nate

Image combined with the federal subsidy is why light rail lines continue to be built. METRORail makes no sense otherwise. It is no more useful than buses at far greater cost.

Then you have not been paying attention. The rail line will cost in the neighborhood of $500 million to construct. Over its life, it will cost significantly more to operate and maintain than the current bus network, while providing fewer benefits. Not to mention that it will be a traffic disaster. Here is a recent article from the Journal of Urban Economics which explains why light rail is a waste: http://web.iitd.ac.in/~tripp/Metro/on%20th...y-brookings.pdf

Wow. Try to be realistic, folks. Rail on Westheimer would be both a traffic nightmare and a colossal waste of money, whereas Richmond will only be a traffic hassle and a colossal waste of money. There is already public transit on Westheimer for the few people that would use it: http://www.ridemetro.org/pdf/routes/082-westheimer.pdf

It would be setback at least 20 feet, have a small surface parking lot and a landscape barrier. What more do you want of MainPlace? Plans call for street level retail and a lobby with direct access to the street. Please state specifically how they could enliven the street environment. Then ask if your recommendations are commercially viable.

Good news that they dropped the western theme. That had potential to the be the cheesiest place in America. This project looks interesting, but I don't like the tax credits.

http://www.citystarairlines.com/content/view/93/92/lang,en/

I assume that you are talking about Texas at Main? Give it time, that lot is not going to be vacant for much longer.

Not so fast. The HBJ article only says that there is "preliminary interest in more than half of the projected 350,000 square feet of retail space." Still good, but it doesn't sound like there are leases in place. The sheer amount of new retail space coming on line around 2010 Uptown is simply amazing. And the traffic is already a nightmare.

So, do you believe that the owners of rental properties should not be given "priority" (whatever that is) because they "exploit" their property "solely for their own enrichment"? The reality is that the people that live in or own property in the Old Sixth are not of uniform opinion on this matter. There are many people that feel differently and their rights and opinions have been overruled by the city council. It isn't the residents who have "taken back" the neighborhood from "greedy developers", but a city that is increasingly taking control of individual liberty.

There is a difference between something that is an annoyance and a legal nuisance. A development that causes flooding on your property could be a nuisance, but you can sue for damages if that happens. That should never happen as new plats and building permits are not issued unless there will be adequate drainage. Then why didn't the preservationists use the provisions of the Texas property code which create new restrictive covenants with 75% approval? You sound dismissive of the rights of business owners and developers. Do they not have property rights that are just as strong as those of a homeowner?

It is not over the top. People bought in the neighborhood expecting to be able to do certain things with their property. They can no longer do those things. First Colony had deed restrictions before a single home was built. Everyone who bought there was on notice of them and purchased their property with full knowledge of what they were getting into. In the Old Sixth, dissenters were blindsided. You are right, governments all over the country confiscate rights though land use restrictions and then divvy them out in pieces depending on who has political power and/or makes the biggest campaign contributions. That is relatively new in Houston, but we will probably be marching down that road soon...a shame. As for added value from restrictions, that is possible under some circumstances. If it were in the Old Sixth, why did they not follow the procedure for obtaining new restrictive covenants by obtaining 75% landowner consent? I'm not sure how this is going to play out long term. I think that the values of existing homes which cannot be torn down will probably not increase in value as fast (or at all) as homes in other neighborhoods. Vacant lots can still be developed, but with architectural conformity requirements. I'm not sure how the ordinance will effect those lots. Perhaps it will increase development costs or make the condos/whatever less marketable. As to the preventing nuisances point, uses such as slaughterhouses will never open in inner city neighborhoods because the land is too valuable. The reality is that land use decisions are made based on economics, not irrational fears. Even if a nuisance were to move in, there are laws prohibiting noxious uses. A flat roof is not a nuisance under any circumstances, nor is a town home.

Quite a shocking statement. You have no problem if "random individuals" have their liberty taken away by the whims of government. I think that individuals have rights against big government and should have their interests protected.... As for the "overwhelming support", if the support were really so great, why didn't they use the state-law procedure that will create new deed restrictions with 75% support? I don't agree with the state process, but might their failure to choose this route suggest that there is not such "overwhelming support"?

Money. The measure would be the difference between the property value at its highest and best use, and the value as-restricted. This question makes no sense. Please explain. Those that supported the measure have no right to control their neighbor's property. Prior to the city's confiscation, property owners in the Old Sixth could tear down their home and rebuild whatever they like. They have lost that right. They have also lost the right to build in the style of their choice.

There is a huge difference when restrictions are voluntary compared to this instance when they were imposed on owners without their consent. From the Chronicle article, Mr. Farrales and Mr. Despot bought in the neighborhood expecting to be able to build whatever they liked. They have had that right taken away from them without compensation.

Well, thankfully I don't own any property in the Old Sixth and therefore I did not have my rights confiscated by the City. What I fear is that because people willing to accept the confiscation of the rights of others, this kind of expropriation will continue. If the city wishes to preserve the Old Sixth, then it should pay the property owners for the rights that it takes. That is fair.

Terrible news. While I am not surprised that the city continually tries to take away property rights, I am terribly disappointed that they do so with the cheering approval of so many people. Wake up people. Ordinances like this diminish the rights of individuals to control their property and decrease the architectural diversity of Houston.

What is a TIRR? I know that there are several TIRZ districts that cover portions of downtown. The City Center project might be in the Main Street/Market Square district. But a TIRZ is not a tax break. Property owners in TIRZ districts pay normally increasing taxes. The increase over the baseline in collections is used for public improvements in the district. It is a benefit that I don't think should be given, but it really is not a tax break. As for waiving city taxes for condo buyers, I have never heard of this. Could you please provide a link? However, I am aware that certain "historic" sites have been given tax abatements. Perhaps some renovated condo buildings downtown recieved these. If they did, they should not have. But, the City Center won't be given a tax abatement.

Thanks for the link. Please note the following from that article: What is a Renaissance Zone?: http://www.degc.org/main.cfm?location=54 & http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us/renzones/default.htm Do you still think that this is not a subsidized project? Besides being exempt from most taxes, I would not be suprised if TIF financing were available and don't have time to look into it. Not to mention that GM is giving away land in order to have the small income stream from condo sales. Hines has done a good job reducing their risk on that project. They don't have to buy the land, don't have to pay taxes, maybe TIF financing, their condo buyers will be exempt from taxation, etc. A Houston project would require a larger financial commitment and entail more risk. They will not get TIF financing, they will not get tax breaks (perhaps PAY impact fees), any office space will have to compete with other new construction, any condos will compete with other condos and SFRs all over Houston, etc. These are not comprable projects.

There is a big difference between a massively subsidized project and something that will have to compete on market terms in one of the most competieve environments in the world.

The Four Leaf Towers do not have balconies.

I never claimed there was no intervention There are many stupid city ordinances in Houston that should be repealed in order to allow people to buld the type of projects that people here love. For example, the setback rules. I would support repealing them citywide, but they are particularly stupid when applied to midtown. I'm sure that I would like the project that this developer and METRO want to build, but the process is corrupt and unfair to taxpayers.

Probably not with regards to Schultz. Any developer worthy of the name would not have entered into this agreement without knowing the terms of the buyback. If Schultz does not buy back the property, then METRO could resell with whatever development conditions that it wants.

Things take time. Have some patience. Does lost tax revenue not bother anyone? or that Metro is accepting risk for the profit of this developer? or that these types of projects generally benefit those that are politically connected? I hope that Peter Brown is never effective. I don't want Houston controlled by smart growth nazis.

I agree with Berry. Metro should stick to providing transportation. This is a prime plot. Metro does not need to help out politically connected developers to make these projects viable.