a new compatible structure, regardless of the number of non contributing structures on your block.

REALLY SCARY! Marleen said, when people protested that this change was not what they agreed to when they signed the petition, that Preservation is a process that must be taken in steps and that the signers should have realized that what they were signing was just the beginning. Each change is a step toward their ultimate goal of preserviing Houston and this is just another step. If this is just another step WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP?

Ending the meeting Sue restated that this is something she supports and will fight for, but she does want to hear what everyone wants to say. When someone shouted "THIS IS ZONING, IT NEEDS A REFORENDUM!" She shouted back "NOT IT IS NOT AND THERE WILL BE NO REFORENDUM!"

If anyone else was there please add anything that I forgot, and correct me if you find anything that I am wrong about.

One last thing: the turnout was pathetic! If people are really against this there need to be a hell of a lot more showing up. I don't think even 1,000 per meeting will be enough to make them do a new ballot. It's going to take THOUSANDS who are vocal, intelligent and serious to get their attention.

Oh, and I'm sure everyone will be happy to note that the rep from the City Attorney's Office said, basically, "we can't stop people from suing over this, and we expect it, but we do not feel it will be overturned so we are prepared to fight (with your money)"

Edited July 28, 2010 by SCDesign

[heights]

Have there been any mainstream media stories about this issue and the potential consequences?

[Marksmu]

Oh, and I'm sure everyone will be happy to note that the rep from the City Attorney's Office said, basically, "we can't stop people from suing over this, and we expect it, but we do not feel it will be overturned so we are prepared to fight (with your money)"

Well - Being that I am an attorney, I own a house effected by the ordinance, and I dont have to pay my own fees, I can fight it relatively cheaply. If it passes, I will sue....I would need to get plenty of evidence, which could be provided by realtors and builders, but I am not going to sit back and let a bunch of bureaucrats destroy my investments so they can live in their personal utopia where they can control everything they want.

I'm sick of more and more government intrusion, this just takes it much much farther. Its sickening to think that I am forced to pay taxes to support these idiots agenda! We are certainly getting what we voted for this time around...

[SCDesign]

Well - Being that I am an attorney, I own a house effected by the ordinance, and I dont have to pay my own fees, I can fight it relatively cheaply. If it passes, I will sue....I would need to get plenty of evidence, which could be provided by realtors and builders, but I am not going to sit back and let a bunch of bureaucrats destroy my investments so they can live in their personal utopia where they can control everything they want.

I'm sick of more and more government intrusion, this just takes it much much farther. Its sickening to think that I am forced to pay taxes to support these idiots agenda! We are certainly getting what we voted for this time around...

I have a very good friend who is a Real Estate attorney and he said this might just make him go into litigation. He kind of drooled as he said "class action"

[jamesw]

I too am not too happy about this. I recently bought a house in the Historic District (moved over from Pinelawn) and it has a set of double doors from the second story ONTO NOTHING. I guess the builder ran out of money... I've been thinking of either adding a deck or deck/port cachere up there but that would require a CoA. Since it's on the side of the house, would I get one????

Anyhow, at first I was not worried about it because my housing is a Non Contributing Structure. But now that is all getting tossed out the window! I guess if this passes, I can just ask the city for the money back that I just spent on this house which is Non Contributing but I will STILL be prohibited from remodeling....argh!

Cheers

James

[SCDesign]

I too am not too happy about this. I recently bought a house in the Historic District (moved over from Pinelawn) and it has a set of double doors from the second story ONTO NOTHING. I guess the builder ran out of money... I've been thinking of either adding a deck or deck/port cachere up there but that would require a CoA. Since it's on the side of the house, would I get one????

Anyhow, at first I was not worried about it because my housing is a Non Contributing Structure. But now that is all getting tossed out the window! I guess if this passes, I can just ask the city for the money back that I just spent on this house which is Non Contributing but I will STILL be prohibited from remodeling....argh!

Cheers

James

James, as of now you don't need a CoA so if you are planning on doing it in the next year you should go ahead and get a permit. If you have a permit they can't take it back or stop you doing the work. A permit is good for a year, and you can get an extension for another 6 months with no problem. That's not the point, I know, but... After this passes you'll probably have a better chance of removing the door and patching the hole than doing a balcony or porta cochere.

[Marksmu]

I have a very good friend who is a Real Estate attorney and he said this might just make him go into litigation. He kind of drooled as he said "class action"

Well, there is a very certain set of circumstances that will make this work. Only a builder, or an individual wishing to build is going to really be able to meet the requirements set forth in statute in order to make their claims ripe.

There is a VERY similar case out of dallas that speaks to the ripeness issue, TCI West End Inc. v. City of Dallas....274 S.W.3d 913

Essentially your claim for a regulatory taking via inverse condemnation is not ripe until the city denies the permit, and the HAHC denies your plans. Then you essentially have to request a variance. Once they deny the variance, then and only then is your claim ripe to even be able to sue.

If the city wants to, they can pick/choose the cases...if by chance they think the person applying wont sue, or does not have the funds to sue then they can deny...if they feel that the person will sue and has funds they can grant the variances, and allow the construction. If they grant everything prior to it becoming ripe, they can essentially pick/choose who gets into court, and who gets to build.

After researching the regulatory taking in Texas, I am certain that a case can be made that this ordinance is a taking...the unfortunate side is that the person who wants to try to overturn this is essentially going to have put out the funds to have plans made, apply for permits and run the whole HAHC horse race, be denied, and then apply for the variance, be denied...then they can sue. That is quite a few steps to just get into the courtroom over something this outrageous.

James (SCDESIGN is correct for now...if it passes) As to just putting a porch on the side of your house...(Im guessing your on Ashland at 14th - I have seen a house that has such a feature there) it would appear that all you have to do is take pictures of it now...make up plans for what Jmyou want to do, have an artist rendering or sketch completed, give them a list of materials and the costs, and then apply through the HAHC. If they deny you can go for a variance, if they deny again, you can sue.

Its going to come down to a homeowner angry enough and with enough money who is willing to take this on. It would be good if it were a builder, who actually wants to build the house, already owns the lot, has a set of plans...then we could drum up community support to pay expenses of suit and get this thing declared a regulatory taking.

It only takes one good case to set the precedent, and the city will have to follow it from then on. It just needs to be set up right from the get go. It would not be good to get a bad case as precedent as the first case to try the ordinance.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Marksmu

[jamesw]

SC: very good point. All of this has REALLY got me thinking about applying for a permit.

The thing is, I might just do away with the driveway completely (I have a corner lot w/ garage access from the sidestreet) and build one room upstairs and one downstairs where the driveway goes along w/ the house. That would be considered an addition on the side of the house and I can see the commission having a problem w/ that even if I make it look VERY good (wrap the porch around, use appropriate style and materials, etc).

It's just so frustrating that this can get passed w/ no public vote, no re-petition, etc. How is that possible????

Cheers

James