MarkInTheHeights

That's pretty much what angers those of us in South Heights. We've never seen nor been told how our neighborhood was recommended for consideration. Clearly, they did not have enough signatures back in 2007, since we were left out of the application that included Heights East and West. If you look at the list of properties that signed on to the application that is posted on the HHA website, it is clear that less than 20% of Heights South signed on. It would be nice if our elected officials would actually be honest enough to tell us how our neighborhood got included, but they have been way to busy trying to jury rig the voting process to be open and honest about it. Given current sentiment in South Heights, I feel strongly that option number 2 is how it happened. The 12% figure is probably the percentage of signatures garnered for the failed homeowner application attempt.

If you have access to the real numbers, I'd love to see them.

By the way, you never answered my question. If the number of supporters in South Heights was only 12%, would you support rejecting the application?

I have no special knowledge of the numbers. According to the staff report filed on the City web site "Pending Designation" page the numbers were as follows:

"Of the 761 total tract owners, 405 tract owners signed petitions in support or 53.22%. The total land area of tracts whose owners signed in support of the designation constitutes 51.27% percent of the total land area within the proposed district."

That staff report probably reflected the count going into the meeting. The boundaries were adjusted slightly during the meeting to maintain the legally required percentages. I know that some dislike the fact that the adjustment happened, but they would have liked a sub-majority even less.

And no, I would not say that an application signed by only 12% of the owners/ownership should be accepted. Once the application was accepted, the percentage "support" (whatever that means -- vocal support? grudging support? non-objection?) became legally moot.

Another interesting fact that the city people and a Heights Association board member told him. Because of the way the voting is structured, only 12% of total South Heights property owners approved the petition to make my neighborhood an historic district. For all of the accusations about misinformation, the supporters never actually give out real statistics like these. They claim a majority support the new ordinance, and that only builders and realtors oppose it. The fact is, 88% of South Heights property owners did not support the OLD LESS RESTRICTIVE petition, yet it was presented for approval. The neighbor I spoke of above was one of the signers. He has now signed a removal of his signature, as could be expected after being run through the wringer getting his plans approved.

I have no idea where you heard the 12% number, but that's not how the process works. At the time of certification of an application (under the ordinance currently in effect), the owners of 51% or more of the properties in the affected area, owning in aggregate 51% or more of the area of the properties in the affected area, must have signed the petition. Up until the public hearing for the HAHC meeting at which the application was certified, signers could be removed or added. (Both happened.) Similarly, the edge boundaries could be adjusted up until the HAHC voted to certify the application. (This also happened.)

At the time of the vote, the HAHC certified that >51% of the ownership (in both senses) of the proposed historic district had signed to approve the application (and not rescinded their approval), as required by ordinance.. The remaining <49% or so may have declined to sign the application, eluded contact, signed and retracted, wanted to sign but never got around to it, hated the idea, or just not cared; we don't know how many fall into which category.

I used to eat there, a while back, quite a bit in the 90's. It was good back then. Wonder what happened to it. I used to admire a nicely decorated old bldg. down the street from that restaurant. It was the Robinson Warehouse-Sears bldg.

No, the Robinson Warehouse/old Sears building was on Montrose south of Buffalo Bayou, not on Yale. It's been gone for a while, and the land stands vacant.

One thing I loved during my many years in Houston was Los Tios Mexican Restaurant's puff tortilla covered in queso. They really got the tortillas puffed up into a thin, crunchy balloon. Wish I knew how to do it. Are they still in business?

They are indeed, and they still make the puff tortilla covered in queso.

Can someone tell me why there is a strip (along Yale from 11th to ???) right inbetween the 2 historic districts? Just curious, did they leave it open for commercial development or.....?

Not enough remaining old buildings in those blocks to qualify, I believe.

M