Marksmu

Actually, my gripe with the "preservationists" is that they seem to oppose a homeowners right to do exactly this sort of thing to their home. They have petitioned to impose rules on any alteration to the home that does not meet their standards, and have convinced the City to impose those standards with the weight of law behind them. They only wish to shop at expensive stores that the masses cannot afford. They oppose ALL change, even rehabilitated streets that improve traffic flow. In this way, that segment of the Heights is FAR from progressive, trendy, or anti-establishment. Progressives embrace change. Trendy is a word that describes an embrace of the newest trends. Anti-establishment suggests an aversion to bend to the will of the government, which is seen to be controlled by the wealthy and powerful. The Heights residents pushing these issues represent none of that, but in fact, represent the exact opposite. While some of these "preservationists" may support national progressive political ideals, their local ideals contradict that progressive belief. They are more akin to East Coast elitists than Austin liberals.

Please do not identify the "preservationists" as progressive, trendy or anti-establishment. They are nothing of the sort. They exhibit the very same proclivities of the HOA loving, excessive deed restricting suburban master planned community residents that they claim to abhor. Worse, they have just enabled the passage of an ordinance that requires bad architectural modifications to our heretofore beautiful old homes.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I cant think of much worse than being called an east coast elitist (not sarcastic). That should be on yard signs and handed out at Tuesday nights meeting. Stop the East Coast elitists from destroying our neighborhood. I do believe you are on to something there. These are pro-government, pro-restriction, east coast liberal tactics being used to attack good honest Texan's property rights...

While I may think that the house I posted is ugly, I do fully support their right to do whatever they please with their own home....I was not posting it because I dont think it should be allowed, I was posting it because it reminds me of Austin.

When did you move to Austin?

Austin....ya, what a great place I would never live...but I do think that the Heights has a bit of that Austin feel - you know keep it weird,.etc....

I mean, where else could you get away with doing this to a house other than here, or Austin? Notice the Bill White sign!

These days, yes it pretty much does. There aren't any remnants of the original neighborhood south of I-10, but the original did extend about to Washington. Not all of this development would be within the original boundaries.

For as democrat and free-will as my hood seems to be, there sure is a lot of NIMBY going on. I'm not sure I'm a Heights lifer. People just get too worked up over things that really don't matter.

While I agree with you, there is a whole lot of NIMBY in this area - I think you will find that it does not matter where you go everyone will have something to complain about. Though there is more complaining here, but I have come to expect that from an area that has a reputation for being progressive, trendy, and anti-establishment. I've come to despise all three of those words and the stereotypes of people who go with them.

Unfortunately for me, there is not another area that is reasonably safe, inside the loop, and also reasonably affordable. So I'll be here for a while longer..

I am saying that Walmart should (and could) pay its own way instead of getting to jump to the front of the line via the 380 agreement. Walmart pays more taxes than I do, but uses waaayyyyy more in public resources than I do. Walmart needs police a zillion times more than I do. Walmart pays employees so little that many make claims for public assistance. Walmart uses more water and sewage treatment than I do. So, they may pay more taxes, but they use way more in terms of resources. Thus, they do not deserve any special treatment just because they are big. And that is my point. The City has decided to make improvements a priority for an out of state multinational company that will simply suck dollars from Houston and spit them out in Arkansas while local businesses struggle mightily to stay open while public infrastructure crumbles around them. When will the City fix 19th street? When you try to park on the street, your car dives into a deep ditch in front of the stores. It has been like that for over a decade. Yet, Walmart shows up and instantly gets public infrastructure paid for by tax dollars (not just the increment, but ALL of the ad valorem taxes) when it was ready and willing to pay for the infrastructure. In fact, by handing all of the ad valorem taxes back to the developer, Walmart is actually taking money out of existing budgets. Thus, Walmart isn't paying its own way and everyone else is.

WalMart uses more resources...lets analyze that thought for as second.

Crime - You first complain about police....but a criminal is going to do his criminal act regardless of the name of the store....if your assumption that WalMart brings crime to the area is true (big assumption), then it would actually decrease the necessary police resources because they would be able to put fewer officers in a smaller area and actually catch more criminals. Thus reducing necessary police resources as a whole.

Walmart Pays employees too little - well last I checked, a little is more than nothing - so the amount of my tax dollars these employees are receiving is less, than if they were doing nothing like so many others who think they are too good to work at walmart and just take a check.

Water & sewage, usage - WalMart has almost no use for water other than toilets/sinks/landscaping. If you were to take a bathroom break at WalMart and flush the toilet, the same amount of water is entering the sewer system as if you did it at your house, its just being done in one place rather than another. WalMart does not draw new residents to Houston to use the bathroom, so the utilities argument is really more of a non-argument. If they were a water park, pumping millions of gallons, then yea, I would agree with you - but they are not...their predominant use of water is their toilets, and people are going to use the restroom the same number of times in a day, regardless of whether they are at a walmart, a whole foods, or their own home.

Streets - If the shoppers need to buy their goods somewhere else, they will likely utilize streets to get there. Thus, the same argument can be made - the streets around WalMart may get heavier use, but that will alleviate traffic in other areas, thus the money spent up-keeping a small area around a WalMart is probably money better spent than having to go all over the place fixing lots of little problems. Its economics of scale really - its always cheaper to do big projects in one place, than to do smaller projects in lots of places.

Finally - 19th may need repair, but nobody has stepped up and said "you know what? I think if I fixed this street up I would get more business"...then ponied the cash up front, interest free to do the job themselves, on the promise that tax dollars in the FUTURE (presumably brought in by the store doing the work) would pay them back. The city did not give WalMart the money to fix the streets, the City wanted the streets fixed, WalMart wants the streets fixed, WalMart says - we will pay for it now, but you have to pay us back over time...interest free. Its actually a good deal for the city.

I tell you what, I will fix 19th for you and only you! You give me the money now to do it, and I will get it done, and pay you back later...interest free of course. Its a good deal - especially since you seem to have a problem keeping your car out of ditches.

Although, on second thought, I believe that ditch in front of the stores on 19th is actually considered "historic" now so we are prohibited by law from re-working them. Your just going to have to deal with the repercussions of your poor choices.

Unfortunately, there will be a deadline for return of the cards and if the deadline passes without a reply from a homeowner, it's not a vote to rescind the historic district. This is going to be very hard to achieve - here's the math:

Assumptions:

A landslide of landowners return the card, say 75%

A landslide by 2:1 vote to get out of the HD.

In a 100 home HD, here are the numbers:

75 return the card

50 vote to get rid of the HD, 25 vote to confirm the HD

The final result is 50% (50/100) actually tally to cancel the historic district.

According to the ordinance, 51% is needed, and you're one vote short.

All this means that there will have to be an overwhelming vote to overcome apathy to not return a vote.

Well when you use numbers it does make it look much more bleak. The apathy really is going to be the hardest part to get past. The active 10% for the re-vote should be fairly easy to get. I was thinking the vote would be 51% of those who return the cards....not 51% of all homeowners...

Another question - where are the cards being mailed to? I have a rental house in one of the areas, and I never received a card at all. Only the paper flyer that was put on the outside of the mailbox. Are the cards being mailed to the owner of record, or to the address in the district? That matters with all the renters in the neighborhood. A renter has little incentive to do anything, so I sincerely hope the cards are mailed to the owners of record and not to the actual home address.

The GHPA's statement:

10% should be a number easily attainable...by areas who do not agree....the harder part will be getting people to actually check their mail and return the cards. Even if the initial ballot cannot get the ordinance repealed because people do not return their cards, after a few people have the HAHC deny their permits, and then the HAHC comes in and acts like they control everything people will be outraged enough to sign the cards to repeal.

I dont consider this an outright loss...I consider it a compromise that will enable a later victory for those who oppose the ordinance.

I am curious now as to what this does to a persons title on their home? Homeowners organizations are mandatory disclosures....will this now be a mandatory disclosure? If so, it will be interesting to see how negatively potential buyers act.

Now would be a good time to make note of the prices of homes in newly created historic districts and then compare them with the areas surrounding them that are not historic.

Interesting that you are so offended when the City "sneaks" a Walmart into the neighborhood, but wholeheartedly support the same mayor's attempt to "sneak" a severely restrictive historic district ordinance into the very same neighborhood. Pardon me for not sharing your outrage, as I am too busy fighting other battles to worry about your Walmart.

I hate being late to a thread because this exact same thought came up when I read that post....when it offends her (even though it does not harm her) she is all up in arms, but when the city comes in with something she approves of (even though she may be too short sighted to see how devastating it will be) its the city knows best.

You dont get to have it both ways. Either you are for individual freedoms and people having choices, or you are against them and you think the government in its all knowing wisdom knows better...you seem to think you get to pick and choose what the government decides is right or wrong. Bwahaha its typical - you dont get to give all your rights away and then ask for some back when the government finally steps on your foot. Wake up - the Wal Mart is coming, and I am still planning on posting the picture and a huge I told you so!

I just watched the meeting from yesterday and I felt like several of the council members really are listening to our complaints.

I really enjoyed when the mayor attempted to interrupt Clutterbuck, and she spoke over her and said what she wanted. I dont really care if it was out of order or not, I dont like Parker, I dont like that she thinks she knows better than I do what to do with my own property, and I think that Clutterbuck thought it was disrespectful, and let it be known by just not stopping when she opened her mouth.

I am interested to see what happens. The two tier system is a big improvement, and increasing to 30 or 60 days to get a petition out for a re-vote would make it much easier to do. Also I like the 75% majority idea for adding restrictions to property not currently restricted, that was floated by the short haired black council member ( I dont know her name) but I really liked the idea.

Even the tone of the meeting seemed different. Almost like they were losing and they knew it. I would sure love to win on this issue.

Clutterbuck seems to actually have listened to the homeowners. I wonder if they will accept her ammendment proposition.

Agreed. The section containing the 15 day provision is specific to the 3 pending historic districts, including South Heights. I have sent an email to CM Gonzalez asking that he push for a longer...and preferably permanent...opt-out provision, but I am not hopeful. He appears to be attempting to curry favor with the small number of preservationists pushing for government control of our homes. Still, reminding him of the 60% opposition can't hurt.

Regardless what the time limit is, I believe that we can blanket the neighborhood quickly. The overwhelming number of anti-ordinance signs in South Heights suggests that we will be well received.

If help is needed in getting out and getting signatures, I am volunteering my time. Send a message to me on HAIF and I will go garner signatures. This whole ordeal is a joke.

Wrong. Look at the City's development manual, Chap 9. I have even heard CM Costello talk about this. The developer is required to do additional onsite detention for increased impervious cover. They get credit for the previous drainage infrastructure, but if they increase impervious cover, they have to comply with the dentention requirements. Why else would the City be willing to pay for 7 acre feet of detention in the 380 agreement?

The developer did attach a "conceptual" plan to the 380 agreement. The entire site is pretty much impervious except for a few strips here and there. And, again, the point is why do a 380 agreement when you do not even know for certain what the developer is going to do?

The developer hasn't submitted a traffic study. The City has been doing counts too. But based on existing info, Yale had a count of 10k in 2006, the standard for a suburban Walmart, according to the Traffic Engineer's manual is 10k. Yale is rated to handle 26k. Add in additional traffic from the feeder and update the Yale count to reflect growth on Washington since 2006, and you will probably max out Yale with the development. The City will not let a developer max out a roadway. They require mitigation. That is why the city is doing the 380 agreement.

You may not be aware of this, but there is such a thing as water retention/detention under impervious cover - its called box culverts. The office I work at, the entirety of the concrete parking lot is actually a retention area. When it rains the water is all collected through the storm grates, and is held under the parking lot until the ditches recede. Once the water level in the ditches is below the large metal flap gates (flood event is over) the flap gates automatically open under the pressure of the water built up in the parking lot retention area and is then drained off to the stream.

For all you know the entire parking lot is one giant retention pond that is retaining far more water than is necessary, and they are getting paid by the city to capture water so as to mitigate some other development down stream. The fact is that you have no idea what type of retention they are doing, you just saw a picture on the internet and jumped to a conclusion.

You constantly jump to conclusions without data. If I were a car dealer, I would love to sell you a car!

Agreement on architecture is virtually non-existent. Developer only has to "endeavor" to build in style of the heights.

Who cares if this is done in the style of the "heights" its not located in the heights!

The rest of the garbage I don't really care about, the amount of money being given to the developer, if you can even call it giving, is negligible. $360,000 is a drop in the proverbial bucket.

The road improvement is needed in that area, whether or not there are addittional car trips over that stretch. Its bumpy as all get out. All of Yale is.

When you mention the "this" I bolded up top, Are you referring to the apartments on Heights blvd or the one with collapsed stairs somewhere.

The units on Heights Blvd....and that was IF I was recalling correctly, but I believe I am recalling correctly.

It was one of those local news person investigates stories, following the stair collapse. They got the city reports on the worst units, and this one (on Heights Blvd) I believe was one of the worst.

I, for one, welcome our new overlords. I really just think everyone finally realized what a great and benevolent friend Walmart will be for the community. They were the clear underdog in this fight, but through the persistence and sheer determination of their supporters, they were able to overcome these great and unfair distortions lodged against them. That and the fact that there was nothing to legally block them in the first place.

As the inscription on each and every Walmart store proclaims, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to shop in a fluorescent-lit dreamscape of low, rollback prices, and, oh, check out our special $6 eight-pack of Starter tube socks!”

The large community of poor rich folks living in neighboring gated townhome complexes and expensive Heights rebuilds will finally have a place to seek refuge from high prices. It’s about time somebody started looking out for these folks.

As for the low-income folks living in Heights Plaza apartments…er, sorry, you gotta move now. There’s progress to be had, and you’re not invited.

I'm not sure how to rep this post. Initially I thoroughly enjoy the Simpson's reference, and one of my all time favorite quotes from the series (behind the Moe lie detector test)...on the other hand the sarcastic points make me want to neg rep it. Those apartments needed to go. They were not just ugly, but also unsafe. I recall last summer a child in some apartment complex somewhere else in town died when their stairs collapsed on it. After that accident the city sent out inspectors to inspect a load of apartments. This particular complex was featured on the news for having multiple unsafe units, and if I recall correctly (no guarantee) I seem to remember that they were even forced to close 1 whole building for a short period to make much needed repairs.

That is neither here nor there, but getting rid of these apartments is good for the area. I have several other units I would also like to see go, but these were pretty high up there on the list of buildings that need to be torn down; despite their historic contribution to the area.

My conclusion you get a +1 for the Simpson's reference, and a -1 for the overall content of your post....which nets you nothing.

The Walmart, though I dont shop there, or support it, is here to stay, and I will support their right to build and to stand up to a bunch of pushy snobs who try to yell and scream to get their way every time someone tries to do something they don't like.

Well, unfortunately, looks like this thread has wound down now that the anti-Wal-Marters have realized the store is going to be built and there's nothing they can do about it. I sure enjoyed following some of their twisted logic. I eagerly look forward to shopping there when it opens (although not on the grand opening day - it'll be packed, probably with some of the same folks who used so many words to oppose it). It would be nice if people would post updates on this site of the progress the store is making in construction and when the planned opening will be.

I am still planning on taking a picture once the tilt walls are upright, and captioning it with the words "YOU LOST" so that SM3H can acknowledge defeat. I also hope to do that with the historical ordinance, a Cherry Excavator, and a pile of rubble....but I am less hopeful there. A nice add on would suffice too, but its harder to find the add on's and know for sure, without any research that it was done without HAHC approval.

Well, here's the "economic impact study" that the Anti-Walmart folks paid for and whaddaya know: the study concludes that there should not be a Walmart there.

http://images.bimedi...ts+WM+Final.pdf

And their data isn't even accurate. They show a Walmart Supercenter around the East Freeway and Lockwood, which there is not. So they operate about like s3mh -- just make up "facts" to match whatever opinions you choose to broadcast.

That has got to be the most poorly written report I have ever read. If I turned that in for a grade to any college, heck, to any high school I would have failed. It looks and reads exactly like some high school kid who forgot to do his report threw it together in 2 hours or less and then added a bunch of maps and other pictures to make it look credible.

There is no data at all that can be considered credible in the whole thing.

If this is all they can come up with to oppose this Walmart, they are in even worse shape than I thought. I laughed pretty good reading it while I thought about the average intelligence of the people who oppose this store.

http://www.ktrh.com/...newscasts_c.xml

The mayor's own words:

"there are still a lot of things at play, nothing has been decided"

(And she said "brownfield", I don't think brownstones are efficient buildings for steel mills)

She said nothing about city council supporting this. She just said that generally given a choice between a brownfield and a remediated site with a modern shopping plaza, she would take the latter. She talked a lot about the traffic problems due to the new I-10 frontage and had no answers. Maybe you listened to a different mayor on another talk show. Or maybe you are applying your powers of interpretation that got you to conclude that the historic ordinance would circumvent people's constitutionally protected free speech rights to place political signs on their property.

HEB on Buffalo Speedway is 68k sq ft. They were interested in doing the same concept at Yale. The City has wrongly decided to granfather the drainage for the property. There is growing concern from Council about this decision. The property should include dentention as just less than half was permeable (dirt yard). The City has assumed, perhaps all the way back to when it was a refinery, that the entire lot was covered in concrete. It was not. If developed responsibly, a 68k sq ft HEB plus sufficient drainage would not leave much room for additional retail pads. You would not see the same burdens on traffic and would see much better outcome in terms of drainage with proper detention. So, the outcome is not the same if Walmart is replaced by another anchor. The outcome would be significantly different.

Say what you want waste your energy however you want. I will get back on here when this thing is under construction post a picture of the construction and caption it again for you with my caption "Y-O-U-L-O-S-T"

The mayor is supporting it, Im not spinning that in any way...she may have "concerns" but 99.9% of those concerns revolve around her getting re-elected, and making sure she pays sufficient attention to the whiney folks who oppose everything. This thing is a done deal whether or not you realize it. She isnt stupid, she is not just gonna say nothing...she is going to act concerned, but thats all it is...an act.

Ainbinder is not going to settle with less developed space and fewer tenants either. They want money; tenants=money. HEB may have been a smaller store (all speculation) but the rest of the place would have still been built out around the HEB......Your doing nothing but speculating about what could have been if the evil WalMart had not come in here and tried to ruin your life. If the HEB took up only 68K, that leaves another 82K to be other stores around it (assuming the walmart is 150K )

I love how you say the city "wrongly decided".....Is it wrong because you dont agree?? I don't know what was there before, but what I do know is that Ainbinder is not going to construct drainage for one anchor tenant, but not another. Drainage is one of the most expensive parts of a project, if they can get it grandfathered they will. They are not going to dump hundreds of thousands of dollars into dirt work when they can just get the thing grandfathered. There are a select few people who are that stupid..You may have a retention pond in your back yard, because you are so responsible but your neighbors probably dont.

Your utopia that you live in by yourself, is not reality. Reality is profit driven, and Ainbinder is not going to flush money down the toilet to please a few whiney people....the whiners will eventually quit whining after the thing has been open a while, and everything will continue exactly as it does now....only you will probably have found some new cause to protest....maybe global cooling...I hear that is going to coming back in style soon.

Yes, I read the same article.

Regardless, preserving the human scale house in front - be it shotgun or bungalow - makes for a more attractive streetscape, and is certainly preferable to rows of gaping garage doors (cameltoes?).

The only thing uglier than a terribly done addition is a dilapidated house....the majority, and I do mean majority of new construction in the heights has been extremely nice. I dont particularly care for the homes with the garages as the defining front feature, but I will take those every day of the week over that house pictured in the post before this, with the awful camelback.

Most new construction has alley access, or they create it. If the city would back off their hatred of utilizing the existing alleys, we could start getting more attractive homes again. I've said it time and time again....if you preserve lot size, and stop subdividing lots, I think 85% of the people would be happy with what gets constructed. The 15% of the people (the noted minority) would be the ones who oppose all new construction period, and think we should keep things like they were in the 1920s for some reason.

The existing ordinance just goes way too far. The petitions got signed because people wanted to stop 2 homes from being built on one lot, ....it was the people who tried to get you to sign the petitions number one argument in favor of signing. The other scare factor used to get signatures was apartments and high density town homes. Few of which have been built without the ordinance.

Edit - My percentages were fabricated from the posterior of my anus, so don't ask for a source because none exists and none is currently available either.

Ainbinder doesn't have a single permit. In fact, it is still not clear whether TxDOT has approved the connection of Bass to the new frontage road. So, no battles have been lost. They are just beginning.

I doubt the developer really cares. It owns all the way to two roads, it can make AN entrance work regardless of TxDot.

Making the development attractive to the public makes the developer money.

True, but what WalMart considers attractive enough to the public and what you would actually like to see there, are two different things. It can build any nice generic building it wants to. Ainbinder does not have to listen to you at all...this is your chance to have some comment no the looks. Even the Mayor on the radio said this morning that she is supporting WalMart and so is City Council. She was on 740AM around 7:45 this morning stating that the people opposing this are not thinking clearly...she said this is a brownstone that has been paved over, and is contaminated soil...Ainbinder and WalMart are going to clean up the soil and put something productive where a hazard currently exists....those are her words, not mine. You lost...the permits are not issued yet but the battle is over...when the Mayor & City Council support a developer to do what they are legally entitled to do, the result is always that it gets done. You have on blinders if you think otherwise. I will even spell it for you so its clear. Y-O-U - L-O-S-T. Now spend your time making this the best walmart ever...it will pay you a higher dividend than p i s s i n g into the wind.

Also, there is a huge difference between a 24 hour 152k sq ft supercenter and a 70k sq ft grocery store. There is no comparison in terms of traffic, crime, parking lot coverage, and truck traffic. It is the difference between 20k cars a day and 7k. It is the difference between a 600+ car parking lot and a 250 car parking lot. It is the difference between 3 police calls a day and three a month. And HEB doesn't just throw a different facade on their stores and plant a few rows of trees in response to community concerns. HEB has offered to do bi-level parking, allow space for a farmer's market and give up a portion of the property for a park at the proposed Montrose location. Walmart has paid lip service to the Heights and West End in comparison.

You dont know for sure what size store HEB was going to build. Their Bunker Hill store is pretty big, and I have seen several HEB stores that are almost as big as any WalMart. Furthermore - do you really think if the development was an HEB that Ainbinder would just let that extremely valuable real estate just sit there??? No way. If it were a HEB, then you would just have another 70,000 to 100,000 sq ft of other shopping, stores, and development. The drainage and effect on traffic would be the same. Your fighting nothing but the Walmart, and your using anti-development rhetoric to try to achieve your goals.

No one knows what the developer will have to do and won't have to do absent the 380 agreement because the City appears to be assuming it will pass City council. Turn lanes may be needed to keep TxDOT from getting pissed about interference with the feeder road (although I doubt it will help). Furthermore, I think the developer would do most of the improvements anyway. The improvements are really there to make the development more attractive. No one in their right mind is going to cross six lanes of feeder traffic to add an extra 1/2 mile to their morning run south of I-10. People in the Heights would rather a dirty old bridge than 20,000 additional cars on Yale (developer's numbers).

And what kind of message is this sending to developers? If you want to get free infrastructure improvements, just make sure you do something over-the-top to upset the community so the City will try to please everyone with a few extra trees and wider sidewalks? It is not a carrot, it is a free five course meal at Tony's with a bottle of 2005 Bordeaux for someone who is already a regular at Tony's.

As everyone knows on this board, when retail developments are done right, they develop a ton of cash for the developers. In fact, there are few endeavors in life that offer a greater rate of return than a retail development. So, there is absolutely no reason to provide retail developments with any assistance when they will make plenty of money and do not need the abatements (Ainbinder said he would build without the 380).

See here is the thing. Your just being stubborn and hardheaded now. If Ainbinder is going to build with or without the 380 agreement - why in the world do you oppose it? They are not necessarily going to do the improvements to the infrastructure without it because they just flat out are not required to make those improvements. They may have to add a turn lane...big deal, its not like they cant afford it. They dont have to make the building look nice, fix the bridge, add a bike bath, or plant lots of trees, or anything else that does not make them money directly which is seen by them as an accommodation to the people around it. The people who are going to shop there, are going to shop there regardless of what it looks like, so why in the world would you not work with them to get something attractive rather than get stuck with the ugliest most generic building possible?

You have already lost the battle over whether or not its going to get built...why lose the war too, and get the ugliest thing possible??

Another thing - everyone originally seemed to be attacking them because they are WalMart - but now all of your arguments seem to be based on the fact that the traffic, drainage, sewage capacity, infrastructure is insufficient. Weren't all these same problems still there if it was a whole foods, or a Central Market, or a HEB??? It just seems that everyone who opposes this is clutching at straws now - trying to find any reason they can to prevent it from being built....but every single argument that is being raised now that deals with infrastructure can be used to prevent the construction of the store of your dreams too....The thing is going to get built. You lost. Why not try now to make it the best possible store?

Your right to the tax abatement has vested. The City cannot apply laws retroactively.

And they should not be able to institute restrictions on PRIVATE PROPERTY retroactively either, when there is no effect or danger to the Health, Safety, or Welfare of others.

(EMPHASIS ADDED)

Someone has been spotted in a white pickup truck taking Walmart signs. Many have reported having their signs stolen.

I have spotted a white Prius placing anti Walmart signs in the yards of people who have the sign in opposition to the historical ordinance and then burning the opposition sign right there in the persons front yard....I swear, I think its the strangest thing...

Edit: just sighted again...Prius has an Obama Sticker AND a Bill White sticker on back bumper/window. Be on the look out!

I read the ordinance but I don't understand the distinction between contributing structures and non-contributing, and how the rules would be applied.

Since my house (built by Gomberg 1997) is non contributing, I could tear it down without a CA? What about exterior modifications? To make it even more confusing, I have a garage/guesthouse that is an original structure and I think it IS considered contributing. BUT it has hardi-plank siding, etc. Very confused.

Cheers

James

If your 1997 home is in a historic district then it is not eligible for a non-contributing status(33-228(B(4). If you are in a historic district you must go through the HAHC for all modifications. What does that mean to you? Who knows? The ordinance is written broadly enough for them to require you to make modifications to the exterior of your home to make it more in line with their subjective expectations. There are no grandfathering clauses in the ordinance at all. Ive said it before - it is incredibly unlikely, but the ordinance is written broadly enough for them to require you to restore the property to its historic nature. Restore is worded broadly enough to require you to remove your current home and replace it with what was there before 1997.

I dont actually think they will do that, but its not forbidden. That is one of many of the problems with the ordinance.

As to your garage - the fact that it is hard plank but may be a contributing structure does not necessarily mean you would have to restore it, but again, it would be up to the HAHC to decide what you get to (or have to) do to it if you apply for a permit to do work on it...it will no longer be up to you the owner what you do with your own dang garage. There is not a black and white rule that will apply equally to all people. There is lots of room for subjective abuse. with that said many people in the Heights dont mess with their old historic garages because many of the old garages are inside of current setbacks, and to modify them requires you bring them back up to code, which often requires you to move the garage 12-18 inches to be outside of the current setbacks....that is part of the reason you see so many run down old garages. The city has made it too expensive to repair what is there...unless you do it quickly and completely on a Sunday.

This'll surely bleed over into every old suburb in town. Perhaps the councilman should be reminded that not only should he keep your thoughts in mind, but he should also keep your future votes in mind.

That was such a condescending email. If I had the ability, I'd vote the bum out on principle alone. I think I may still be registered in the city...

I did not find it condescending really as much as it was just predictable political talk. The email was long, but said nothing. Essentially he tried to placate me with a response, without taking any stand on the issue one way or the other. That way if he is in favor of the ordinance he can maintain the status quo without becoming the target of the opposition, or vice versa.

Still I find this response much much better than the other responses I got.....crickets chirping......

I sent the same exact email to every single council member, as well as the mayor, the HAHC, and the preservation group. I spent literally hours writing it at home including sources page numbers, and precise objections to the ordinance itself.

It may get no response from many of them because it was likely way over most of their heads.

Quizno's

Check cash store

AT&T store

Mattress Firm

Chipotle

Wings n Things (I wish)

Spec's (I wish more)

Starsucks

Bed bath and beyond (please god no)

Marble slab

Chuck e cheese (at which point the anti-burbanites' heads explode!!!!)

I would love to see the Chuck E Cheese's show up there, it would be fantastic! I dont have kids that would utilize it, but your right about heads exploding! Wow - if that list of yours made it into the development, I can forsee all those Wal Mart Haters using other streets just to avoid seeing this thing...that would certainly alleviate traffic.

I wrote to every single council member and received only one response, which was a canned response in favor of the ordinance. I did get several automated, thanks for writing emails....but I got only one real response, and that one response did not attempt to address the issues I raised, it only said that the issue was being studied.

The only response I got was this:

Thank you for your comments regarding the proposed changes to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. I do not take lightly your concerns about how these changes will impact your property and your neighborhood.

I have thoroughly reviewed the ordinance and the proposed amendments and have met with several citizens both for and against the changes. Further, my office has received literally hundreds of emails and letters on the subject. Suffice it to say, the debate on this issue is in full force.

As you know, the City has recently conducted a series of public meetings on the draft proposed ordinance in affected neighborhoods. Also, this Thursday, August 19^th, the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission will hold a public hearing at 6:30 pm at the George R. Brown Convention Center , 1001 Avenida de las Americas , General Assembly Hall B, 3^rd Level. I encourage you to attend this meeting if possible – speakers will be able to sign up for public comment to address the committee for one minute.

It is my understanding additional changes are being incorporated into the proposed ordinance to reflect the considerable public input received. I look forward to reviewing these new changes as they are formalized. A new draft will be brought before the Planning Commission and council’s Development and Regulatory Affairs Committee for further review, discussion, public comment and recommendation. I will reserve making a final decision regarding the proposed ordinance until this process runs its course and I have carefully considered all modifications and public comment.

I encourage you to visit http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/hist_pres_amend.html for updates on the progress of this legislation. Again, thank you for weighing in on the future of historic preservation in Houston . I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind as city council moves forward in considering this matter.

Sincerely,

Stephen C. Costello

Houston City Council At-Large Position 1