The Heights Historic Districts

[SCDesign]

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.

I'll volunteer to do the plans and make all of the submittals, at my expense, for anyone who would like to take it on. I have 200+ plans that I've drawn over the last 10 years, specifically for the Heights, so that's not problem. Most of them have already been built so there would be pictures to show the end product, and a couple have been nominated for Community Improvement Awards by the Heights Association. I don't have the land though so I can't be the principle. How would it look to have an award nominated plan submitted and rejected? I did a very nice Italinate Victorian on the corner of 13th and Columbia that was built 2 years ago that would be a perfect plan to start with: not too big, hugely Victorian and exactly what people think of when they think of the Heights.

[Krol]

Right off the top of my head, there's a bungalow in the 1400 block of Arlington which is currently being expanded (width and total square footage). The plans were approved by the historic commission. There's another bungalow in the 1800 block of Arlington that is currently for sale that was also expanded. These plans were also approved by the commission. Go take a look. 80% of applications to the commission get approved.

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?

[Heights Homeowner]

SC, you are absolutely dead on about this ordinance and what it means as well as about the city. It was clear on Tuesday night that their intention is to chip away at our property rights. Marlene Gafrick, the Planning Director said that their plan was to "incrementally make the ordinance more restrictive" and that has been the plan all along. Sharie Beale said so in a HAHC meeting two years ago. She also said in an email to keep it quiet because they were still collecting signatures. This is local government over stepping and not caring how they do it.

Heights residents have a lot to be worried about.

[SilverJK]

Ok so I bought my house almost a year ago, on the edge of Woodland Heights. We aren't currently in the limits of the "historic district" but they will probably deem my block as part of it soon enough (Pecore). One of the main reasons we invested in this 'hood was because of the eccleticism and randomness of it. I guess Mayor Parker disagrees.

If someone puts together some good signs, I would love to post one in my front yard. (Pecore is pretty high traffic)

Also, if this rediculousness gets passed, maybe all non supporters should paint a purple/limegreen/orange stripe on our houses the day before it goes into effect. (or some other similar slap in the face).

This power grab literally makes me sick. Get off my lawn!

[TheNiche]

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.

Why not instigate, follow through on the process, and sue the City yourself, leveraging your professional skills to keep your costs under control?

After all...you've mentioned several times how you had intended to knock down your rent house in the historic district, presumably to build something new in its place, whether for your enjoyment or for economic gain. Surely you could demonstrate an impairment so severe that it might constitute a regulatory taking.

Challenging constitutionality is a losing battle. You know it, too, which is why you aren't volunteering your case as the guinea pig. ...or perhaps its because you poisoned the potential for a good case by admitting elsewhere on the forum that you intended to demolish it with or without the necessary authorizations, which could be interpreted as flaunting your intent to commit a crime. (That was really dumb, btw.)

Edited July 29, 2010 by TheNiche

[jamesw]

For those worried about expanding their houses in a historic district, have a look at the design guide for the Historic Heights:

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/houston_heights_design_guide.html

Before I read that I was definitely worried, but it clears up a LOT of misinformation that's been posted here. For example, you CAN add on to the side of your house, not just the back.

Cheers

James

[Marksmu]

Why not instigate, follow through on the process, and sue the City yourself, leveraging your professional skills to keep your costs under control?

After all...you've mentioned several times how you had intended to knock down your rent house in the historic district, presumably to build something new in its place, whether for your enjoyment or for economic gain. Surely you could demonstrate an impairment so severe that it might constitute a regulatory taking.

Challenging constitutionality is a losing battle. You know it, too, which is why you aren't volunteering your case as the guinea pig. ...or perhaps its because you poisoned the potential for a good case by admitting elsewhere on the forum that you intended to demolish it with or without the necessary authorizations, which could be interpreted as flaunting your intent to commit a crime. (That was really dumb, btw.)

I am fairly confident that a strong case of regulatory taking can be made...and yes I do have a rental house in the historic district that is not historic, and it was bought with the express purpose of possibly knocking it down and building a new one, but not a spec home for someone else...you see if you go back to the original posts I have on HAIF (3 years ago), I bought a new home in 2007 that had significant builder defects. I was having a very difficult time getting the builder to make the required repairs. I bought the older house, and renovated the inside with the thought that if my builder does not remedy my problems and instead exercises his unilateral option to simply purchase the home back instead of repairing it (as was provided by the TRCC) then I would simply live there until I had a set of plans and then knock it down and build a new one. As it turns out my builder stepped up to the plate and went above and beyond in repairing my house. So I rent the other house. Its not in great shape structurally, it has old house issues, but aesthetically it is quite pleasing on the inside.

I have had zero problems renting the house, and I am not a builder or speculator...I did not buy it thinking I would later knock it down and build a spec house...I bought it thinking I may have to make it my home at some point..and property at the time was not getting any cheaper, and I had pulled all my money out of the stock market (anticipating the declines that come with a Democrat presidency) leading up to the 2008 election, which is when I bought the property. Its been a good investment to date, I see no point in pulling out now...its been a winner.

I would gladly offer my professional time/energy at no charge to defeat the ordinance, but at the moment I do not have the need or desire to kick out a very nice renter, design a new house, have the plans drawn, go through the hassle of building, and then try to sell a spec home...I am sure there is money to be made doing that, but I am not in that position or looking to be in that position. I am not a builder and I am not looking to move...but I am an attorney, and I am willing to offer my time/energy to help someone else do exactly what I would have to do if I needed to build a new home.

As I stated before - to make your claim ripe, you have to be actually trying to do what is expressly forbidden by the ordinance I am not trying at the moment....A builder who has a lot they are trying to build on, with a set of plans that will get rejected is in a much better place than I am....I'm offering an expensive legal service free of charge to somebody who wants to challenge the ordinance. They have nothing to lose by letting me fight the ordinance for them...worst case scenario we lose, and the builder is back where he was before the suit. The only thing lost is time....If the plaintiff wins, the only thing won is the right to build...or minimal compensation for the actual taking of the rights....Its not going to be about money, its going to be about principal and property rights.

The current Texas Regulatory Taking test is below:

Texas courts, on a case-by-case basis, have employed several general tests to determine whether a compensable governmental taking has occurred under the provisions of the Texas Constitution, such as: (1) whether the governmental entity has imposed a burden on private real property which creates a disproportionate diminution in economic value or renders the property wholly useless,

(2) whether the governmental action against the owner's real property interest is for its own advantage,²² or

(3) whether the governmental action constitutes an unreasonable and direct physical or legal restriction or interference with the owner's right to use and enjoy the property.23

I believe that numbers a person can offer evidence satisfying all three tests, especially number three. The restrictions certainly dont make a property useless, they just make it less valuable...

[AtticaFlinch]

What I don't understand, and what I still don't understand even despite all the back and forth in this thread, is why the City is choosing to make their stand in the Heights with mostly residential wood frame houses, especially when it's obvious the neighborhood with the most real historical value is the near East End, directly across 59 from Downtown, which is still full of turn of the century brick clad warehouses.

Oh well. At least it's good to see Heights residents getting worked up about something actually relevant to their lives instead of whether or not a Walmart builds nearby.

[Marksmu]

For those worried about expanding their houses in a historic district, have a look at the design guide for the Historic Heights:

http://www.houstontx...sign_guide.html

Before I read that I was definitely worried, but it clears up a LOT of misinformation that's been posted here. For example, you CAN add on to the side of your house, not just the back.

Cheers

James

You CAN add to the side if the HAHC decides to allow you. That guideline takes your neighbors home into account before allowing you to do additions. If your addition would be larger than the neighbors or the blocks, then you will get rejected. The ordinance also requires your addition to use materials that are historic.

A reading of that guideline with the ordinance, makes one believe that if your house is currently historic, and has hardi plank siding you recently replaced, but you wish to make an addition, then the whole house would have to be resided with wood siding which is what is approved by the HAHC. Hardi Plank is expressly forbidden by the ordinance.

You should still be worried, we still have a very subjective HAHC deciding who gets to do what additions on a case by case basis, with no real avenue of appeal. You are no longer in control of your own property - a board of people who are obsessed with arbitrary control now gets to decide for you.

[jamesw]

I received an email from the Senior Planner - Historic Preservation stating that under the amended ordinance Hardi Plank and Vinyl Windows will now be considered "appropriate."

The point about considering the other houses on the block is a good one though as there is a small 2-1 bungalow next door. But then again, if I lived next door, I wouldn't want to look out the window at a giant exterior wall of someone else's house.

Cheers

James

[SCDesign]

Right off the top of my head, there's a bungalow in the 1400 block of Arlington which is currently being expanded (width and total square footage). The plans were approved by the historic commission. There's another bungalow in the 1800 block of Arlington that is currently for sale that was also expanded. These plans were also approved by the commission. Go take a look. 80% of applications to the commission get approved.

I designed and built the house on the 1800 block of Arlington so I'm glad you used that as an example. You CAN get plans approved for additions and expansions in the Historic Districts. I've done it a dozen times. The problem is that everytime I do it there is a laundry list of "suggestions" that they make in order for staff to recommend the plan for approval by the committee. Changes that are significant and costly and usually force substantial redesign and compromise by the owner. On this house they wanted the cantilever on the south side removed because "they didn't do cantilevers on the original structure". Without that cantilever I could not have a bedroom there, which would have forced me to remove one of the other bedrooms or redesign the whole thing. With this house I was fortunate enough to have a beautiful tree that I was trying to save and I was able to threaten to cut down the tree in order to force a compromise. On a number of other plans the only chip that I had to play was "you can let me do this and I'll do most of the other things that you want, or I'll wait 90 day and do what I want. Care to deal?" WIth this ordinance we lose that barganing position, even the ability to threaten cutting down a tree since they can control your whole lot, and the HAHC will have no reason to ever be reasonable or compromise.

As for your 80% number, if you include all of the applications for changing windows, porch rails, and all the little things that you are forced to ask permission to do now, than yeah, 80% is about right. Also, consider that the staff will discourage you from letting a submittal get to the committee unless that are going to recommend it for approval or you are submitting a plan knowing it will be rejected and are just starting the 90 day clocsk. Most plans get stopped well before they get to the committee.

Edited July 29, 2010 by SCDesign

[chester77008]

You CAN add to the side if the HAHC decides to allow you. That guideline takes your neighbors home into account before allowing you to do additions. If your addition would be larger than the neighbors or the blocks, then you will get rejected. The ordinance also requires your addition to use materials that are historic.

A reading of that guideline with the ordinance, makes one believe that if your house is currently historic, and has hardi plank siding you recently replaced, but you wish to make an addition, then the whole house would have to be resided with wood siding which is what is approved by the HAHC. Hardi Plank is expressly forbidden by the ordinance.

You should still be worried, we still have a very subjective HAHC deciding who gets to do what additions on a case by case basis, with no real avenue of appeal. You are no longer in control of your own property - a board of people who are obsessed with arbitrary control now gets to decide for you.

The question of adding to the side of your house is a very important one that is being ignored by planning, they have yet to answer the question. The ordinance requires that any addition be able to be removed at a later date to return the bungalow to its original state. Therefore, if you add to the side and modify the roof line of the bungalow the HAHC will not approve. If you add to the width of the bungalow at the rear, they will approve. They want additions to be obvious additions, thus leaving the bungalow in its original state.

[SCDesign]

I received an email from the Senior Planner - Historic Preservation stating that under the amended ordinance Hardi Plank and Vinyl Windows will now be considered "appropriate."

The point about considering the other houses on the block is a good one though as there is a small 2-1 bungalow next door. But then again, if I lived next door, I wouldn't want to look out the window at a giant exterior wall of someone else's house.

Cheers

James

James,

You can do an addition to the side of your house, and to the back as well, but it will have to be considered appropriate and approved. The HAHC will not generally allow you to do additions to the side that can be seen from the street. The number that is generally thrown around it "40 feet from the front edge of the structure" as far enough back to not affect the look from the street. You can do it closer if you are doing something that could have originally been done on the house, like a small bay window or nook. Since most bungalows in the Heights are about 40' deep you are basically forced to add to the back of the house.

There was a really nice plan submitted by Brickmoon Architects for a house in the 1800 block of Cortland that was rejected not because of the addition to the back but because of the dormered bay with a covered porch that they wanted to add to the dining area (if you have a bungalow you know where that is, about 15 feet from the front corner). It was a shame because the house would have been beautiful the way it was. I don't know if they found a way to work around it but I didn't see how they could have made it work with that space. It was rejected late last year and they haven't started work yet so they may not have been able to.

NOTE: I don't know the people at Brickmoon and do not know their position on this ordinance. I think they are very talented and like a lot of the things that they design but I know very little about them. I'm stating an example of something that I witnessed at an HAHC meeting.

[s3mh]

The ordinance also requires your addition to use materials that are historic.

Hardi Plank is expressly forbidden by the ordinance.

Do you have the section nos. for these? I cannot find what you are describing.

[Marksmu]

Do you have the section nos. for these? I cannot find what you are describing.

Sec. 33-241 - requires any exterior modification or addition to use the same material...unless they change the wording, hardi plank is forbidden, it was not invented until well after the original homes were constructed.

"The proposed design for any exterior alterations or addition must not destroy significant historical, architectural, or cultural material, and must be compatible with the size, scale, material, and character of the property, and the area in which it is located"

I am not trying to be dishonest, or sell misinformation in an effort to defeat this...its all in the ordinance....the worst part of the whole ordinance is the only part of your home they cannot control, by the open and vague wording they intentionally used is the interior. Everything else, even the landscaping can easily fall within the wording of the ordinance.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Marksmu

[s3mh]

Sec. 33-241 - requires any exterior modification or addition to use the same material...unless they change the wording, hardi plank is forbidden, it was not invented until well after the original homes were constructed.

"The proposed design for any exterior alterations or addition must not destroy significant historical, architectural, or cultural material, and must be compatible with the size, scale, material, and character of the property, and the area in which it is located"

I am not trying to being dishonest, or sell misinformation in an effort to defeat this...its all in the ordinance....the worst part of the whole ordinance is the only part of your home they cannot control, by the open and vague wording they intentionally used is the interior. Everything else, even the landscaping can easily fall within the wording of the ordinance.

It says "compatible with" not "identical to". The term "compatible" assumes that you have two things that are not identical. Of course, left to the subjective determination of the HAHC, hardi-plank may be determined to not be compatible with wood siding (beveled, 117 or otherwise). Thus, I think it is a fair criticism that there is substantial ambiguity, which, in turn, gives HAHC too much discretion. But, that could be remedied by establishing clear guidelines. I am just afraid that legitimate criticism is loosing way to arguments that push the language of the ordinances beyond their logical limits.

[poyea]

It says "compatible with" not "identical to". The term "compatible" assumes that you have two things that are not identical. Of course, left to the subjective determination of the HAHC, hardi-plank may be determined to not be compatible with wood siding (beveled, 117 or otherwise). Thus, I think it is a fair criticism that there is substantial ambiguity, which, in turn, gives HAHC too much discretion. But, that could be remedied by establishing clear guidelines. I am just afraid that legitimate criticism is loosing way to arguments that push the language of the ordinances beyond their logical limits.

The problem with this is that, as Sue Lovell pointed out Tuesday night, is all city ordinances are "fluid", and they all change over time. THAT to me is the largest problem. I signed up for a 90-day wait period and I'd guess most people try to adapt to what HAHC suggests and/or make a good initial attempt to come up with compatable additions, etc. But, this potential to amend ordinances over time bothers the heck out of me.

Another problem that I have is that Lovell said they would gauge the opposition at the various district meetings and IF they sensed enough opposition, she said they would be willing to go through with the mailings process for another vote. How many people is that? 2, 5, 10, 100? How do WE demand that another vote be taken? Because my guess is that it wouldn't pass with these currect provisions. And, if they do water them down now, they can always change them later. Let the residents vote on it initially, and let them vote again for any proposed amendments in the future.

One last question for you HAIFers: Is there some sort of financial incentives for the City to enlarge the historic districts? (i.e. Federal grants, funding, etc). Just curious, but it sure smells like money around here.

[chester77008]

If you have been ignoring this subject you had better wake up...here is a quote from a pro-preservation ordinance website.

"IN THE WORKS!

Areas currently preparing Historic Designation applications to be submitted after the deadline expires are: Independence Heights, Brook Smith, Germantown and Lower Heights. If you are interested in securing Historic Designation for your area, click here. "

I don't even know what "Lower Heights" is but apparently it is historic.

[SCDesign]

I have an interesting find buried in this ordinance that was just pointed out to me, and those of you who think there are not serious political games being played think about this one: structures designated as Histoiric Landmarks that are outside of Historic Districts will STILL BE ELIGABLE FOR THE 90 DAY WAIVER!! Why is this significant you ask? What neighborhood in Houston has the largest concentration of truely architecturally significant houses? I mean, when you think of Historic houses by major architects in this City, where would they be located? RIVER OAKS, right? There are more historic landmarks there than in any neighborhood in the City, so wouldn't it make sense to name it as a Historic District if you REALLY wanted to preserve Houston's history?

What do YOU think would happen if River Oaks was named a Historic District under this ordinance? How long would it take for every politician in the City to feel how unhappy the residents of that neighborhood are about the restrictions this Ordinance imposes? Well, now they don't need to worry about it because that neighborhood can point to all of the Historic Landmarks they are preserving and have a pretty good argument as to why the SHOUDLN'T be a Historic District. But wait! If they want to tear a Historic Landmark all they have to do is make application and WAIT 90 DAY AFTER TEHY ARE DENIED AND THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT! Wnat to tear down a John Staub 1938 Historic Landmark in River Oaks? That's okay, HAHC won't stand in the way. Want to tear down a 1,200 sq.ft. Sear Bungalow in the Heights? NO WAY, it's too Historically Significant to the neighborhood.

If they ram this through we need to DEMAND that River Oak be named a Historic District!

[Krol]

James,

Indeed. Information is the key. We've heard of people who went to the Tuesday night meeting who went home and quickly removed the signs they had from that realtor group that is trying to derail the Heights South application. It seems someone has obtained the list of the members of that group. It's all realtors from the big realty firms (yep, all the names you would think of) and builders, including Tricon. Wonder if that list will go public...

For those worried about expanding their houses in a historic district, have a look at the design guide for the Historic Heights:

http://www.houstontx...sign_guide.html

Before I read that I was definitely worried, but it clears up a LOT of misinformation that's been posted here. For example, you CAN add on to the side of your house, not just the back.

Cheers

James

[chester77008]

James,

Indeed. Information is the key. We've heard of people who went to the Tuesday night meeting who went home and quickly removed the signs they had from that realtor group that is trying to derail the Heights South application. It seems someone has obtained the list of the members of that group. It's all realtors from the big realty firms (yep, all the names you would think of) and builders, including Tricon. Wonder if that list will go public...

Krol,

The "list" is public information. Go ask for it, call the City Secretary, it's just a google away, it will be ready for pick-up in about 4 days and it costs $57.

The Planning Department is currently scanning the question cards that are being collected at the evening public meetings in order to maintain transparency on the issue. They will be posted on the City of Houston website soon, so then you will have two sources of accurate information on the subject. This is an open process, the homeowners put their names on these cards.

Go pull the records and you can see who signed the petitions and who is now against. You will be surprised at what you see, this is not about old v. new, this is about homeowner rights. For example, 21% of those who signed the south heights district petitions live in new homes. This is very significant when you keep in mind that only 51% of the vote was required. That means a swing of 8 houses can make or break a district, which it did. There were almost 100 new homes that signed in the south district alone.

There are also MANY homeowners in restored homes that signed before and are now against.

Both sides love old houses. The issue here is the new ordinance. The current proposed ordinance goes from one extreme to the other. From "90 day waiver" to "no means no".

[Marksmu]

James,

Indeed. Information is the key. We've heard of people who went to the Tuesday night meeting who went home and quickly removed the signs they had from that realtor group that is trying to derail the Heights South application. It seems someone has obtained the list of the members of that group. It's all realtors from the big realty firms (yep, all the names you would think of) and builders, including Tricon. Wonder if that list will go public...

Krol,

Your post is nothing but propoganda and scare tactics. I posted a list of MANY of the problems with the ordinance, I quoted from the ordinance word for word so you would not even have to go look it up, and your response is .....(crickets chirping)...oh thats right, you did not respond to it in any way. Instead you think you will gain support by saying that its evil Realtors and builders who are against this and everyone else has just been mislead....its not. Im neither a Realtor nor a builder... I am an ordinary person who will be negatively impacted by this power grab. This ordinance is terrible....People are tired of empty promises coming from talking heads - they want the truth. The truth is written in the ordinance for anyone who is not too lazy to download it and read it.

You go dropping evil names like Tricon, thinking you will pick up all the support of those who hate Tricon, while you are trying to hide the real facts of the ordinance, such as these FACTS

1. The ordinance CAN dictate color of your house, despite what is said in the meeting. It is WRITTEN in the ordinance.

2. The ordinance CAN dictate materials used in repairs/maintenance/new builds, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance

3. The ordinance CAN dictate what type of light fixtures you put on the outside of the house, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance

4. The ordinance CAN dictate whether or not you can expand your home, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance

5. The ordinance CAN dictate what plants you put in your front yard, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance

6. The ordinance CAN dictate what color, what type, where you put a fence, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance

The ordinance as it is written can dictate absolutely everything about your house that can be seen from the road. The only thing the ordinance SPECIFICALLY exempts from control is the inside of the house. EVERYTHING else can be controlled by the intentionally vague wording used by the ordinance.

My posts are FACTS, they are not propaganda, they are not misinformation, they are not scary names like Tricon or George Bush, they can be VERIFIED by simply reading the ordinance.

You are doing nothing more than trying to scare people into passing your agenda. People who are against the ordinance are against it because they want to protect their investments and private property rights. People who support the ordinance are either misled, or believe that they should be able to control every aspect of every persons lives, including what color their house is painted.

lets see you rebut something with facts this time. We are all waiting....

[jamesw]

Mark,

I agree that the ordinance is very broad. However the things you are citing are already in the ordinance NOW. It's just that people whose designs are not compatible can wait 90 days and do it anyways.

I'll make it easy for the lazy readers:

Read Section 33-236 and read Section 33-240

The underlined text is new in the ordinance and the strikethrough text will be removed.

After living in the Heights for 12 years now, I can definitely see both sides of this issue. I have lived in Proctor Plaza, Pinelawn, and now Historic Heights.

One the PRO side, I want more families in the Heights so that the schools improve (more). That means people will need houses bigger than a 2-1 bungalow.

But on the other hand, I don't want to see any more bungalows torn down and replaced with giant New Orleans Revival style homes that stretch from lot line to lot line and rise like a giant white wall from the sidewalk :-/

It seems like that is the INTENT of the ordinance, but as it is written right now, it IS very prescriptive and could potentially be very broad reaching. As it is written, almost EVERYTHING about the fate of my house would be in the hands of the HAHC board. :-(

One suggestion I would have is for section 33-240 to refer to a design guide similar to the existing guide, but with MUCH more details about what is acceptable for not just the shape of the house, but for details, etc.

Cheers

James

[s3mh]

1. The ordinance CAN dictate color of your house, despite what is said in the meeting. It is WRITTEN in the ordinance.

2. The ordinance CAN dictate materials used in repairs/maintenance/new builds, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance

3. The ordinance CAN dictate what type of light fixtures you put on the outside of the house, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance

4. The ordinance CAN dictate whether or not you can expand your home, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance

5. The ordinance CAN dictate what plants you put in your front yard, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance

6. The ordinance CAN dictate what color, what type, where you put a fence, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance

I am in agreement that the historic preservation ordinance is problematic and needs to be better defined to give people better notice of what will fly and what will be rejected in order to make the HAHC's job more mechanical and less political. I think this point in and of itself is more than enough to get City leaders to listen up and make some needed revisions. But I do not understand why we need to push arguments to the limit of credibility and possibly beyond. The HAHC has the power to approve or disapprove. They have no authority to require anyone to do anything. Sure, I guess if you have the choice between material A and material B, and the commission disapproves A, they have dictated that you have to use material B. But those instances will be very rare. The real problem is that people should have better notice of what will get approval and what won't. Maybe have a guide with certain pre-approved fixtures, materials, designs, etc. which would allow people to forgo HAHC if they use something that is pre-approved.

[Marksmu]

Mark,

I agree that the ordinance is very broad. However the things you are citing are already in the ordinance NOW. It's just that people whose designs are not compatible can wait 90 days and do it anyways.

I'll make it easy for the lazy readers:

Read Section 33-236 and read Section 33-240

The underlined text is new in the ordinance and the strikethrough text will be removed.

After living in the Heights for 12 years now, I can definitely see both sides of this issue. I have lived in Proctor Plaza, Pinelawn, and now Historic Heights.

One the PRO side, I want more families in the Heights so that the schools improve (more). That means people will need houses bigger than a 2-1 bungalow.

But on the other hand, I don't want to see any more bungalows torn down and replaced with giant New Orleans Revival style homes that stretch from lot line to lot line and rise like a giant white wall from the sidewalk :-/

It seems like that is the INTENT of the ordinance, but as it is written right now, it IS very prescriptive and could potentially be very broad reaching. As it is written, almost EVERYTHING about the fate of my house would be in the hands of the HAHC board. :-(

One suggestion I would have is for section 33-240 to refer to a design guide similar to the existing guide, but with MUCH more details about what is acceptable for not just the shape of the house, but for details, etc.

Cheers

James

I have lived in the area for 3 years now....I see both sides of the issue as well. Many nice bungalows are beautifully restored because that is what the owners wanted. They look great and the patchwork of them makes the whole area look better. But the newer big homes that are done in the New Orleans or Victorian styles also look great. Even next to smaller older homes.. Here is a good example. The old home is next to a new smaller one, which is next to, a newer big home. Nothing in this picture appears out of place or strange. Nothing about the larger home detracts from the smaller ones

I understand peoples desire for things not to change and to not want a big house next door, but at the same time it is not their right to have what they want at the expense of the owner of the property not getting what they want. If they wanted an area of town where they could control every aspect of every house, they should have bought into a neighborhood that already had deed restrictions. The heights does not have deed restrictions...the fact that it does not have them, makes the area MUCH more valuable to people who want to build a house of their dreams in a nice part of town. Many peoples dream homes don't fit the deed restrictions of suburban areas, and still others, cant afford the lot in River Oaks to put their dream home. So they are left with two areas of town West U, which is also very expensive, and the Heights...which is less expensive.

This imposition of back door deed restriction through an ordinance, is nothing short of one group of people getting their way at the expense of another group.

The HAHC would have way too much power if this ordinance passes. It will single handedly get to control every aspect of everything about the exterior of your home. Everything you would do would have to be approved. Everything.

I do not want the hassle of having to ask for permission to do everything. Its stupid. Its absurd. Its my house, not the HAHC, not my neighbors, not the city, not the state...its MINE.

Whats next? The ordinance has no limit whatsoever. They could potentially prohibit political yard signs that dont support their particular party! There is no perceivable end to the control.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Marksmu

[SCDesign]

Porchman,

HUH? I want to take offense but I honestly can't figure out what that post was about. I appreciate you posting a picture of one of my favorite houses but I don't see the relevance to my post. I'm particularly proud of that one because it was on a half lot on a corner 1 block from Shepard that had been sitting vacant for years. Nobody wanted to touch it but I was able to put up something that a family lives and people enjoy looking at. I've had more complimants from that house than pretty much any other I've built. Why don't you post some of the others? There are 3 in there that were nominated for Improvement awards by the Heights Association.

My point was that The landmarked houses in River Oaks are not subject to this ordinance. They can still be altered and demolished at the owners whim, where the little bungalows in the Heights are protected. Isn't that hypocritical? How is a bunglaow more worthy of protection than a one of a kind, truly architecturally and historically significant, landmark? Why? Because if the City tried to apply this kind of regulation on the property owners in River Oaks it would never fly. They, the Powers that be, understand that this is unpopular and unfiar to the homeowner so they went out of their way to exclude the people that have real power and money from being included.

As a tax payer I am outraged that classism is guiding our public policy so blantantly. They are usually much more subtle about screwing the plebes.

Edited July 30, 2010 by SCDesign

[SCDesign]

James,

Indeed. Information is the key. We've heard of people who went to the Tuesday night meeting who went home and quickly removed the signs they had from that realtor group that is trying to derail the Heights South application. It seems someone has obtained the list of the members of that group. It's all realtors from the big realty firms (yep, all the names you would think of) and builders, including Tricon. Wonder if that list will go public...

Krol,

Nobody is trying to hide who is affiliated with the group. Realtors, Architects and Builders are the logical people to inform everyone about what this ordinance means. There is a group of people who are pushing to have Historic Districts established and they have, in my opinion and the opinion of MANY of the people who were talked into signing the original petition, mislead the residents about what they were agreeing to. Architects, Builder and Realtors are experts on area markets and City Ordinances and they are the logical ones to tell people what this Ordinance really means. If you have a disease you ask a doctor. If you want a bridge built you talk to an engineer, and if you want to build a house you talk to a an Architect, Realtor and Builder. We are also the people that have invested our lives in these neighborhoods. Most of us live in them and are affected just like everyone else by this. All of us have invested money and years of our lives to making these areas everything that they are today; places that people are passionate about and want to live in.

[Porchman]

Porchman,

HUH? I want to take offense but I honestly can't figure out what that post was about. I appreciate you posting a picture of one of my favorite houses but I don't see the relevance to my post. I'm particularly proud of that one because it was on a half lot on a corner 1 block from Shepard that had been sitting vacant for years. Nobody wanted to touch it but I was able to put up something that a family lives and people enjoy looking at. I've had more complimants from that house than pretty much any other I've built. Why don't you post some of the others? There are 3 in there that were nominated for Improvement awards by the Heights Association.

My point was that The landmarked houses in River Oaks are not subject to this ordinance. They can still be altered and demolished at the owners whim, where the little bungalows in the Heights are protected. Isn't that hypocritical? How is a bunglaow more worthy of protection than a one of a kind, truly architecturally and historically significant, landmark? Why? Because if the City tried to apply this kind of regulation on the property owners in River Oaks it would never fly. They, the Powers that be, understand that this is unpopular and unfiar to the homeowner so they went out of their way to exclude the people that have real power and money from being included.

As a tax payer I am outraged that classism is guiding our public policy so blantantly. They are usually much more subtle about screwing the plebes.

SC, I did miss your point on this post, partially because it seems incongruent with your “everything inside the loop” and “everything inside the Beltway” rants. I don’t think it’s an issue of classism, tough. It’s largely a matter of where residents have been more active.

As far as the house is concerned, it’s not bad…for Memorial. In that, it may constructively define the issue of “compatibility”, and what the ordinance may be seeking to address. Where I believe the draft ordinance fails is its lack of setting forth that definition.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Porchman

[s3mh]

Krol,

Nobody is trying to hide who is affiliated with the group. Realtors, Architects and Builders are the logical people to inform everyone about what this ordinance means. There is a group of people who are pushing to have Historic Districts established and they have, in my opinion and the opinion of MANY of the people who were talked into signing the original petition, mislead the residents about what they were agreeing to. Architects, Builder and Realtors are experts on area markets and City Ordinances and they are the logical ones to tell people what this Ordinance really means. If you have a disease you ask a doctor. If you want a bridge built you talk to an engineer, and if you want to build a house you talk to a an Architect, Realtor and Builder. We are also the people that have invested our lives in these neighborhoods. Most of us live in them and are affected just like everyone else by this. All of us have invested money and years of our lives to making these areas everything that they are today; places that people are passionate about and want to live in.

Architects, Builders and Realtors certainly have a right to have a voice in the debate, especially those who also reside in the area. However, they also have financial interests that are not necessarily in line with what is best for the development of historic districts. Architects are afraid that people will just ask them to modify designs that have passed muster with HAHC, which will diminish the amount they can make on additions and new construction. Realtors want the largest possible commission (as that is about all they are good at, collecting their commission). Thus, they want to see as many sq ft as can fit on every lot. Builders want to do what they have always done. Use the cheapest materials and construction methods in order to make the most money. (yes, yes, I know that not all builders are that way, but builders in Houston do not have a good history).

So, architects, builders and realtors can certainly speak out and should be heard. But, we need to put their comments into proper context.

[Marksmu]

I am in agreement that the historic preservation ordinance is problematic and needs to be better defined to give people better notice of what will fly and what will be rejected in order to make the HAHC's job more mechanical and less political. I think this point in and of itself is more than enough to get City leaders to listen up and make some needed revisions. But I do not understand why we need to push arguments to the limit of credibility and possibly beyond. The HAHC has the power to approve or disapprove. They have no authority to require anyone to do anything. Sure, I guess if you have the choice between material A and material B, and the commission disapproves A, they have dictated that you have to use material B. But those instances will be very rare. The real problem is that people should have better notice of what will get approval and what won't. Maybe have a guide with certain pre-approved fixtures, materials, designs, etc. which would allow people to forgo HAHC if they use something that is pre-approved.

The ordinance specifically states that they can require you to perform a mandatory repair. It also requires that you go in front of the HAHC to get approval before doing the mandatory repair. So they can force you to do something their way. All they have to do is determine that it is a mandatory repair.

I do agree with you though that the ordinance needs specificity. Any time you have a vague rule that can be applied differently to different people you will have an unequal application of the law. When there is unequal application there is abuse, there is fraud, there are back room deals. It is everything that everyone is very sick of at this point. Not only does it need specificity, but those whose homes are affected by it should have a vote on whether or not they really want it at all. The way this has all come about has been very back room deal / dishonest. The powers that are being granted to a very partisan HAHC board are not at all what the people who casually signed the petition thought they were getting. This a vast expansion of what was promised to them.

This needs to be a very upfront, very honest, what is allowed, what is not, discussion that is then voted on by those who own the property that is being regulated...I think a super majority (66%+) will vote down the regulations.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Marksmu