heights_yankee

You know, I found some interesting things while perusing the Walmart website. First, it appears that there are only 48 Walmarts in the entire state of Massachusetts, so I would suggest that their ability to decimate the 'mom and pop' economy is a bit overstated. However, more interesting was the fact that the average hourly wage of their 12,914 Massachusetts associates is $12.72. That's $26,500 per year, which is ABOVE the poverty level of the average family of four. Considering the skill and education level of a retail employee, 26 thou a year ain't bad wages.

Another interesting tidbit is the fact that Walmart bought $2.23 Billion in products from Massachusetts based suppliers last year, supporting 48,000 Massachusetts supplier jobs. Not Chinese jobs...Massachusetts jobs. Now, I have no idea what the mom and pops support (no one ever does), but Walmart is supporting over 60,000 Massachusetts jobs.

http://walmartstores.com/pressroom/statebystate/State.aspx?st=MA

Western MA has 2 or 3 of those 48 Walmarts but it is 1/4 of the state. People in North Adams are not making that lovely $12+ salary. That is being paid at all the Walmarts to the east where the cost of living is astronomical. Boston and it's surrounding communities are extremely expensive and that salary is barely a living wage in some areas. Where I grew up the COL is significantly less than even the 'burbs of Houston and maybe the manager is making that, but the average employee is not. PLus, that "salary" you quoted is only $4k/year above the poverty line and that assumes the employee is actually allowed to work a full time job, which most are not even though their Walmart job is their only source of income.

Well, crunch, you're just not hip to how the Heights works. When we're complaining about restaurants and D-bag bars, Washington Avenue is NOT the Heights. An interstate highway is a pretty clear line of demarcation. But, when we complain about Walmart, then Washington Avenue is included in the Heights. It works the same with our homes. We don't want uber-riche people building McMansions in the Heights, forcing out the middle class. We'd rather impose such restrictions on them that they cannot afford to repair or remodel their bungalows. By the same logic, we don't want low price Walmart, because they pay low wages. We'd rather have high priced 'mom and pops' for our middle class residents to enjoy. It makes perfect sense to us. Only an Eastie like yourself and Niche couldn't understand something as simple as this.

On average, a locally owned store injects $60/100 back in to their local economy while a national chain gives back under $40. And all "local" business is not mom & pop. I hardly think Heights area businesses like Stella Sola or Lola/Dragon Bowl/Pinks or Harold's can be considered "mom & pop" but they are locally owned.

Also, you do a lot of businesses a disservice by automatically assuming their products are out of reach of "middle class." Many of the stores in the Heights are less expensive than the large retailers who carry the same merchandise. For example Urban Soles Outpost sells everything at MSRP and is typically cheaper than Zappos for most of their stocked items. Our local booksellers usually have better prices than the big retail chains (everything at Heights Books-Libros is 20% off MSRP and they have used books for even less).

Small business owners make up a majority of the "middle class" so I would think you would do more to support them...

Well, crunch, you're just not hip to how the Heights works. When we're complaining about restaurants and D-bag bars, Washington Avenue is NOT the Heights. An interstate highway is a pretty clear line of demarcation. But, when we complain about Walmart, then Washington Avenue is included in the Heights. It works the same with our homes. We don't want uber-riche people building McMansions in the Heights, forcing out the middle class. We'd rather impose such restrictions on them that they cannot afford to repair or remodel their bungalows. By the same logic, we don't want low price Walmart, because they pay low wages. We'd rather have high priced 'mom and pops' for our middle class residents to enjoy. It makes perfect sense to us. Only an Eastie like yourself and Niche couldn't understand something as simple as this.

You can move to the suburbs, get a cheap house and a whole lotta Walmart. Have fun.

Houston, TX is not Westerfield, MA. There are about 60 times the number of people in our region, better higher-paying jobs, productive industry, and modern infrastructure. Your apparent surprise that a cultural institution could not turn around the town's economy is also kind of telling. The problem with towns such as that one is that the core employers cannot sustain their business. And to be clear, a mom & pop dry goods store is not a core employer; a museum is not a core employer; nor is a Wal-Mart; they are all non-core employers enabled by the disposable income injected into the workforce by industry (and to some extent from transfer payments).

Compare cities and towns in the northeast and the rust belt to Texas; with only three exceptions (Beaumont, Wichita Falls, and Sherman-Denison), all of our MSAs are growing. They all also have one or more Wal-Marts, and I'd suspect in higher concentration per capita than they exist in the northeast. Energy is only part of the story; why is Waco growing...or Amarillo? The answer is that Texas is a business-friendly state. We can out-compete Massachusetts and even China in many categories. ...and whether in spite of our Wal-Marts or more likely regardless of them, people move here from stagnant places like Pittsfield, MA for self-betterment in one form or another.

Actually, the economy of Western MA is some residual farming but primarily tourism/culture. It hasn't been industry in most parts of the state for more than 60 years. As I said before, many of the towns throughout the Berkshires are thriving and always have. It's places and events like Cranwell to Tanglewood to the Williamstown Theater Festival which fuel the economy of the western part of the state. It's picturesque and quaint; people come from all over the world to spend weekends or even the summer. However, when people visit MassMoCA, they don't spend a lot of money in North Adams because there is no where for them to spend it. They go to Williamstown or drive down to Lee/Lenox/Stockbridge and shop, buy art, eat because you can do those things in those areas. In North Adams, you can shop at Walmart and the tourists don't want or need it. It's also not a 24 hours Walmart so the "convenience factor" is lost there as well.

As far as coming here for self betterment, I came to Texas as a full time volunteer (VISTA) working to help children in poverty, not to suckle the Texas teet, and ended up marrying a native.

But of course you know more about my hometown and my intentions and my reasons for being than I do, so I digress

My monthly living expenses are only slightly more than half of what a full-time Wal-Mart employee on minimum wage earns. If that level of income is poverty, then whatever definition of poverty you're using was cooked up by one greedy bastard.

Ahhhh. So what you really want here is a job.

The Heights has changed dramatically in the last 10 years and lots of companies (including commercial real estate) are just using the 2000 census with annual adjustments made on average/projected population growth. What can drastically change demographics in a short time in a zip code (or block group) are new apartment complexes due to their high number of households in a limited space. That I am aware of - there have not been many new apartment complexes built - except for the two on I-10 (Target & near Heights blvd) and the one on Yale (at 22nd) and it doesn't look to me that they are marketing and housing "Mexican families" (as you put it). If they are building a store at Northline Commons, not too far from there that will service Walmart's typical (repeat) customer (demographics), I would be very surprised if WalMart put a store in the Heights on Yale at I-10.

We were just talking about this at dinner last night.

The widespread and sustained rumor is that Target used these older stats in development of the Sawyer Heights store and now greatly regret it. They believed that the area would only sustain a small store and now the SH store is one of the highest grossing in metro Houston. Since they dropped the ball and didn't make it a Super Target (like a lot of the people around here had hoped), they are now sticking random produce on aisle end caps and adding food/wine wherever possible to make up for the bad stats they were forced to use...

Which brings up another point- if Walmart has a target demographic of people under a certain income level, but this area has transitioned so much that it's now mostly the educated, upper middle class that The Niche hates so much (because apparently he had a taste of the lifestyle and then lost it, so the rest of us are to blame and we should all be ashamed of our own successes) why should the area be forced to accept a store that caters to the smaller percentage of the area population?

I dont disagree with most of what you have said here, except that Walmart will take market share from the small mom and pop stores, even from the people who despise the store. There are too many instances, where you need something cheap, fast, and now. Mom & Pop stores often are not open when you need those things....WalMart fills that void, even for people who despise it.

I despise Walmart - I hate going in them...but if you need a fishing license at 3am, and a few snacks, and some gas, and you want to do that fast and in all in one stop....well your SOL anywhere but Walmart.

Walmart is about cheap convenience....nothing more. They treat their employees the way they do, because if they did not, their products would cost more. I am a huge fan of shopping local, and avoiding large chain stores that dont care or support our community, but there are instances when you have to break your own rules because you actually need something they have.

I guess my argument is more that there is nothing you can get at 99% of the stores in the Heights that you otherwise need in a cheap, fast and instant manner. If you look at the retailers in the Heights, they are all specialty retailers, not general "needs" retailers.

As far as a "they can build it and then no one shop there and let it close" mentality, well a) we know a Walmart would probably stay open anywhere inside the loop but if it did fail then you are left with a big, ugly hulking shell of a big box store visible from space. It will take years to find someone willing to occupy or subdivide or tear down. This is a problem cities are seeing all across the country (mostly with empty, old Kmarts). In the time it takes to redevelop an old big box store, the vacant space can also have a hugely detrimental effect on a neighborhood. IMO, we are already at risk of Rice Military becoming a ghetto if development isn't done in a wise and careful manner. All business owners around that area should be invested in what goes up around them and for the long term health of the area, they should not want it to be a Walmart.

As an over-educated white male that held a full-time job and developed a career during his college years which was rendered a liability by the financial crisis...and that responded by investing my life's savings in an ill-conceived partnership that has ultimately voided those savings...and having found myself being the lowest earner of my two college student roommates... with no employment prospects other than the Army...I find that I'm positioned well below the working class Mexican households that I've been Censusing in terms of buying power (and earning power).

Consider yourself lucky, as I would if I had easier access to a Wal-Mart.

Oh, so it's a chip on your shoulder that makes you act like this. Makes more sense now.

As for your hometown...clearly it wasn't a big city. Houston is not a small town. Attempting to compare the two is a fallacy of composition. Since you have embraced the name "Yankee", I'm gathering that you're probably from the northeast or the rust belt. And yeah, with or without Wal-Mart, those places are withering. High taxes and a strict regulatory environment there are how you make a living here.

Whether or not it was inevitable doesn't invalidate my feelings about it.

And I don't believe it was inevitable as the only other Walmart in Western Ma is in Pittesfield, population roughly 100,000, and many of the other clusters of small towns around there which have kept Walmart out continue to thrive. Even now that they have opened the largest contemporary art museum in the country in an old factory, the town can't recover and many locals will point to Walmarts destruction of the local economy as part of it.

And, again, I also dislike Walmart as a company due to their employment policies which keep thousands of people on their "payroll" below the poverty line. They use sweatshop labor. They discriminate against women in their power structure. They even dictate the size of home their corp staff can purchase (i.e. regardless of the size of his family, an inhouse lawyer for Walmart was told that he could not buy anything larger than a 3/2- in Arkansas, mind you- because they didn't want it too look like they pay their lawyers too much). I don't like them as a company and I don't have to support or be happy about them moving so close to me (maybe, this is all just rumor at this point no matter how much HeyHatch hears it's a done deal). And I don't have to change my mind just because you are excited about the prospect of having cheap, Chinese made products made so much more accessible to you...

I have an academic background in economics and professional backgrounds in market research, economic development, and commercial real estate development. Who better to provide input on the matter? Really.

See, you miss the point. This is, for many people, an emotional issue. We like or dislike Walmart for our own personal reasons, e.g. corp policies, sweatshop labor, discrimination, aesthetics, parking lot safety, etc. So no one really cares that you have anointed yourself the supreme expert on what we should all want. Your education and hodge podge of professional backgrounds isn't going to make HeyHatch feel safe in a Walmart parking lot at night and it's not going to make me go back and say "yeah, I'm sure glad there's a Walmart scarring the face of my quaint New England hometown." Frankly, we don't have to want it and, like you said, this is Houston. It's not like Walmart is the only option and we'd be silly for turning it away. If not Walmart, there are a lot of other ways that land could be developed that would benefit the area as much, if not more, than a Walmart. I'm sure you're aware that there are more options but you pull so hard for this one because it benefits you. Fine. That is your emotional reaction as well, but don't play it off as if everyone else is stupid for having a differing opinion.

I said earlier in the conversation that I don't believe Walmart will close the locally owned businesses in the Heights and surrounding neighborhoods. C&D survives with Home Depot and Lowe's a 5 minute drive away. People who are buying baby gifts at Tulips & Tutus aren't going to switch to Walmart. People who want handcrafted items aren't going to stop going to The Artful COrner and 18 Hands Gallery b/c Wallyworld moved below I10.

And here is a great tip for you: there are also 2 Fiestas, the nice one on Studewood and the giant Fiesta on Shepherd, where you can get all the inexpensive food you want, probably cheaper than Walmart will be anyway.

A Wal-Mart should be brought into the community when people will shop there. And they will! I will. And I'll shop at Wal-Mart with much greater frequency when it isn't a 30-minute round trip.

What would you rather see there, an HEB with strip centers? Sooner or later, that land will be developed by something that will generate traffic...and that's too much land for merely another apartment project.

I drank Lone Star before it was popular. And when it was adopted for the sake of irony and the price increased by $0.50 per six pack to reflect something more tasty than horse piss, I switched to 40oz King Cobras. And I openly admit it. You can call me lots of things that are derogatory (i.e. unsophisticated, redneck, cheapskate, asshole, et al.); I'm not thinking that "pretentious" or "douche" would be among them.

The fact is that you call any opinions outside of your own "pretentious" or "douchey" or "brainwashed" or "classist." People are only entitled to their own opinions if those opinions mirror yours. God forbid anyone be born white and worked their tail off against great odds to educate themselves. Me and my stupid, educated husband. I never should have defied all the statistics of being the child of a single mother on welfare. If we don't like WalMart, we're apparently anti-working class. I saw Walmart decimate the economy of my very poor hometown and ruin what working class there was left. For years after, it was just abject poverty. As a company, they actually keep the people who work for them below the poverty line. Even their "American made" items are actually made made in sweatshops in Saipan, a U.S. territory not subject to labor laws. I don't like them and it's not because I am afriad of brown or black or poor people.

I mean, what do you want from people? To acknowledge that you are the be all, end all? You honestly think you are the authority on what everyone is thinking and feeling about every issue? That you know people's motivations better than they themselves? Get over yourself.

Perfect! A central wal-mart not in my neighborhood is exactly what I've been hoping for....j/k. Well, sort of

But seriously, it does seem like a pretty good place for one, and it's not like it's smack dab in the middle of the Heights. I also don't see how this would kill the mom-and-pops when Target hasn't

I do think this is a pretty good point. I mean people who are going to shop our local stores are going to shop them regardless of what big box discounter opens near by. Walmart did ruin/close most small businesses in my hometown but that is because it's a small, low income community that doesn't realize more money filters in to your own economy when you buy local.

I don't dislike the idea of Walmart simply for it's potential effects on small business. I dislike them because they pay poorly, are well known for discriminatory (gender and race) practices, send money and manufacturing jobs to China, don't pay their employees enough to pay for their corporate health care plan and often refuse to hire people above 30 hours a week so they can't even qualify for that plan, plus other business practices that I feel harm American workers and companies trying to stay competitive while keeping as much work as they can made in the US.

Was Wal-Mart approached by the owner of the property on Yale between I-10 and Washington to buy the land? This is the same property H-E-B was looking at to build a new store along the lines of the one on Bunker Hill. Is the deal done with Wal-Mart? I've heard yes. What does this mean to the likes of our Heights Mom and Pops? What will that do to the traffic patterns on Yale and Washington? Google "Wal Mart parking lot crime" and let us know our thoughts!

That made me throw up in my mouth a little

Fine, I'll show my hand.

What I'm trying to do is box her into admitting that the ordinance as proposed is flawed and that we want the same thing, which is for it to affect only the intended neighborhoods. Rather than agree that the current proposal should be opposed in favor of a modified proposal, she keeps claiming that modification is unlikely and is using that as a baseline assumption to conclude that the current proposal should be supported. But that kind of reasoning and rhetoric is disingenuous. What it means to me is that she's so concerned over the fate of her own neighborhood's aesthetic that she would leave every other neighborhood with historic buildings open to being doubly screwed over, first by neglect and then by regulation that encourages further neglect.

Her disregard for historical buildings beyond those that she sees on a regular basis indicates to me that she's not a preservationist; it's not about the history, it's about the Heights. Its abrasively self-serving at best, but it also reeks of classism on account of that potential adverse effects would occur disproportionately in working-class neighborhoods.

If you go back and read all my comments in this thread I think you'll get an idea of the full scope of my opinion. Trying to box me in? How neighborly.

The fundamental issue here is that you and I believe that there would be two completely different outcomes if the ordinance passes as is. I am not selfish or classist. In fact, you were the one railing about your neighborhood, showing that you care only how this will effect you with no apparent concern for my neighborhood or other historic districts in the city that are desperate for more teeth. I do not believe that houses will be left to rot because this ordinance passes. I feel that residents in historic districts will see long term benefits from the proposal. Yes, I agree it's flawed but it's better than nothing and I would rather see it pass than stick with the status quo. I'm sorry that is impossible for you to believe. However, I stated earlier on that I think it would be great to modify it to give more say to each individual area according to their needs. Again, though, if this can't happen in a constructive manner, I say go for it. I believe that Houston will benefit greatly from these controls. Not just the Heights, not just Norhill, but the whole city. I believe that for Houston. I come from somewhere that history is revered and preserved and I think it would be a wonderful thing to have that same feeling here. I just do. I am done arguing about this and having you try to catch me with some other agenda or claim I am being disingenuous. Clearly this post should show you that I am always honest and upfront about my opinions, even if I lose the popularity contest because of it.

And now, lest you think I am scared off, I am going to get in bed and watch a movie with my husband. Tomorrow morning I will be up by 6 am with my kids. I will feed them and dress them, pack a lunch for the older one and walk them both from Norhill across the Heights to his school. I will take the baby to Antidote and then come home, where I will leave him with a sitter, go to the gym, the grocery store and meet a friend for a late lunch. I will come home, pack the little guy up, pick up his brother and meet a friend and her son for a play date and probably invite them over for some dinner, which she will accept b/c her husband is traveling for work. After they leave, I will bathe my kids while my husband cleans the kitchen, read them books, put one to bed while my husband deals with the other. After that, I will probably enjoy another glass of wine with him and then I will will get on line and check the couple of message boards that I read before we go to sleep. So, I apologize in advance if I won't have the time to read what additional niceties you have for me until late tomorrow or even Tuesday. Just want you to know I won't be at your beckon call to give whatever additional one word answer you demand of me on your very strict ask-respond schedule.

SPOT ON! http://www.heightswest.com/

Granted, we were one of the only tables, but they have hit it. We both had the mushroom salad. I had the salmon. Mrs P. had the rabbit (poor little bunny). I sampled her dish. MMMM. The components of the meal sang and were well melded. Yeah, I'm all foodie about this meal, and for good reason.

The environment is...interesting. The fabric on the garage doors of the former ice house is luxurious. The paint job on the walls...took effort. Not too many tops. When the place becomes more popular, there will be wait time.

The chef and wait staff seem a bit tetched. I think that's what Southern by day, and French by night means. As long as the chef stays off boogie boarding on White Oak Bayou, this place can be a real go.

Oh, and they swear no affiliation or conspiracy with SJL, and recognize they are not in Heights proper...just in case you have issues around that kind of thing (or other issues).

Thanks for the review!

When I saw you were the last poster to this thread, I thought before I even opened the post "He went there. He'll be the 1st to try anything" Glad you did and per your feedback, I will add it to my list

You prefaced your earlier response with an unrealistic assumption, that the proposal could not be modified within a week's time. Now you've made a fifty-six-word excuse instead of providing a simple one-word response; clearly the availability of time is not an issue. So yes, I think you're dodging the question.

What would be the purpose of dodging? I just don't get it... I said if it was all or nothing, meaning if I had to take what was on the table or have nothing at all, I would take what is currently proposed. I don't understand what is not clear about that?

It doesn't appear to be all-or-nothing. The City Council can still debate and modify the policy before adopting it. They modify ordinances before passing them all the time.

Yes or no, do you oppose the current proposal?

Seriously? Dodging? I have 2 small kids at home, a husband and a busy life outside of HAIF. I went ahead and answered your question with a pretty clear answer even though I had already stated I was removing myself from the conversation. After that, I **gasp** got up and walked away from the computer. Imagine!

If you acknowledge that the proposal in its current form is inadequate then you oppose it, correct?

If it was absolutely going to be an all or nothing, I would support it as it is currently written. I believe that this is the lesser of two evils when compared to the current "no means just wait a while" system. However, I think there is still room for debate on how it's implemented. I would start where it is and see where people can find a middle ground. To me, it seems as though the conversation is scrap it, don't consider it at all, just walk away and stick with the status quo.

I really wish you would provide some proof of this. My admittedly small investigation found the opposite to be true. I am not ready to declare that historic district designations depress home values based on my limited research, but I definitely would disagree with Sue Lovell, the HHA, and now your characterization that the designation makes your home values rise faster than mine. I have seen this claim made VERY often, and have specifically looked for the source, but have never found one. I can only conclude that someone made the claim once and others took it at face value. I doubt there is even a Houston specific study of the issue.

I spent a lot of time trying to research it, actually, and what I found was that in some cities preservation has been a great success and it did increase values, etc etc... In other cities, not so much. The studies I read (granted, on the internet but several were published by Universities so I gave them merit) pretty much concluded it just depends and results varied by city. One study (Kansas, maybe) showed that historic protection tended to veer - but was not absolute- in cities where other development opportunities still existed. That is definitely Houston and definitely the Heights. Hell, there is acreage of empty land on the west side.

As far as the proof, you're totally right. A realtor did a presentation on it to our neighborhood association a couple years ago. She claimed to have crunched the numbers and I believed her. I do continue to believe her only b/c I have seen how fast homes have been selling by me while others languish on the market in other parts of the Heights. I am not saying that my house is worth more than yours but it seems that people are paying more per sq ft for smaller homes in my area than for larger homes in the Historic Heights. You have a smaller home and that might be able to be said of yours as well- that someone will want your home at more per sq ft than a huge, new house. The new house would cost more overall but less per sq ft. I actually interviewed a realtor/renovator/builder who works almost exclusively in the Heights this week. She said,over all, her current client base want smaller homes and will even pay the same as a larger one (this is for renos and new) if the smaller one has higher quality fixtures, more attention to detail, etc... I think this is a trend you will see more of as more empty nesters leave the 'burbs and move back in to town after their kids are grown.

Listen, we all have our opinions here and I'm not saying no one should fight for what they think is best for their property. I am just trying to express why some people are for preservation and why people may be supporting this move by the City. I am feeling pretty personally attacked here and that no one finds any merit in how I feel about this issue so I am going to bow out. In the end, it's all feelings and I think I have tried to respect how you all feel about it and how you *think* it may effect you, but remember that we don't really know what will happen so we can't say anyone is wrong or right. People also claimed the smoking ban was going to be the end of bars and restaurants all over Houston but I have yet to see that happen. And now I digress...

You're apparently oblivious to the fate of my neighborhood, my historical building, or my investment. Stop advancing a policy that has potentially far-reaching consequences for neighborhoods beyond your own. No means no!

No, this is where we agree. I think that there needs to be further discussion on the issue and the City and the HCAC need to figure out something that is going to work for the whole city. BUT we all only have our own perspectives and you want what you believe is right for where you live and I want what I believe is right for where I live. It just seems that the discussion is so "all or nothing" here. Changing some areas to protected districts will be good for them. Possibly not for others but that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water.

By your very own statements, at best, this new ordinance would have prevented 3 homes being built during the most prolific decade of home building in Houston's history. The new ordinance would have virtually no effect on your district whatsoever. This is what I find so offensive, that a minuscule problem of 3 new homes per decade must be combated by restricting the rights of everyone else. And the secretive and heavy handed manner in which the supporters attempted to ram this new ordinance through, and the outright refusal to let the affected parties ratify the new ordinance does not bode well for even-handed application of the new rules. Safe to say, anyone who wants the ability to remodel their own home without being told what they may do by heavy handed neighbors should steer clear of the historic districts. Nothing we've seen suggest anything less than a nightmare.

But you see, this neighborhood is already heavily deed restricted on top of the Historic designation. People can't just do whatever they want here regardless of what the HCAC does with this ordinance. The only way to get around the restrictions for remodel are demo. If you demo in this neighborhood, the deed restrictions provide for even greater control by the board on the plans for your new home. This is what was established over 20 years ago and every person in the last 20 years who has bought a house over here knows that. Yet, houses often sell faster and for more per sq ft in this part of the Heights than the flashier areas (and b/c our houses are smaller, even at more per sq ft they are affordable relative to other parts of the neighborhood). People *want* to live within the restrictions because they don't want a giant house looming over their yard or 4 townhouses causing flooding/drainage issues on the lot next to them.

I completely agree that if you do not want any restrictions on what you can do with your home, do not live in a Historic District. That is true for Houston and every other major city in the country. It is also true for most of the subdivisions in most of the suburbs of Houston. THe PPNA Board has a lawyer who specializes in deed restrictions who has said that our deed restrictions in Norhill/Proctor Plaza are nothing compared to the 'burbs.

But they will deny a CoA if non-conforming repairs and renovations are the only economically feasible repairs or renovations...meaning that the structure in question sits and rots up to and including the point where demolition becomes inevitable.

And again, I don't think that this would be all that problematic in the Heights. Fortunes will be made and lost in short order, no doubt, but then the hardcore preservationists don't really care about that, so I'm not going to bother arguing it to them. The fact is, there's plenty of demand and money for whatever kind of housing happens to be in the Heights, old or new. What would be problematic is if these rules ended up getting applied to cash-poor neighborhoods like mine (and such as the Heights used to be). Buildings such as mine would be lost, not saved.

In our neighborhood, where $million homes do not exist, our neighborhood association has a very good relationship with the city. In the end, the Board has greater say even than the HCAC. What we consistently see is people working together to make it happen. No, it's not the cheapest but it has worked even when this was a poorer neighborhood. After all, due to the closeness to 45 and the deed restrictions, this area has gentrified more slowly than other parts of the Heights- which is why a nice house is affordable, relatively, over here. It's also why we still have more of the eclectic nature of the "old Heights", the loss of which people are lamenting in another thread on this board.

3. It seems to me that the main focus should be preservation of structures. Don't demolish usable houses, especially if they have significant architectural elements. I don't see why that _wouldn't_ be a good thing all over Houston.

I seem to be the lone person here in favor of stricter historic controls in Houston. From where I sit, what this is supposed to accomplish is not far outside of what HCAC already does. If you live in a Historic District, you already answer to the HCAC anyway. What it does is eliminate the 90 day wait period, which renders the HCAC moot. It needs to have some teeth. I work with the HCAC regularly and I can tell you that they are not in favor of letting dangerous buildings sit and rot. They will not deny demo permits when the building does, indeed, need to be demoed but a lot of good houses have been lost. Neighborhoods like mine, which is more than 70% contributing with only 3 homes built in the last decade, can really benefit from "no means no."

I agree with others that it shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all solution since different areas have different needs. Still, there is currently no way to save structures with architectural or sociological meaning. In the Heights homes on the Historic Register have been torn down and Disney like structures built in their place. Something needs to happen.

I like train noise too, and that's part of what I like about Eastwood is that it's literally surrounded by active freight tracks. Having said that, I wouldn't want to have it in my back yard...so good for the Washington Corridor.

I also liked the distant horn while reading on my front porch at night. BUT I also lived on Mid Lane when I 1st moved to Houston in apartments that had nothing between them and the train tracks except a parking lot. It was terrible. I couldn't even stay there and ended up sleeping at my [now] husband's every night, which defeated the purpose of living close to work. So while I will miss the Washington whistles, they were not in my back yard so good for the people who live there.

As long as they leave the bike lane in at Heights, it should still be OK for bikeability. The lights control the traffic well enough.

Right now the bike lane is closed going through the intersection both directions, so cars and bikes have to share the road a little more than usual.

i'm more concerned about the trail under i10 to target...

Leaving aside whether or not it's a good thing for a sec (I have mixed feelings), is this what the people who signed the petitions were sold?

Many neighborhoods with historic designations have been lobbying for this. It was not something that was provided for in the past at all, i.e. not an option thru CoH. again, this is all just what i've heard from a couple people so take it as total hearsay and not as absolute. this is why there would be an opt out provision, so if residents don't want it, they can keep their "historic" designation rather than be protected. i think the majority of people in historic districts (like the 1st ward) will be happy to take it though.

I just had a friend call me SCREAMING about something the city is doing wrt historic districts. He said there's going to be a moratorium on permitting until Dec 31 put into place and the mayor is going to bring a vote to change them to protected districts. Anybody know anything?

I don't know anything about the moratorium but i have been hearing a lot of rumors about this for the last few months. the last i heard was that historic districts would be made in to protected districts, thus giving them the No Means No authority and getting rid of the 90 day wait. what i also heard, and i have no idea how true this is, is that districts will be able to vote to opt out if they do not want to be protected.

personally, i think this is great and hope it really does happen.

Sometimes...I've read chron articles where a crime occurred in "northwest Houston" that were the Heights, Oak Forest, Acres Home, or even Cypress.

Yeah, that's what I always hear too. Heights = northwest. So everytime there is a shooting out near Champions, I'll get some friend from the 'burbs emailing to ask if it was near me. le sigh.

Every day.

Actually, that's not true. Maybe Walmart & Target, but retailers the size of TM will get one shipment per week, maybe 2. Even high volume stores like Pottery Barn (the Highland Village store is in the top 5 in the country) only get trucks once a week.