Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Heightsfamily

Keep The Heights Dry Political Action Committee

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, IronTiger said:

Furthermore, as much as I like alcohol, I don't have a dependence on it that would cause me to demand the area be wet.

I see what you did there ;)

 

And I don't mean to trigger, or whatever they call it now when you present an unpopular opinion, but a lot of really good things happen thanks to 'corporate interests'.

 

Edited by txcat84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, txcat84 said:

I see what you did there ;)

 

And I don't mean to trigger, or whatever they call it now when you present an unpopular opinion, but a lot of really good things happen thanks to 'corporate interests'.

 

Don't worry, I'm not a SJW, so no language policing for me. :P

 

Yes, I agree corporate interests do drive a lot of things for the greater good, but I don't think this is one of them.

 

I think that the vote should've been to provide an exception to grocery stores (keeping the area "officially" dry, at least on the books, plus that takes care of the "everyone selling beer" problem). Besides, didn't the Montrose H-E-B have to jump through some hoops to allow them to sell beer? When it opened five years ago, the beer and wine departments were empty and roped off because of their proximity to schools.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The law doesn't provide a means to allow only grocery stores to sell alcohol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2016 at 10:55 AM, IronTiger said:

I think that the vote should've been to provide an exception to grocery stores

 

 

Sounds like you want to carve out an exception for narrow corporate interests while fencing out the mom and pops (such as convenience stores). I disagree and would like to get rid of this archaic relic of Prohibition.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, kylejack said:

 

Sounds like you want to carve out an exception for narrow corporate interests while fencing out the mom and pops (such as convenience stores). I disagree and would like to get rid of this archaic relic of Prohibition.

 

I'm not trying to "carve out an exception for narrow corporate interests", I'm trying to think of a reasonable compromise that would allow H-E-B to come in while assuaging fears of the "element" at convenience stores if beer and wine were sold. Of course, you do have a point in that it only goes farther to kiss up to corporate interests.

 

Personally, I don't mind the "dry area" of the Heights but seeing how I am not a resident of the Heights I have no legal say in the matter. If I did though I would vote NO, keep things the way the are. H-E-B can come and adapt to the neighborhood or screw off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All residents of the same city should be governed by ONE set of municipal ordinances.  the Heights should either de-annex and form their own dry (or wet) city or, stay in Houston and become wet (subject to all other existing ordinances) like the rest of the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not?  It's not like the Heights is a haven of tetotalers, is it?  Prohibition had it's heyday long ago.  If the Heights was a religious commune that might be understandable, but it's just another neighborhood in Houston.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't follow. Guess it's just my opinion, but management decisions should be made at the lowest possible level by the people the rules affect the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, txcat84 said:

I don't follow. Guess it's just my opinion, but management decisions should be made at the lowest possible level by the people the rules affect the most.

Your position would imply that city ordinances could vary, literally, block by block and create literally thousands of variances.  My 10 block area wants special requirements on cabs and garbage collection.  500' away, those folks want something else.  That wouldn't work, would it?

 

the natural boundary is the city limit.

 

the HOUSTON residents of the Heights need to comply with the broader ordinances that apply to the rest of Houston OR de-annex and become their  own City and they can do as they wish.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kylejack said:

Well, if I live near the zone, the rules affect me.

Agreed, but maybe not as much as those within the dry area? I see where you're coming from though, and I'm sure it's frustrating.

 

1 hour ago, UtterlyUrban said:

Your position would imply that city ordinances could vary, literally, block by block and create literally thousands of variances.  My 10 block area wants special requirements on cabs and garbage collection.  500' away, those folks want something else.  That wouldn't work, would it?

 

the natural boundary is the city limit.

 

the HOUSTON residents of the Heights need to comply with the broader ordinances that apply to the rest of Houston OR de-annex and become their  own City and they can do as they wish.

 

 

Fair enough, but I think having transportation availability and city services is agreeable to pretty much everyone within a city, and from a have/have not standpoint aren't as derisive of issues.

 

And for the most part, I think being able to buy beer and wine at a grocery store is generally agreeable too, but the situation has metastasized as the Heights has gentrified. Thus, here we are with a relatively unique situation that can't be put into the same peg holes as cabs and trash cans?

 

And before we go any further, to whom it may concern, don't get butt hurt or attack-y. This is an attempt to educate myself before pulling the lever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Txcat84.  Let me ask you this:

 

if liquor sales are a "Bad" --- "bad" enough to have a tiny area of the city be dry -- does that mean that this "Bad" has simply been exported to other neighborhoods?

 

What are your thoughts?

 

here are mine:

 It is clearly true that many (perhaps not "all", just "many" or likely "most") residents of the heights dry zone do drink and visit establishments that sell and serve liquor outside the zone.  That means that the folks who support keeping the Heights dry -- for all the reasons that they cite for wanting to keep the heights dry (traffic, noise, thugs, mugs, etc, etc), ---- are really saying "I want all that to be in another neighborhood  and let some other Houston resident deal with it daily.  I'll just drive there when I want a whiskey and contribute to that OTHER Houston residents 'problem' ."

 

If its "bad" enough to be banned in the heights, then its bad enough to be banned in Montrose, right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's the obvious argument, but I think it should have been made 50 years ago (we probably agree there).

 

To your point, if it was an alcohol good vs. bad thing, why not ban it in Harris County, the state, the nation, the WORLD?! (evil laugh). I get that, and given, I'm leaning toward voting for the wetness, but I think it may not be a question of alcohol good vs. alcohol bad for many people.

 

At this point, the lack of alcohol, plus rapid gentrification have generated a unique, situational growth pattern. I think that's more what people feel they are voting for or against. They see that the neighborhood can indeed be nice without alcohol, so it becomes a not-broke-don't-fix thing.

 

Is alcohol a straw man for many people voting against? Probably, but unfortunately I don't think anyone can say with 100% certainty that there won't be adverse effects. (For me, I think the good probably outweighs the bad)

 

We should have have never home schooled this kid to begin with, but do we stick him in a public now that he's all grown up and weird? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Texas legislature decided a very, very long time ago that the regulation of alcohol sales should be left up to municipalities and counties.  That approach made sense way back when and makes sense today for the reason that Texas has a large number of rural districts for the state legislature that could potentially gang up on the urban districts and impose alcohol restrictions on the entire state.  Texas is one of the most permissive states for alcohol sales.  Texas allows the sale of single servings for carryout.  Texas allows beer and wine to be sold in grocery stores (PA and few other states do not).  Texas allows liquor sales with beer and wine (OH and others only allow liquor to be sold in state stores).  Within that permissive environment, muni/county officials are given the power to impose a dry zone on serving and selling alcohol, but not on private consumption (i.e. regulation, not prohibition).  

 

The Heights was originally its own municipality.  A little over a decade before actual prohibition, the Heights was annexed to the City of Houston.  As part of the deal, the dry zone stayed in place.  Since then, many new residential communities sprouted up all over the City of Houston and mimicked the dry zone through deed restrictions.  There are deed restrictions in Norhill and Woodland Heights, but very few in the Heights proper.  So, while people buying into the Heights were not given the protection of deed restrictions, they were given some measure of protection with the dry zone.  This was very relevant for me when I bought because the area was just on the cusp of the rapid gentrification while Washington Ave was being converted into a new Richmond Strip.  I did not want to live anywhere near bars, clubs and convenience stores that were selling booze.  I passed on a couple of nice properties that were in Kutzbach because they were too close to the wet areas along Studewood and White Oak.  I purposefully chose the Heights proper because it was a historic district and in a dry area.  

 

So, the foregoing is to demonstrate that the debate is not about whether the Heights should have the ability to declare itself dry.  That happened over a hundred years ago pursuant to legislation that is still the law of the land in Texas.  The debate is whether that dry restriction should be stripped away in part.  What it then boils down to is saying to people who did their homework and looked up and down the street to make sure they bought in an area that would be best for raising kids and growing old into retirement that their preference and investment do not count unless they can prove that there will be some great harm by changing the law.  But the burden is really on those who want to change the law to show that changing the law will not cause any change in the benefits residents have enjoyed in the dry zone.  For me, the fact that the convenience store just down the street is going to be selling beer and wine just next to a bus stop is a clear change to the benefit I have enjoyed by very purposefully buying in a dry zone.  If you live outside of the dry zone and are ok with living next to a convenience store that sells beer and wine, that is great for you, but it does not mean that I should be ok with it or that I should support HEB's effort to change the law.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, s3mh said:

Texas is one of the most permissive states for alcohol sales.  

 

 

 

Some things you cannot do in Texas:

 

  • Buy or sell beer or wine between the hours of midnight and 7AM.
  • Buy or sell beer or wine before noon on Sunday
  • Buy a drink in a bar or restaurant after 2AM
  • Leave the premises of a bar or restaurant with an open container 
  • BYO to an establishment with a private club license
  • Buy liquor in a grocery or convenience store
  • Operate a liquor store outside of the hours of 10AM to 9PM, Mon-Sat
  • Produce beer, wine or spirits and sell them directly to a retailer.
  • Produce beer, wine or spirits and sell them to the public at a location other than where they were produced.
  • Purchase beer, wine or spirits from the producer and sell them to the public.
  • Purchase beer, wine or spirits from a retailer in another state.

 

 

Yes, some states are worse (esp. in the NE), but a lot of states are much more permissive. TX is pretty middle-of-the-pack, and still has a lot of consumer-unfriendly laws on the books.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.chron.com/business/real-estate/article/H-E-B-signs-lease-for-Washington-Avenue-property-10591702.php

 

HEB has had a lease signed for Washington Ave for months.  90k sq ft store at the corner of S. Heights and Washington Ave.  Funny how Scott McLelland didn't have a big press conference with a bunch of politicians at the Wash Ave site the way he did at the Shep location.  The lack of transparency and astroturf campainging is not going over well.  It is actually a bit offensive that HEB appears to think that we were all dumb enough not to be able to figure out that the HEB on Wash Ave was a done deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, s3mh said:

http://www.chron.com/business/real-estate/article/H-E-B-signs-lease-for-Washington-Avenue-property-10591702.php

 

HEB has had a lease signed for Washington Ave for months.  90k sq ft store at the corner of S. Heights and Washington Ave.  Funny how Scott McLelland didn't have a big press conference with a bunch of politicians at the Wash Ave site the way he did at the Shep location.  The lack of transparency and astroturf campainging is not going over well.  It is actually a bit offensive that HEB appears to think that we were all dumb enough not to be able to figure out that the HEB on Wash Ave was a done deal.

 

 

The lease memo was available to the public since it was filed with the county clerk back in May. The lease is in the name of "HEB Grocery Company LP," not some cryptically named shell company (e.g. "BKR Memorial II, LLC," which is the grantor in the lease memo), so it comes up when searching for "HEB" on the county clerk's website. 

 

I stumbled across it when looking for the Shepherd & 23rd lease and posted it to the Going Up thread yesterday (coincidentally, just a few minutes before the first Chronicle article on the lease was posted yesterday afternoon).

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Angostura said:

 

 

The lease memo was available to the public since it was filed with the county clerk back in May. The lease is in the name of "HEB Grocery Company LP," not some cryptically named shell company (e.g. "BKR Memorial II, LLC," which is the grantor in the lease memo), so it comes up when searching for "HEB" on the county clerk's website. 

 

I stumbled across it when looking for the Shepherd & 23rd lease and posted it to the Going Up thread yesterday (coincidentally, just a few minutes before the first Chronicle article on the lease was posted yesterday afternoon).

 

 

 

Oh come on.  How many people know how to search the grantor/grantee index in the real property records?  And lots of people, including the media, have been pestering HEB about their plans for Houston stores.  HEB was purposefully silent in order to give people in the Heights the impression that if they did not get the property on W 23rd, people would be SOL.  The strategy is a good one, until you get found out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ADCS said:

 

It's all about you, isn't it?

 

I swear, sometimes I wonder if people break out in hives around here if they accidentally think with a community spirit.

Ever been to the Heights?  There are plenty in the community who have "vote no" signs in their yards right now.  They have done this because they believe that the dry zone is best for their community.  Who are you to say that they have no "community spirit"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, s3mh said:

Oh come on.  How many people know how to search the grantor/grantee index in the real property records? 

 

 

Several dozen people on HAIF and the real estate reporters at the Houston Chronicle, for starters.

 

I have no doubt that HEB believes their chances of getting the ballot measure passed is lower if people think the Washington store is a done deal, which is why they didn't go out of their way to publicize it. But if they really wanted to hide it, they could have done a better job. 

 

There's also the matter of the people who are getting evicted from their homes so they can be demolished to make way for this development, something with which HEB may not want to be quite as directly associated.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same reporter that published the story on the Heights & Washington store, but she never asks about it. (TBF, not clear when the interview was recorded.)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Angostura said:

With respect to design, I think HEB has earned some credibility, especially in comparison with its competition.

 

 

I bet the HEB pawns (the purported neighborhood support) who organized to make the Heights wet may now reconsider how their time was spent.  The pictures are worth a thousand words - it is not at all like the Montrose store, and it is little better than the used car lots those residents fear.  The plans are already scheduled for Planning Commission as Item 78 on Nov 10:  See:  ftp://edrc.houstontx.gov//2016/2016-23_DraftAgenda.pdf

 

Looks like HEB is going forward wet or dry.

 

I also doubt the Washington/Heights Blvd site will look like this hunk of concrete because those consumers will expect a better design.

 

I just keep laughing - wasn't the slogan Heights Expects Better!??  Well, this step child did not get much at all.

Edited by HeightsPeep
omission
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, HeightsPeep said:

 

 

I bet the HEB pawns (the purported neighborhood support) who organized to make the Heights wet may now reconsider how their time was spent.  The pictures are worth a thousand words - it is not at all like the Montrose store, and it is little better than the used car lots those residents fear.  The plans are already scheduled for Planning Commission as Item 78 on Nov 10:  See:  ftp://edrc.houstontx.gov//2016/2016-23_DraftAgenda.pdf

 

Looks like HEB is going forward wet or dry.

 

I also doubt the Washington/Heights Blvd site will look like this hunk of concrete because those consumers will expect a better design.

 

I just keep laughing - wasn't the slogan Heights Expects Better!??  Well, this step child did not get much at all.

 

I told you that H-E-B would phone it on the store design. Called it. (Though the FTP requires a password).

 

Heights is going wet despite the horror-show general election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least there was one bright spot in last night's electoral fiasco.  I live in the non-dry Greater Heights Area (which isn't as much of a hellhole as I've heard it described), so I couldn't vote on this item.  But the Heights residents spoke.  

 

I'll be glad for a nearby H.E.B.--which I much prefer to Kroger.  Warning: I ride Metro, so I'm one of those "bus riders."   I'll try really hard not to pass out in a pool of vomit as I tote my baked goods, produce & 6-pack of 5 O'Clock Pils home through your neighborhood.temperence.jpg.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

78% turnout among voters in the (now semi-) dry Heights, compared to 61% in the county as a whole.

 

About 3/4 of voters on this issue voted early, and early voters voted 65-35 FOR.  Election day votes were 60-40 FOR.

 

It looks like the announcement of the store on Washington and/or the leaked renderings of the Shepherd store changed a few minds, but not many. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Angostura - I believe the term is "moist." :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I finally got a chance to read The Last American City by Douglas Milburn (and no, I'm not in the wrong thread), and the part where he talks about convenience store comes this little tidbit:

 

Bizarre Convenience Store Fact: convenience stores on Heights Blvd. do not sell beer, apparently because of some local option election.

 

Mildly impressive that Milburn considered this strange and out of date in 1979, and it took another 35 years to actually change.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...