suzerain

I think it is called The Mix at Midtown. Looked pretty interesting to me this morning. I came on the board to see if there was any info on it, but have not found it yet.

I think it is called The Mix at Midtown. Looked pretty interesting to me this morning. I came on the board to see if there was any info on it, but have not found it yet.

I don't see it

Look at the space on the far right.

Nice :-)

The crosspoint properties website shows a starbucks as a tenant on the first floor.

You can't pin it on me. I never signed it.

Hell, one of my ancestors even voted against it at the constitutional convention of South Carolina in 1788. One of the other of the eleven delegates from his county voted for it against the wishes of his antifederalist constituents. That man and his family were run out of town by vigilantes. My ancestor didn't pack up and head into the western frontier in protest, though.

I'd like to think that he understood as I do: that while I may not recognize the right of the government to place a particular burden on me--only to suggest it--I do recognize that it has the ability to inconvenience me if I choose not to accept that burden, just as I have the ability to escape it by removing myself from the entity's jurisdiction; the best that I can do is to live my life to the fullest in the knowledge that there is no such thing as a perfect world, only a perfect adaptation of it that can be brought about by the discriminating selection of which laws to follow and which to disregard in the knowledge that there may be consequences, and in all other matters that I pursue my own unique set of outcomes such that I am maximally satisfied.

Should the government place such a burden upon me as that I cannot ever be satisfied with my life, then I'd gladly pay homage to my ancestry and take up a new flag.

Indeed. I hope you recognize what this phrase means, beyond its application as propaganda.

Completely. I understand its meaning. It is a shame it is so easily forgotten under the much more popular "The constitution is not a suicide pact." bleh.

I am a big fan of the antifederalists. As I said, I am quite the libertarian. I agree that you have the right to chose which laws to obey and which to ignore, but, as you have said, one must accept the consequences. I know that if someone ever did something to hurt my child they would have to deal with me directly, but in acting independent of the government, I accept that I will face punishment for my actions.

See, we basically agree with each other and all is well with the world

What social contract? I didn't sign anything. I've never sworn an oath to that effect.

I hereby renounce any such explicit or implied agreement.

Really? You know the constitution you live under? You know the laws that govern society? Those comprise the social contract. It is what keeps me from going to my neighbor's house and appropriating items of his that I covet. If you truly wish to renounce all such explicit or implied agreement then I wish you a found farwell as you make your way to Somalia where there is no government to compel you to do anything you do not want to do, while also not enforcing any of your contracts or offering any protection of any kind.

Live Free or Die

TEXAS PENAL CODE

TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

SECTION 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSONS PROPERTY

where are you getting your information? mine is from the final draft, dated 10/29/07, which reads:

and then goes on to say:

but that was a given, so posting it would have been slightly redundant.

edited to add screen shot, just because..

I am sorry. This one concerns the law so I am fascinated by this. The developers could get a way out because the statute refers to collector and local streets.

The System uses several factors to classify streets into one of four categories: local, collector, thoroughfare, and principal thoroughfare. The factors include:

1. Length of Road

2. Existing and projected traffic volume

3. Character of adjacent properties

4. Possibility of expansion, including manmade and natural barriers

5. Need to preserve thoroughfare corridors

COH Planning Commission Definitions:

* Principal Thoroughfare: more than 5 miles long; connects freeways and other principal thoroughfares; more than 30,000 vehicles per day, usually spaced 3

Suze, see the exemptions to the vesting statute in

the ordinance is supposedly coming before council today. the mayor said that he wants to put a 90 day hold to ensure that the ordinance doesn't just affect a particular project but will help the city as a whole.

"You'd better stop this thing, because I'm going to stop it unless you stop it." Bill White.

Wow. How inappropriate is that. He should know better than to make such comments in public. It only gives more fodder to any potential legal action by the developers. It makes it even more clear the ordinance is being passed to block this project despite the words spoken at the city counsel meetings. I think every delay makes it even more likely they are not going to win this fight.

The council's action came after the developers, Matthew Morgan and Kevin Kirton of Buckhead Investment Partners, agreed in writing not to seek any additional permits during the 90-day period.--Houston Chronicle.

This seems to me like they are vested in the project under the law since they already have applied for permits. I just hope they are aware they cannot change the project or risk falling under any new ordinances.

I was looking into the vesting statute as referenced earlier on this thread. My question is whether or not they have already filed their application. I am guessing that they have since all they have to do is give "fair notice" of the project to the city.

Also, looking at some of the case law, Mayor White's frustration with the recalcitrance of the builders is better understood. If he can convince the builders to change their plan, then they lose their rights under the vesting statute.

Because the term "project" is defined as an endeavor, rights vest in a particular project and are no longer vested if the project changes. City of San Antonio v. En Seguido, Ltd., 227 S.W.3d 237 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 2007).

So, the way I am reading it, if they can get the owners to change their plans after they enact the ordinance, the city wins. "

Noticed a sign regarding variance hearing for this site (northeast corner of Westheimer and Helena, across from Legacy).

Any info?

Don't have any info except for the variance sign says "Helena Gardens"

So what I would imagine would happen now is:

1) City passes the ordinance

2) Developer(s) file for a temporary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the ordinance as enacted; and

3) Concurrently, they will file a Declaratory Judgment Action seeking to declare the the ordinance is void because the City Council does not have the power to institute zoning.

Then the city of Houston and various developers will pay a lot of money to attorneys to duke this out. What a shame. I love how the ordinance claims:

That there exists a public emergency requiring that this Ordinance be passed finally on the date of its introduction as requested in writing by the Mayor;

therefore, this Ordinance shall be passed finally on such date and shall take effect immediately upon its passage and approval by the Mayor.

So for this ordinance to apply to the proposed building would require:

(1)Would increase the residential density within the proposed

development by 100 percent or more;

(2) Comprise 100 or more dwelling units; and

(3) Is proposed to take any vehicular access from an abutting twolane

street with two-way traffic;

for which development no structural permit has been issued.

So basically, if there are 67 existing units, they could build a 133 unit building without falling under this statute. That would be about 1/3 fewer units than the developers are currently proposing. The funny part is, the developers could double the commercial and office components in the proposal, thereby causing greater traffic than the residences alone and there would still be nothing the neighborhood (except for passing another ordinance) could do about it. Additionally, the developers could make the building even taller with they fewer units and the neighborhood could not do anything.

I do not know a whole about land use ordinances in Houston, but I would argue this would be a violation of the equal protection clause. Although the standard of review in commerce cases is only rational basis, there is seems to be no rational basis to have the law only apply to residential properties and not others. I would imagine the traffic impact of a Wal-mart would be way greater than the high rise, as would a 23 story office building. There seems to be no rational basis for this only to apply only to a residential building. Given the time span given in writing this statute, you know the city has no basis for believing there is something unique about residential buildings that

(1) Increasing traffic congestion, hazardous traffic conditions, travel time and

vehicle conflicts on City streets;

(2) Increasing vehicle/pedestrian conflicts resulting in injury or death to

pedestrians; and

(3) Impeding the ability of police, fire, ambulance and disaster response

services to respond effectively to emergency or disaster situations;

The city charter states:

Section 13, Referendum on Zoning.

The City of Houston shall have the power to adopt a zoning ordinance only by: (a) allowing a six month waiting period after publication of any proposed ordinance for public hearings and debate and ( holding a binding referendum at a regularly scheduled election. Any existing zoning ordinance is hereby repealed. (Added by amendment January 15, 1994)

So how can they go ahead and have this hearing so quick and adopt the ordinance. I am assuming all of this is based upon their police powers relating to the public streets. We all know that is a load of garbage, but it is hard to fight the government when they give any reason to courts, the courts will usually listen.

It seems like they are completely hanging their hat on the traffic issue. Would a "traffic ordinance" like the one suggested by Bill White (no zoning on his watch btw, lol) really do a whole lot to curb development. Especially since the city seems pretty insistent on making adding lanes to road to handle anticipated increases in traffic. It seems like the city is saying they want to help, just not so much so they do not ruffle too many (read wealthy contributors) feathers.

I had heard they were looking at trying to claim the building would be a nuisance to the neighborhood. Seems like a bit of reach to me.

The only common theme I see in all the articles is that there is pretty much nothing they can do to stop the developers, but the residents and their friends in city hall (though the politicians have to play both sides of the fence...developers contribute a lot of money and it is an election year) are going to do their damnedest anyhow.

Really? When did Austin become dense?

Over the past ten years, it has started to happen more and more. You would be surprised.

Not for me.

If this were happening to you, whether you were rich or poor, I'd feel bad for you. This isn't anything anybody expected on a two-lane stretch of Bissonnet.

Well, my point is people need to stop listening to special interests who fight zoning so hard if they want to protect their homes from this type of development. Maybe this spur some sort of movement. I do not think many people would be terribly upset is this type of development were limited to certain areas. I prefer the system in Austin personally where dense development spurs dense development in designated areas while protecting the fabric of single-home neighborhoods.

I actually have family who recently purchased a home in this neighborhood. It sucks for them, but, at least, they have always been proponents of zoning to prevent these types of situations.

It won't cause the Apocalypse, but it will make the traffic situation much worse, which will bring down property values in one of the most beautiful areas of Houston. When you own a house, and you've worked years to pay the mortgage and you're looking forward to the day you sell it so you can reap the rewards of your years of hard work, you'll understand.

Except that you purchased a house in the city of Houston where the people insist they do not want zoning. Well, here is the price. It is hard to feel bad for these people.

Also, all the people purchasing homes in Southhampton were the runup in prices has been out of control, have purchased with the knowledge that the deed restrictions will run out in, I believe, 13 years.

24h Traffic count on Bissonet here was 17k+ in 2001.

250 units are going to cause the Apocalypse?

Wah wah wah... cry me a river. Protection of privilege...

I was thinking about Cluterbuck living in this neighborhood last night. I know her husband is intimately involved in the Civic club and the effort to save the deed restrictions in the neighborhood. This seems to me to be a complete conflict of interest. She is attempting to get the city involved in a fight that benefits her and her family directly. I know she is supposed to represent the area, but with such a vested interest in what is going on here, she should be very wary of using her public office to try and curtail the development. I know, I know, this sort of self-interested politicing goes on all the time. Still seems dirty to me.

BTW, if the truly wants to stop them and succeeds, are they going to be willing to return the 500k investment the developers already put into the project?

Anyone ever have to sue a landlord to get their deposit back? I just moved out of my old apartment and the landlord isnt giving me my full deposit back. The deposit was 1650 and he is saying it was 1200. Yes this guy is that big of a moron. I was thinking about getting a lawyer, since texas law says that winner gets paid lawyers fees. I could do it myself but I really dont have the time.

A letter should scare him. Let him know, if you can show it was a 1650 deposit, that his refusal to return it you is a violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and you can recover three times the amount recovered, plus $100, plus your attorney fees. That should be enough to get the money back. However, I would wait at least thirty days you moved out before sending the letter. A landlord must provide you with a written inventory of damages deducted from your deposit. Do it too early and he may "create" damages that resulted in the lowered amount.

In law school, my roommate and I used this to get our deposit back, and my roommate got the deposit back for several other people as well.

Here is a sample letter from the People's Attorney Richard Alderman:

Landlord's Name

Street Address

City, State, Zip

Dear Landlord:

On (fill in date) I moved out of the house/apartment that I was renting from you. As our lease agreement provided, I gave proper notice and left the apartment in good condition. I was also current in my rent.

When I moved in, I paid a security deposit of (amount). You have not returned my deposit as the law requires. Under this law, a landlord must refund a security deposit or send written notice of the reason it is be withheld within 30 days after the tenant vacates the property.

Unless I receive my security deposit from you within a reasonable time, intend to go to small claims court. I should tell you that if I do go court, I may be entitled to three times the amount of my deposit plus $100.

Thank you for your expected cooperation in this matter. If you need to reach me, my present address is: (street address).

Sincerely,

(sign your name)

This is a new midrise residental project going up in Midtown/4th Ward area. Does any one have further information? The sign is up with a rendering, however, I can not find anything on the net about it.

I believe the block is bordered by Wilson, Mathews, O Neil and Webster. The block is somewhat triangular as Webster splits at this block from West Gray. The trees have already been bulldozed to make way for this development.

I think this will be a nice addition to the area.. what does everyone else think?

I will try and get a picture when I walk my dog tonight. We usually pass by that area every day. I saw the adverts last night, but did not get a good view.

what makes it mixed use? the website says 6 stories of apartments on top of a 2 story garage.

I was at a Midtown Civic Club meeting where the builder discussed the project. He said that they looked at doing a mixed use development, but there was not enough car traffic there to support it. The builder said that retailers would not sign on with that little car traffic. I think it is supposed to be built to condo spec so they can convert it down the line should they be so inclined.

This is how it is SUPPOSED to be. But many builders (myself excluded) conveniently leave that part out.

So will most builders agree to the "not to exceed" provision? Is it something that is conveniently left out but, if brought up by the buyer, will usually come in? I know this sort of provision would make me much more comfortable with the whole process. I will push it with the builder and see where I get.

Well, the first two parking garages are on Calhoun, pretty near Spur 5 and the railroad. That side of campus is pretty well sealed off from the city as it is.

The one bad thing I can foresee about parking garages...where the hell will we tailgate when all the surface lots are gone?!?

UH's Master Plan depends on these parking garages to better utilize its space. They plan to almost double the square footage of campus buildings while also increasing the amount of green space on campus. That's cool as hell.

I went to the law school so I know that part of the campus is sealed from the city. I was refering to UT. If you go to the main campus, the entire campus (except the drag) is surrounded by parking garages.

Does anyone have any experience dealing cost-plus contracts? I am looking at a home where the builder is insisting on a cost-plus contract. I have reservations considering there is absolutely no incentive for the builder to restrain costs. Does anyone know a good source to look at to make sure I do not have to deal with runaway costs or, at the very least, constrain the builder should "costs" get too high.

Is this common with custom home builders now? Should this be something I am wary of? Any help would be appreciated.

I think this is great. One of the things I like the least about UH was the sea of asphalt parking lots. They could have save so much room by building parking garages. Texas started to do this while I was at school with the goal to reduce surface lots (especially within the central part of the campus) to create more green space and reduce the number of cars on campus. It was great. Less cars, less lots made for a nicer campus. The one thing that bothered me about the plan was the danger of a ring of parking garages sealing off the campus from the rest of the city.

There is nothing nefarious going on. The Great Salt Lake is not inside the Salt Lake city limits. Neither is Ponchartrain. Didn't look up Tahoe. Lake Houston, as well as Lake Houston Park, is completely within Houston City Limits. So is Bush. For what it's worth, the trust did not include Galveston Bay or Clear Lake as Houston parks, even the City borders both.

I do not think there is anything nefarious going on. I just think it is somewhat iffy to include bodies of water in the computation. Most of all, I just wish Houston had more park space. The big plus I see in all of this (which is what I always try to find) is that Houston recognizes parkland as an important issue. Discovery Green is a good start.

As for Lake Houston's primary use, yes it is a city water source. However, that does not preclude its dual use as a recreation area. Lake Conroe is also a water source, as is Livingston, Lake Tahoe, Mead, Powell, Michigan and virtually every other recreational lake in the US. Bush Park is a flood control resevoir, but my dog still enjoys playing in the dog park. Harris County Flood Control District gets high marks for building parks within its flood control areas. Because they are primarily for flood control, are they not considered parks, even though there are park facilities on them?

That was just a response to your comment early about bays and oceans not counting. I am all for dual uses, especially when it provides a higher quality of life for the citizens of Houston.

This list is just one of many on the Trust website. Obviously, you found another listing expenditures. The Trust itself stated that different cities develop their parkland in different ways, making a comprehensive comparison difficult. While you see this article as massaging numbers, I see it as Houston's park people attempting to get credit where it is due. It was the Trust that decided to include Bush Park, Lake Houston Park and Lake Houston in the totals. Houston merely informed them that these parks were within city limits.

Agreed. I think for a lot of this, you have to go out into the city itself and get a feel for how green it is. Houston has a huge advantage because of the physical area encompasses, and I think the numbers reflecting the percentage of land devoted to park space is a better indicator of the park land. Of course, Houston is going to beat all the northeast cities because of its size and low population density. I will admit, it did do better than I thought it would.

I know I do get upset every time I drive to my father's house next to Herman Brown Park and know that for twenty-five years I have seen them do nothing to develop that park.

Just a side note. Do you think the 16,000 acre desert in Phoenix that they count as a park is massaging numbers, too?

Lol. I have not been there so I do not know. All I know is that I would not want to get lost in that park in the middle of summer!