The Heights Historic Districts

[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

[SCDesign]

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.

Of course money is an issue. Isn't it for you if you own a house? Increasing and preserving the value of the houses in these neighborhoods is in the best interest of EVERYONE. I don't know one homeowner that would say "I would be happy if my houses value stays the same or falls" A house is the biggest investment most people ever make and they rely on the value increasing. Who has driven the value of homes in the Heights? The builders, that's who. Who have been marketing the neighborhood and working to change it's image into a place people want to live? The realtors, that's who. Who is going to know the impact of things like this more than the people whos job it is to know? Who invest their time and money in knowing and improving these areas?

In all honesty this Historic Distric probably won't be a horrible thing for me personally, but I'm still against it. I'm one of the few designers that have real experience with doing plans for the HAHC and designing plans that will have a high likelihood of being accepted without significant redesign. I'm also one of the few builders who have real experience with restoring old homes in a way the will make the HAHC, and homeowner, happy. I'm against it because it isn't fair to homeowners to impose these regulations when they agreed to something totally different. If they put this change to a vote and it passes than I will support it because it really is what people want. They don't want to do that because it's not what they want, and the games they are playing to put their agenda through without the consent of the people most affected is what I am against.

Just a questions: Does anyone know if Sue Lovell, Anise Parker, Marlene Gafrick, Randy Pace or any of the other Counil Members or City Employees pushing this so hard live in Historic Districts? I believe Sue Lovell may own property in one of them but I don't believe she lives in one. Does anyone know?

[SCDesign]

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.

The fact that all of the specifics are not worked out is a MAJOR issue. At the meeting on Tuesday when they laid out the timeline for getting this passed by City Council by September 29, they mentioned that things needed to be worked out. They want this passed now and to be allowed to finalize everything later. Why do they need to push this through before they have all of that worked out? Slow down and give us a completed ordinance with EVERYTHING specfied. They don't want to do that becuase it's going to take a long time for them to get specific, but they want us to trust that they are going to be fair. I don't think they have earned that trust.

[Krol]

Mayor Parker lives in the Westmoreland Historic District and owns property in the OSW. She has designated her house in Westmoreland as a protected landmark. Sue Lovell stated Tuesday night that she owns property in one of the historic districts. Randy Pace resides in Houston Heights East district.

Of course money is an issue. Isn't it for you if you own a house? Increasing and preserving the value of the houses in these neighborhoods is in the best interest of EVERYONE. I don't know one homeowner that would say "I would be happy if my houses value stays the same or falls" A house is the biggest investment most people ever make and they rely on the value increasing. Who has driven the value of homes in the Heights? The builders, that's who. Who have been marketing the neighborhood and working to change it's image into a place people want to live? The realtors, that's who. Who is going to know the impact of things like this more than the people whos job it is to know? Who invest their time and money in knowing and improving these areas?

In all honesty this Historic Distric probably won't be a horrible thing for me personally, but I'm still against it. I'm one of the few designers that have real experience with doing plans for the HAHC and designing plans that will have a high likelihood of being accepted without significant redesign. I'm also one of the few builders who have real experience with restoring old homes in a way the will make the HAHC, and homeowner, happy. I'm against it because it isn't fair to homeowners to impose these regulations when they agreed to something totally different. If they put this change to a vote and it passes than I will support it because it really is what people want. They don't want to do that because it's not what they want, and the games they are playing to put their agenda through without the consent of the people most affected is what I am against.

Just a questions: Does anyone know if Sue Lovell, Anise Parker, Marlene Gafrick, Randy Pace or any of the other Counil Members or City Employees pushing this so hard live in Historic Districts? I believe Sue Lovell may own property in one of them but I don't believe she lives in one. Does anyone know?

[chester77008]

The lack of ability to do additions to a home is really starting to worry me after continued conversations with the HAHC.

For example, you would not be able to do something like the attached picture. You can add to the back of your bungalow, but not the middle as the attached photo.

Before I get slammed...I am making no comment on the looks of this house, I am just pointing out that you cant add to the middle of a bungalow.

[Krol]

The lack of ability to do additions to a home is really starting to worry me after continued conversations with the HAHC.

For example, you would not be able to do something like the attached picture. You can add to the back of your bungalow, but not the middle as the attached photo.

Before I get slammed...I am making no comment on the looks of this house, I am just pointing out that you cant add to the middle of a bungalow.

Maybe this will help. It's from the Houston Heights Historic District Guidelines that are available on the city's website. There are all kinds of ways to add on appropriately.

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/Design_Guide_Heights_District/Historic_Districts_Design_Guide_5NewAdd.pdf

[chester77008]

Maybe this will help. It's from the Houston Heights Historic District Guidelines that are available on the city's website. There are all kinds of ways to add on appropriately.

http://www.houstontx...ide_5NewAdd.pdf

Krol,

Thanks but non of those fit my situation. I don't want to add to the back of my bungalow, I want to go back about 20' from the front door and then add to the width.

[Marksmu]

Mayor Parker lives in the Westmoreland Historic District and owns property in the OSW. She has designated her house in Westmoreland as a protected landmark. Sue Lovell stated Tuesday night that she owns property in one of the historic districts. Randy Pace resides in Houston Heights East district.

Every post you have made in support of this topic has failed to rebut any of the SERIOUS issues that us homeowners have with the proposed ordinance. I don't care if some 2-bit politician also owns property in the area that is under consideration. As the ordinance is proposed there can be vastly different outcomes for different people. The ordinance is entirely subjective. For all we know these politicians already have expanded their homes, or have back room deals with the HAHC to give them a free pass.

I posted a long list of facts, that are serious problems with this ordinance. Please refute them and provide facts proving me wrong. Until then, all you have done is post emotional fluff....We have to do this to stop Tricon...I posted facts that will impact every single person in these districts. Please tell me where I have posted misinformation, and if I have correct it with a cite for your information so that people actually know what is being discussed, NOT what you want, or what a politician wants, or what you think it will be or how it is supposed to work.

If there is going to be a massive rule change in the middle of the game, the rule needs to be spelled out exactly how it will be applied, people in the game need to be given a vote, and the law needs to not be written so vaguely as to allow the HAHC to do anything they want.

[jamesw]

I've thought about this a lot over the last week. Here's my take on the ordinance, and the sides for and against the proposal:

(1) Preservationists want everything in the neighborhood to stay the same as it is now - no matter what the cost or hardship to current property owners.

(2) Developers want a very loose or no ordinance so that they can keep buying lots w/ 2+1 bungalows for $250,000 building big houses from lot line to lot line, and selling them for $650,000

(3) Current homeowners are split as they don't want either of the above, and the ordinance as it is currently written favors (1)

Right now my personal position is that I know I do NOT want 1 because I want families to keep moving to the heights (so the schools keep getting better, etc) and not be scared off by the ordinance. But I don't really want 2 either as about 2/3 of the time I'm pleased with the new-builds and how they look and "improve" the neighborhood - but the other 1/3 of the time I see a realtor/builder/developer buy up a 6,600 sf heights lot and splitting it down the middle and cramming two hideous McVic town-homes onto it.

Cheers

James

PS: does anyone else see the irony of the city "allowing" a giant wall-mart 3 blocks outside the Heights, while at the same time trying to ram-rod through these changes to the HAHC ordinance??? Hello Houston?????!!!!!

[poyea]

Why can't there be a middle ground with lot size limits, setback limits, etc. Tangible, objective characteristics so that there is no need for a weighted 13-member panel to decide what we can and can't do with OUR properties.

People, all I know is that if you don't want this, you had better show up on the 10th and speak out and demand a new vote once the rules are set.

Also, is there a way to lock down this ordinance so that no changes can be made in the future without another vote (serious question)?

[SCDesign]

Why can't there be a middle ground with lot size limits, setback limits, etc. Tangible, objective characteristics so that there is no need for a weighted 13-member panel to decide what we can and can't do with OUR properties.

People, all I know is that if you don't want this, you had better show up on the 10th and speak out and demand a new vote once the rules are set.

Also, is there a way to lock down this ordinance so that no changes can be made in the future without another vote (serious question)?

There is already a way to do this through Chapter 42. If a block wants to preserve the lot size and building line of the block all they have to do is circulate the applicationa and get 50% of the property owners to agree. At that point the City will determine the Prevailing (average) building line and lot size and from that point on no builder can violate that rule. It is very easy and most blocks in the Heights already have it. This is a very efficiant way of keeping the builders who want to build townhouses off of your block.

For the last questions: No. The existing Ordinance already states that any changes to the Ordinance have to be approved by the people it applies to, but they are throwing that out the window because it's inconvienent. They are doing it now so they will most likely find a way to do it no matter what safeguards are put in.

[TAPHouston]

Why can't there be a middle ground with lot size limits, setback limits, etc. Tangible, objective characteristics so that there is no need for a weighted 13-member panel to decide what we can and can't do with OUR properties.

People, all I know is that if you don't want this, you had better show up on the 10th and speak out and demand a new vote once the rules are set.

Also, is there a way to lock down this ordinance so that no changes can be made in the future without another vote (serious question)?

I live in North Norhill and there are objective guidelines already in place--the deed restrictions. They include set backs from the front, rear, and side lot lines, and we have a prevailing lot size to prevent the division of the lots. The historical ordinance is meant to do one thing: prevent a property owner from making any changes to the exterior of the property he owns. It has nothing to do with making sure one property use does not infringe on another's property. Those proscriptions are already in place.

[s3mh]

I have a lot of concerns with the revised ordinance. However, after talking to many neighbors, the perception is that realtors and builders are using the proposed revisions as an opportunity to undo what many fought so hard to get--protection for historic districts. Many of my neighbors were very upset when the 90 day waiver made it in to the original ordinance and are very glad to see it go.

I will need to do an addition and do a lot of exterior repairs on my 1920 bungalow. I am wary of the HAHC. However, I am afraid that the current tea party-esque "you can't tell me what to do with my land" arguments and the realtor/builder scare tactics ("they can tell you what paint to use"--they can't, "They can force you to make repairs"--City has always had that power, and look at how much it is enforced) are alienating many who would support a better version of what has been proposed. It is now an all or nothing debate. Looking at the current make up of City council, all will win the day, even with vocal opposition.

People want protection in their historic districts. What kind of protection and how it is enforced should be up for debate. But, it won't be because people are trying to make this a re-referendum on whether we should have historic districts at all. I am seeing yellow signs popping up on my street in greater numbers than the blue signs. I think the opposition has overplayed their hand with all the scare mongering and hyper-libertarianism.

[Marksmu]

I have a lot of concerns with the revised ordinance. However, after talking to many neighbors, the perception is that realtors and builders are using the proposed revisions as an opportunity to undo what many fought so hard to get--protection for historic districts. Many of my neighbors were very upset when the 90 day waiver made it in to the original ordinance and are very glad to see it go.

I will need to do an addition and do a lot of exterior repairs on my 1920 bungalow. I am wary of the HAHC. However, I am afraid that the current tea party-esque "you can't tell me what to do with my land" arguments and the realtor/builder scare tactics ("they can tell you what paint to use"--they can't, "They can force you to make repairs"--City has always had that power, and look at how much it is enforced) are alienating many who would support a better version of what has been proposed. It is now an all or nothing debate. Looking at the current make up of City council, all will win the day, even with vocal opposition.

People want protection in their historic districts. What kind of protection and how it is enforced should be up for debate. But, it won't be because people are trying to make this a re-referendum on whether we should have historic districts at all. I am seeing yellow signs popping up on my street in greater numbers than the blue signs. I think the opposition has overplayed their hand with all the scare mongering and hyper-libertarianism.

That is the problem with the back room way that this ordinance is being done. They got people to support one thing, then they perverted it. You will most likely not be able to repair or upgrade your bungalow later, or it will cost you significantly more than it would cost you to do it today. That is not intended to be a scare tactic, its the truth.

As to the scare tactics - have you ever seen people get fired up, excited and mad and show up over something that had a marginal impact on their life? No - People only get excited and stand up when something is absolutely terrible. If it were just an inconvenience nobody would be opposing it. It is not an inconvenience, its a huge change to the property itself.....The city has introduced an extremely harsh extremely restrictive ordinance....if you want to end up in the middle with something that everyone is happy with the opposition has to be extremely to the other side. Otherwise we will end up with something that is extremely to the city side.

I agree with the James - if you limit or restrict construction, the improvements that have fundamentally changed the heights from an old run down neighborhood into a nice place that people actually want to live will dry up. I am in support of preventing the subdivision of lots to cram lots of houses onto a small lot....I dont want to see large brownstones completely change what the heights is...but at the same time, I also agree that at least 2/3 of the new homes are nice, aesthetically pleasing, two story homes that are adding to the neighborhood, not detracting. The value of the lots are too high to prevent two story homes from being built next door to small bungalows - that is an economic reality. Most, if not all new builds are going to be two story homes.

I think the majority of people would support an ordinance that prevented sub diving lots, that supported prevailing lot lines, and set backs, but did not limit what the house could look like, what materials it could be made from, and what color it would be.

The problem with the ordinance is it has gone way too far - much farther than anyone ever intended it to go. I think the majority of people have no idea what it is that is being rammed through. They get an email that says come get your yellow sign, and stop big townhomes from being built next door...stop new construction. What they dont know is the negatives....they are not being told, because there has been no media attention, mailers, or flyers. They are most likely seriously misinformed. Very few people actually know how bad the ordinance actually is....that is the truth, that is the reality...we live in an uninformed, apathetic society now....You may be informed, but your neighbor sporting the yellow sign most likely is not, or is misinformed.

You seem to be relatively well informed, but even in this post you stated that the HAHC would not be able to control the color of your house. The precise wording of the ordinance actually does allow them to control the color of your home. I know you don't support that aspect of it, and you think I am just fear mongering, but I am not. The wording of the ordinance allows the HAHC to determine the color of your home until they remove it from the ordinance, if passed it will become reality. Will it be enforced? I dont know - I seriously doubt it, but its better to not have ordinances and laws that are in force just not be applied. It does not make sense to pass something that will not be enforced unless someone complains...When a law or ordinance is only enforced on a case by case basis it gives rise to serious questions of fairness and equal application.

I close with my libertarian beliefs....Just remember, that once the government has the power to control this aspect of your life, they will not give it back....they never downsize and return rights to people...its just a constantly expanding black hole of bureaucracy.

[SCDesign]

Observation:

SEC 33-241 (.b.) Notwithstanding the preceding subsections (a), the planning official is authorized to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the following types of alteration ...

So, the planning official (?) can issue a Certificate of Appropriateness without going before the Committee under certain circumstances that are outlined in the following sections (look them up). They are very broad and open to interpretation as is the rest of the ordinance. This provision is an open invitation to graft and favoritism and the public would be hard pressed to find out because the application would never appear on the HAHC agenda.

Edited August 3, 2010 by SCDesign

[SCDesign]

Observation:

Sec 33-203 Enforcement and Penalties

(d) If a landmark ... located in an historic district is demolished without a certificate of appropriateness required by this article or, in the case of a landmark only, a 90 waiver certificate issued persuant to section...

This section excludes landmarked outside of historic districts from the revocation of the 90 day waiver. You are welcome River Oaks.

[SCDesign]

Observation:

Sec 33-227 Amandment; changes in boundary

Amendment of any landmark, protected landmark, historic district or archeological site and any change in the boundary of any historic district or archeological site shall require action by the city council and shall follow to procedures for applicaiton, notice, public hearing and recommendation by HAHC and the commission used for the original designation of the landmark, historic district or archeological site.

This is where is specifically states in the ordinance that the MUST re-petition the exact same way that the original petition was done. This sections is still in the ordinance so how can they ignore it? Sec 33-22.1 gives them the ability to do a mailout with 67% approval, but that is only for new districts as I read it, it does not remove Sac 33-227 from the Ordinance or retroactively take away the requirement.

[SCDesign]

Observation:

Sec 33-22.1 Application for designation of historic district:

(a) Applicaiton for designation of an historic district shall be initiated by either:

(1) one or more owners or property in the proposed district, subject to the requirement of subsection © of this section that at least 67% of the owners of tracts int he proposed districts who return cards pursuant to the subsection © to the department indicates support of the application.

(2)The HAHC upon instructing hte Planning official to prepare an application for designation

(.b.) application for the designation of a historic district shall be filed ... (procedure and criteria, read it)

© The department shall review an application submitted by one or more property owners for completeness...(this goes on to explain the procedure for mailing out the ballot and the timeline for notification)

What this section does is require a mailed out ballot only if the application is innitiated by one or more property owners. Subsection © specifically states that this is only required in that instance, applications by the HAHC do not require a mail out ballot. This section is what gives the HAHC the power to name districts without property owner approval.

PLEASE READ THE ORDINANCE!

[s3mh]

That is the problem with the back room way that this ordinance is being done. They got people to support one thing, then they perverted it. You will most likely not be able to repair or upgrade your bungalow later, or it will cost you significantly more than it would cost you to do it today. That is not intended to be a scare tactic, its the truth.

As to the scare tactics - have you ever seen people get fired up, excited and mad and show up over something that had a marginal impact on their life? No - People only get excited and stand up when something is absolutely terrible. If it were just an inconvenience nobody would be opposing it. It is not an inconvenience, its a huge change to the property itself.....The city has introduced an extremely harsh extremely restrictive ordinance....if you want to end up in the middle with something that everyone is happy with the opposition has to be extremely to the other side. Otherwise we will end up with something that is extremely to the city side.

I agree with the James - if you limit or restrict construction, the improvements that have fundamentally changed the heights from an old run down neighborhood into a nice place that people actually want to live will dry up. I am in support of preventing the subdivision of lots to cram lots of houses onto a small lot....I dont want to see large brownstones completely change what the heights is...but at the same time, I also agree that at least 2/3 of the new homes are nice, aesthetically pleasing, two story homes that are adding to the neighborhood, not detracting. The value of the lots are too high to prevent two story homes from being built next door to small bungalows - that is an economic reality. Most, if not all new builds are going to be two story homes.

I think the majority of people would support an ordinance that prevented sub diving lots, that supported prevailing lot lines, and set backs, but did not limit what the house could look like, what materials it could be made from, and what color it would be.

The problem with the ordinance is it has gone way too far - much farther than anyone ever intended it to go. I think the majority of people have no idea what it is that is being rammed through. They get an email that says come get your yellow sign, and stop big townhomes from being built next door...stop new construction. What they dont know is the negatives....they are not being told, because there has been no media attention, mailers, or flyers. They are most likely seriously misinformed. Very few people actually know how bad the ordinance actually is....that is the truth, that is the reality...we live in an uninformed, apathetic society now....You may be informed, but your neighbor sporting the yellow sign most likely is not, or is misinformed.

You seem to be relatively well informed, but even in this post you stated that the HAHC would not be able to control the color of your house. The precise wording of the ordinance actually does allow them to control the color of your home. I know you don't support that aspect of it, and you think I am just fear mongering, but I am not. The wording of the ordinance allows the HAHC to determine the color of your home until they remove it from the ordinance, if passed it will become reality. Will it be enforced? I dont know - I seriously doubt it, but its better to not have ordinances and laws that are in force just not be applied. It does not make sense to pass something that will not be enforced unless someone complains...When a law or ordinance is only enforced on a case by case basis it gives rise to serious questions of fairness and equal application.

I close with my libertarian beliefs....Just remember, that once the government has the power to control this aspect of your life, they will not give it back....they never downsize and return rights to people...its just a constantly expanding black hole of bureaucracy.

You are really underestimating those who have yellow signs. I have talked to a number of neighbors who have yellow signs (I am in the west Historic dist in the Heights). They were all very active in supporting the original ordinance, know the provisions intimately and feel that they were betrayed when the City put in the 90 day waiver. They want no to mean no. But they do not understand that the process to get a yes is too perilous a journey for those acting in good faith. I think a lot of fence sitters would be ok with no means no if the process to approval was less subjective. And I think the revision process for the ordinance is a good opportunity to craft solid protections that are also user friendly.

I disagree that historic preservation will scare away investment in the neighborhood. What should have been a teardown on my street is being restored with an addition. The builder was able to sell it based on a floorplan. There is plenty of money to be made with historic bungalows and plenty of peolpe willing to do it. Before I bought my bungalow, I bid on a number of foreclosures and as-is properties. Each time, the property was bid up well over lot value and restored by the buyer. The only reason the buyer won over a builder was because of the bad economy and the 90 day waiver. Now that lending is thawing, the builders are back and are willing to float the 90 days. Thus, I know of about a half dozen historic bungalows that would have been torn down but for the bad economy. The reality is that historic preservation will preserve bungalows and bring in investment to the neighborhood, but not the kind of dollars realtors and builders would like to see (although I am not sure why realtors would complain about making 9k to put a bunch of pictures on the internet and filling out a EMK). But there is plenty of land to do as you want outside of the historic districts.

Which brings me back to the color argument. In order to buy the color argument, you have to believe that painting your house is not ordinary maintenance, but is really an alteration to the exterior of the building. Could there be a better definition of "alteration"? Yes. But to go around saying that we have to go back to block busting builders because this is a stealth plot by the City to dictate paint color, landscaping and AC placement is just not reasonable.

Finally, government gives power back all the time. It is called deregulation. That is why we have iphones instead of Ma Bell. That is also a major reason we had a near collapse of our financial system. The founding fathers, Jefferson in particular, were just as concerned with private tyranny as they were with government tyranny.

[AtticaFlinch]

There is plenty of money to be made with historic bungalows and plenty of peolpe willing to do it.

It will certainly make the neighborhood more exclusive. It's a good plan B if you fail to stop the Walmart construction.

[s3mh]

It will certainly make the neighborhood more exclusive. It's a good plan B if you fail to stop the Walmart construction.

It will actually make the neighborhood more accessible. The only way I could afford to get in the neighborhood was to buy a bungalow when the builders weren't buying them up to tear them down and replace them with 3500 sq ft monsters. I probably saved a 100 year old oak in the process. If the builders are given back all the power, the neighborhood will become Bellaire jr. (but may then be able to buy out the Wal-Mart property when it decides to close up, like they are doing with the Sam's Club on Dunlavy).

[LookyHere]

It will actually make the neighborhood more accessible. The only way I could afford to get in the neighborhood was to buy a bungalow when the builders weren't buying them up to tear them down and replace them with 3500 sq ft monsters. I probably saved a 100 year old oak in the process. If the builders are given back all the power, the neighborhood will become Bellaire jr. (but may then be able to buy out the Wal-Mart property when

it decides to close up, like they are doing with the Sam's Club on Dunlavy).

This is the case for us as well. We bought a medium sized bungalow that was renovated by the previous owners. The renovation is almost 10 years old now but it suits our small family fine. My partner and I think often about adding another child to the mix but we cannot afford a larger, new construction and there are very few bungalows with more than 3 bedrooms. I office from home, so we have to have that space available. Preservation of bungalows allows us and many of our friends (who are artists, academics, musicians as well as middle management professionals) to call the Heights home. I have several friends (a ballet dancer, one who works at TUTS and another who works at the Alley) who live in Norhill, which I believe has the strictest historic ordinances in the Heights. They have all had to make "conforming" changes and go through the HCAC. It did not make any of their changes cost prohibitive. These are not super high income people. I do not live in a Historic district but the renovation to my bungalow was pretty conforming. If conforming was totally cost prohibitive, the young couple who owned this home before us probably wouldn't have been able to do it this way. The most expensive part of a renovation like this is wood windows and they are well worth it in the long run.

[SCDesign]

From the meeting tonight for Norhill, Woodland Heights and Freedmans Town:

About 250 people were there and at least 225 were in favor of the nowe ordinance. Maybe more. One thing that was said that is encouraging, Sue Lovell said "I don't know how to say it any plainer, we WILL have a ballot vote" and I don't believe she qualified it this time with an "if there is enough opposition" If she based her decision on tonight she would probably decide it isn't necessary. Oh, and the ballot will use the 51% threshold not the 67%, unless they do it after the new ordinacne has passed. I do think that next weeks meeting will be a different story but people do need to show up. Marlene also explained that if the ballots show there is support in certain areas and not in others that they will change the district to fit the support.

[LookyHere]

From the meeting tonight for Norhill, Woodland Heights and Freedmans Town:

About 250 people were there and at least 225 were in favor of the nowe ordinance. Maybe more. One thing that was said that is encouraging, Sue Lovell said "I don't know how to say it any plainer, we WILL have a ballot vote" and I don't believe she qualified it this time with an "if there is enough opposition" If she based her decision on tonight she would probably decide it isn't necessary. Oh, and the ballot will use the 51% threshold not the 67%, unless they do it after the new ordinacne has passed. I do think that next weeks meeting will be a different story but people do need to show up. Marlene also explained that if the ballots show there is support in certain areas and not in others that they will change the district to fit the support.

THIS is the answer. I know my friends in Norhill really want a "no means no" protected status. If that neighborhood wants it, let them have it with out all this other nonsense.

[TAPHouston]

From the meeting tonight for Norhill, Woodland Heights and Freedmans Town:

About 250 people were there and at least 225 were in favor of the nowe ordinance. Maybe more. One thing that was said that is encouraging, Sue Lovell said "I don't know how to say it any plainer, we WILL have a ballot vote" and I don't believe she qualified it this time with an "if there is enough opposition" If she based her decision on tonight she would probably decide it isn't necessary. Oh, and the ballot will use the 51% threshold not the 67%, unless they do it after the new ordinacne has passed. I do think that next weeks meeting will be a different story but people do need to show up. Marlene also explained that if the ballots show there is support in certain areas and not in others that they will change the district to fit the support.

I don't believe the vote was quite that lopsided, especially with regard to districts other than Woodland Heights. Lovell did indeed affirmatively state that there would be a ballot vote and there was NO qualification in her statement; however, when I asked her after the meeting to confirm she meant what she said, she claimed she didn't say that and why would she send a ballot when the vote was clear. I pointed out that she had used the word "guaranty" when she said there would be a repetition. She became very agitated and eventually said she wouldn't talk to me any more because I called her a liar.

A couple of things were clear: Lovell is being very underhanded in how she is conducting these meetings. In addition to her misrepresentations about a repetition, she and the other city employees carefully culled through the written questions and would read one question but provide an answer to a different question.

Second, it is clear that neither Lovell nor the other city representatives have much idea of what is in the ordinance. At one point, a city representative answered a question about fences by saying they weren't covered and by pointing out that you don't even need a permit unless it exceeds a certain height. Of course, fences are specifically enumerated in the list of items that constitute alterations. The question about landscaping came up. Again they claimed that it wasn't covered. Again the plain language of the ordinance covers any alteration to the "site," defined as the property.

I'm sure this is a done deal but I'm glad I saw just how dishonest/uninformed/clueless (take your pick) our city officials are.

[SilverJK]

why do people have "Say Yes" signs in their yard, weren't we all under the impression there wasn't going to be a vote??? Say yes to what? Elitism?

[s3mh]

why do people have "Say Yes" signs in their yard, weren't we all under the impression there wasn't going to be a vote??? Say yes to what? Elitism?

Oh please. I live in a bungalow that cost less than 300k and I have a say yes sign in my yard. The real elitism is coming from the builders/realtors/architects that want to destroy what is left of Houston's historic homes just for a quick buck. They think that if you have enough money, you should not have to be subject to any democratic process. That is elitism.

[20thStDad]

Oh please. I live in a bungalow that cost less than 300k and I have a say yes sign in my yard. The real elitism is coming from the builders/realtors/architects that want to destroy what is left of Houston's historic homes just for a quick buck. They think that if you have enough money, you should not have to be subject to any democratic process. That is elitism.

I don't see where anything democratic is being proposed. I'm not getting a vote, and someone else will make decisions for me once this is imposed.

[Marksmu]

You are really underestimating those who have yellow signs. I have talked to a number of neighbors who have yellow signs (I am in the west Historic dist in the Heights). They were all very active in supporting the original ordinance, know the provisions intimately and feel that they were betrayed when the City put in the 90 day waiver. They want no to mean no. But they do not understand that the process to get a yes is too perilous a journey for those acting in good faith. I think a lot of fence sitters would be ok with no means no if the process to approval was less subjective. And I think the revision process for the ordinance is a good opportunity to craft solid protections that are also user friendly.

I think alot of people would be alot more comfortable with the ordinance if they knew WHAT was actually covered. Also, it would be much more palatable if it exempted property currently owned from the restrictions so that they could do what they want to with their own property. There were not restrictions when the property was bought, there should not be restrictions for the duration of their ownership. I am still not in favor of restrictions popping up at the time of sale, but its better than the current proposition b/c at the very least the owners of the lot now who may have had plans to build a new home later are not completely robbed of doing what they had long planned to do. Any new owner would buy with full knowledge of the current restrictions. It would still have a negative effect on property values, but at the very least if you want to stay in your home, or build a new one on your lot, your personal expectation of your property are not completely destroyed.

I disagree that historic preservation will scare away investment in the neighborhood. What should have been a teardown on my street is being restored with an addition. The builder was able to sell it based on a floorplan. There is plenty of money to be made with historic bungalows and plenty of peolpe willing to do it. Before I bought my bungalow, I bid on a number of foreclosures and as-is properties. Each time, the property was bid up well over lot value and restored by the buyer. The only reason the buyer won over a builder was because of the bad economy and the 90 day waiver. Now that lending is thawing, the builders are back and are willing to float the 90 days. Thus, I know of about a half dozen historic bungalows that would have been torn down but for the bad economy. The reality is that historic preservation will preserve bungalows and bring in investment to the neighborhood, but not the kind of dollars realtors and builders would like to see (although I am not sure why realtors would complain about making 9k to put a bunch of pictures on the internet and filling out a EMK). But there is plenty of land to do as you want outside of the historic districts.

While I completely agree that a Realtor is the most overpayed profession based on the pathetic amount of work they actually do - I do not agree there is anywhere near as much interest in restoration and addition as there is in new builds. If you wait 100 years you may eventually get enough people to restore and repair all the blight that dots the area - but that wait is a negative to the area. The builders who are putting up attractive new homes where blight used to stand are doing a great service to the neighborhood. They are allowing families who need/want more than 2 or 3 bedrooms and 1 bath to come into the neighborhood. They bring with them their money. They increase the value of your property, they increase the tax base which benefits everyone, and they bring money into the area, that has already shown to have a positive impact. The horrible run down Kroger is now a nice Kroger - nice restaurants are popping up and people are visiting them. The increase in value/liquid cash has been a huge boom to the area. It was builders who took the initial risk to come in and make the Heights desirable again, and now that it is, the new residents who are moving into the older homes b/c they cant afford the new ones are trying to stop the builders from doing what they have been doing for years.

Also, there is no chance of the Heights turning into a Bellaire - Almost all the builders who are building new homes in the area are at least trying to go with a Victorian/New Orleans style....nobody, or at least very few are trying to throw up a bunch of spanish style homes with orange roofs, or the stucco homes that are throughout Bellaire. There is no chance at all that the Heights will ever look like Bellaire. It already has a unique quality to it, and the mix of new/old on many street is very attractive. I think you will find zero opposition to this ordinance in Woodland heights where those homeowners bought with full knowledge of the restrictions....but an after the fact imposition of a restriction is just wrong.

Which brings me back to the color argument. In order to buy the color argument, you have to believe that painting your house is not ordinary maintenance, but is really an alteration to the exterior of the building. Could there be a better definition of "alteration"? Yes. But to go around saying that we have to go back to block busting builders because this is a stealth plot by the City to dictate paint color, landscaping and AC placement is just not reasonable.

Painting can easily be considered either ordinary maintenance, when repainting to the same color, or an alteration when you change colors. The fact that it is ambiguous makes me believe that it was intentionally made ambiguous so they could evoke the ordinance when someone does something that makes those who just happen to be in power (or their friends) upset . I am willing to bet that if you paint your bungalow an artistic purple with huge bright yellow flowers next door to one of the HAHC board members, that the paint choice would be considered an alteration and not normal maintenance.

It is not at all unreasonable to think that an appointed board would abuse their power. History shows us that where there is the opportunity for abuse, it will occur. We need to remove the opportunity BEFORE we put the system in place that will enable it.

Finally, government gives power back all the time. It is called deregulation. That is why we have iphones instead of Ma Bell. That is also a major reason we had a near collapse of our financial system. The founding fathers, Jefferson in particular, were just as concerned with private tyranny as they were with government tyranny.

I love hearing this argument. Deregulation is not what caused a near collapse of our financial system. There was abuse in the system, and some took great advantage of it (mortgage brokers), but the sub-prime mortgage fiasco headed up by Fannie and Freddy are the indirect cause of the collapse. Fannie and Freddie CEO's both warned the government years before the collapse that we were headed toward a collapse if the system was not changed to allow them to turn down unqualified buyers. The congressional black caucus was the leading cause of lending rules being loosened so that anyone could qualify for home regardless of income. When they were told that the system would collapse they played the race card and the disgusting abuse of political correctness took hold and the abuse continued. The collapse was not caused by GWB, or his congress, or the deregulation of the financial market...it was caused by a Democrat congress, and a politically correct president who could not find his own rear end.

Technology has occasionally arisen to enable the government to loosen their grips, such as in telephones and a few other monopolies, but when it comes to creating bureaucracy, how many government programs can you name that have ever been eliminated? I can think of only one...the TRCC, and that was just a state program that was doomed from the start because it was bad for builders and for homeowners. The courts were a more effective/efficient use of time and resources than the TRCC.

[sonic0boom]

Oh please. I live in a bungalow that cost less than 300k and I have a say yes sign in my yard. The real elitism is coming from the builders/realtors/architects that want to destroy what is left of Houston's historic homes just for a quick buck. They think that if you have enough money, you should not have to be subject to any democratic process. That is elitism.

A couple things here:

1. A realtor would be happy to sell a renovated $500K bungalow just as soon as a $500K new build. In fact, they would much prefer the former because a neighborhood of renovated homes is much more desirable. Take a look on HAR, and you'll see that nice, restored bungalows don't go for that much less than a newer house in the neighborhood that has twice the square footage.

2. "... destroy what is left of Houston's historic homes...". In context of most of the older homes in the Heights, this is like saying that the homes in Cinco Ranch will be historic 60-70 years from now. I won't go in to differences with build quality or the look/character of the home, but most of the homes in the Heights were built with the same idea in mind -- cheaper, working class single family homes in the 'burbs.

And just another observation, I am amazed at how much the Heights has kept its character over the past 10 years despite all these evil, elitist builders/realtors/architects. We're talking about one of the hottest neighborhoods in one of the nation's largest cities and yet in the main Heights area, you are more likely to see a smaller, older home than a McVic. All this without the proposed changes.

[Gooch]

The builders who are putting up attractive new homes where blight used to stand are doing a great service to the neighborhood. They are allowing families who need/want more than 2 or 3 bedrooms and 1 bath to come into the neighborhood. They bring with them their money. They increase the value of your property,

IF you own one of the new builds. Existing bungalows get reduced to teardown value, example: Rice Military.

they increase the tax base which benefits everyone,

Not the person paying the taxes!

Also, there is no chance of the Heights turning into a Bellaire - Almost all the builders who are building new homes in the area are at least trying to go with a Victorian/New Orleans style....

No chance? Not even a little bit? The neighborhood is depending on nothing more than developer's sense of good will to build something asthetically suitable. Counting on developer's goodwill is... umm... well... a brave exercise in trust. How can we trust the developer's any more than HAHC.

nobody, or at least very few are trying to throw up a bunch of spanish style homes with orange roofs, or the stucco homes that are throughout Bellaire. There is no chance at all that the Heights will ever look like Bellaire.

What (other than builders good will and sense of style) prevents that from happening? Everyone seems to think HAHC is trying to prevent The Heights from becoming another Bellaire. I think the risk is becoming another Rice Military.

While this ordinance gives the HAHC way too much arbritrary power; the current situtation puts too much power into developers hands. Largely the ordinance is backlash to some of the egregious things we've all observed in the neighborhood. There's got to be some middle ground.

but an after the fact imposition of a restriction is just wrong.

Yes and no. Expecting to live in the core of the 4th largest city in the US, while it's undergoing a drastic population expansion with its attendent densification, while expecting absolutely zero land-use regulation is a bit optimistic. While encouraging those that own historic properties to accept change in the form of new intrusive structures... you are conviently leaving out yourself. Change is indeed hard in whatever form it takes. Edited August 4, 2010 by Gooch

[mcook2002]

for the win....

I don't see where anything democratic is being proposed. I'm not getting a vote, and someone else will make decisions for me once this is imposed.

[Marksmu]

IF you own one of the new builds. Existing bungalows get reduced to teardown value, example: Rice Military.

Existing bungalows get renovated all the time now, right next door to new builds. Its been going on for 10 years, I have a feeling it will continue. Some people want new, some want to save old. Its not 100% in either direction....there are areas of the heights (woodland heights) that are all old. If you want an expensive small home, thats your place.

Not the person paying the taxes!

The person paying taxes gets benefits from their tax dollars....if you dont want to pay high taxes dont live in an expensive home. That may require you to move, b/c lots are now at least $200,000 for a 66x132

No chance? Not even a little bit? The neighborhood is depending on nothing more than developer's sense of good will to build something asthetically suitable. Counting on developer's goodwill is... umm... well... a brave exercise in trust. How can we trust the developer's any more than HAHC.

What (other than builders good will and sense of style) prevents that from happening? Everyone seems to think HAHC is trying to prevent The Heights from becoming another Bellaire. I think the risk is becoming another Rice Military.

Builders want to make a profit. They are not building for fun or to make neighbors angry. They generally know what sells Victorian, or as the bungalow snobs like to call them McvVics. The Bellaire style home is not being built in the heights, b/c it most likely wont sell. If you want a house like those in Bellaire, go live in Bellaire. The drive to make a profit and sell a house has been working pretty well so far. I can think of only 1 house in the greater heights area that resembles a Bellaire home and while I think it sticks out like a sore thumb....the guy who built it, built it for himself, not as a spec home by a builder.

While this ordinance gives the HAHC way too much arbritrary power; the current situtation puts too much power into developers hands. Largely the ordinance is backlash to some of the egregious things we've all observed in the neighborhood. There's got to be some middle ground.

What egregious things are we talking about?? I really do want to know what egregious things you object to. Is it Tricon building the 2 story homes with the front facing garages? Tricon has several other nice contributions to the area. The homes that they built before those over the garage homes are on average very nice. I can think of several stand alone homes that are quite nice. I would rather trust someone whose financial well being is dependent upon there being a good strong market for their product, than a group of close minded, politically appointed hacks, who are drunk with their new found powers. People who are invested heavily usually make much better decisions than those who are not invested. Profit is a strong driver for people to build something that will sell.

Yes and no. Expecting to live in the core of the 4th largest city in the US, while it's undergoing a drastic population expansion with its attendent densification, while expecting absolutely zero land-use regulation is a bit naive. While encouraging those that own historic properties to accept change in the form of new intrusive structures... you are conviently leaving out yourself. Change is indeed hard in whatever form it takes.

Im not asking for no land use regulation. It makes sense that the area prevent industrial business from expanding...though we dont have zoning, the requirement for drainage for new structures is very effective at preventing industry from expanding here. The lot value also is very effective, and I support the prevention of subdiving lots to cram more homes on them. I am not advocating no control at all...but I am firmly against a vocal minority of people who want to keep things exactly as they are against dictating to everyone else how its going to be. Most people just want to know what they are buying, and then find something they are happy with, and be left alone. They dont expect the rules to change half way through the game. The people supporting the ordinance whole heartedly are a very vocal minority. If you asked people now to sign the petition with all of the information you would not even come close to get 50% of the vote.

This was a bait and switch. Plain and simple.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Marksmu

[poyea]

Marksmu, I hope you and others like you show up next Tuesday night. I agree with your thoughts exactly. I want there to be some control, but concrete objective guidelines. Not things open to interpretation by a weighted panel. Lot size, set backs, etc. Not to mention, there would be no need for this panel of 13 if the rules were clearly defined. And one more thing: we need to REMOVE their ability to change the ordinance in the future without some sort of vote or they'll bait and switch us again.

One other thing from last week's meeting that chapped me was if your house wereto burn down, you wouldn't be able to rebuild it as it was without it meeting the new guidelines. Talk about over reaching.

[Gooch]

That may require you to move, b/c lots are now at least $200,000 for a 66x132

True enough. And if one doesn't want to live in a newly created historic district they are free to move to have the benefit of unrestricted property use. See how that works? 

  

What egregious things are we talking about??  I really do want to know what egregious things you object to

I'm not about to start criticising specific homes. If you can't think of a single home in the Heights that doesn't fit the scale, heightline, and setback of it's neighbors... I can't help you understand why some form of restriction is needed. Sorrry.

Most people just want to know what they are buying, and then find something they are happy with, and be left alone. They dont expect the rules to change half way through the game

what about those that bought a house  because it as in a neighborhood of bungalows. Thier rules are getting changed, too. 

[AtticaFlinch]

what about those that bought a house because it as in a neighborhood of bungalows. Thier rules are getting changed, too.

Gooch, this is where I disagree with you. The owners who bought bungalows bought knowing full well they owned in an area without the rules. Why can't the city grandfather an exemption for current owners? That seems to me the only fair compromise.

[Gooch]

Gooch, this is where I disagree with you. The owners who bought bungalows bought knowing full well they owned in an area without the rules. Why can't the city grandfather an exemption for current owners? That seems to me the only fair compromise.

I agree that ALL owners should factor in the risk of buying into a wild-west-no-hold-barred area. Owners that like it as it is have the risk of the character changing. AND Owners have the risk that some type of rule will be imposed in the future. Both are possible, and likely. One simply cannot anticipate the regulatory climate to be static. It's as poor of an assuption as assuming the character of a neighborhood is static. Given that there almost zero rules, that land use regulation is the norm rather than the exception, and governments ever forward regulatory creep, it should have been obvious that rules would be added at some point.

Some in the Heights, the first residential suburb in the city, with a large stock of original houses, and an active historical preservation group, are acting surprised that the area is being made into a historic district. They shouldn't should be.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Gooch

[SilverJK]

Oh please. I live in a bungalow that cost less than 300k and I have a say yes sign in my yard. The real elitism is coming from the builders/realtors/architects that want to destroy what is left of Houston's historic homes just for a quick buck. They think that if you have enough money, you should not have to be subject to any democratic process. That is elitism.

Let me say this again... what are you saying yes to? You are just putting in in everyones face that you support the strong-arming of people's property rights. What if they decide you can't put politically motivated posters in your yard... you couldn't put your sign up support non-voting issues in the future!

Edited August 5, 2010 by SilverJK

[Marksmu]

True enough. And if one doesn't want to live in a newly created historic district they are free to move to have the benefit of unrestricted property use. See how that works?

Newly created - means I lost rights, I lost value. The restrictions will reduce the value of the property as people like me (the silent majority) no longer want to move there. Builders will be much less interested in building there because of the probable delays, increased costs, and increased construction time to get materials and approvals. Its a negative for every single person except that small vocal minority of people who want everything to be the way it was in 1920. Unfortunately the small minority is just louder. I am free to move, but I am not leaving till I get paid for the lost value in my home because of the restrictions.

I'm not about to start criticising specific homes. If you can't think of a single home in the Heights that doesn't fit the scale, heightline, and setback of it's neighbors... I can't help you understand why some form of restriction is needed. Sorrry.

I know of some homes that I would not build b/c I dont like them. But I would not call many of them egregious...there are maybe a handful egregious ones...All in all 90+% of the new homes are very attractive, and add to the neighborhood, not detract. Of those 90% its likely that only 35-40% of them would get approval based on the HAHC guidelines I have seen.

what about those that bought a house because it as in a neighborhood of bungalows. Thier rules are getting changed, too.

Wrong - there were no rules and they knew it when they closed. There is a disclosure form in your closing package....the title company checks off the box as to whether or not there are deed restrictions, set backs, etc. It was clearly checked unrestricted.

If you bought with bungalows and they are unrestricted you knew full well the risk that anything, even a high rise condominium complex could be built. It is a risk that you take by purchasing unrestricted property. 9 times out of 10 the unrestricted property gamble pays off.

Unrestricted property is worth more money, that is why it is sought out.

I came from a neighborhood with deed restrictions...very harsh deed restrictions. I hated it. I intentionally moved where I did because there were no deed restrictions. I bought where I bought for a reason. Now your trying to change the rules. There was never any expectation by anyone of anything when I bought. It is all new and its wrong.

[sevfiv]

Reminder from the GHPA:

The City of Houston Planning & Development Department is hosting the fourth in its series of public meetings to discuss proposed changes to the historic preservation ordinance tonight (Thursday, August 5) from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Glenbrook United Methodist Church, 8635 Glen Valley Drive.

Although anyone may attend, tonight’s meeting will primarily address property owners in the proposed Glenbrook Valley historic district. The complete schedule of meetings and a summary of the proposed amendments are on the Planning & Development Department website.

There is a great deal of misinformation circulating about the proposed amendments. GHPA’s website addresses these misrepresentations. Click here to view the information in pdf format, which can be e-mailed or printed to share with your neighbors.

GHPA will continue to provide its members with updates on this issue.

[JJxvi]

And just another observation, I am amazed at how much the Heights has kept its character over the past 10 years despite all these evil, elitist builders/realtors/architects

That's because the defining "character" of the Heights is a hodge podge of building styles, and even types over about 100 years. The closest person to me who sticks anti-new construction, and "Say Yes" and whatever other new sign is out in their front yard lives in a grocery store (although I dont believe neither they, nor I, actually live in one of the affected historic districts. The neighborhood has changed a lot since I was a kid, mainly due to the influx of money into the neighborhood. Thats the only change I see, the neighborhood is richer, not better, nor worse. Its still a hodgepodge of commercial, even industrial, mixed with old houses, even apartment complexes in the middle of neighbiorhood blocks, only now theres new homes and townhomes added to the mix. I live across the street from a large commercial building that has been transformed into lofts, its been there since I was a kid. The family business is two houses don and has been there for 30 years. The house next door to me is a big new home (2 on what was once one lot), where previously there was a 950 SF shack that appeared ready to fall at any moment. There's an apartment complex 2 blocks away, theres the people that live in the grocery store. There's new buildings sure, but most of the places are 20-30-50-80 years old. Anybody that moved into the Heights in the past 80 years moved into a hodge podge that has been constantly evolving and been added onto with very little directed development or thought to an overarching character. The "historic district" types want to change the nature of my hood, IMO, not preserve it.