Marksmu

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.

You have every reason to be afraid that whatever back room slimy way they can use to achieve their goal of socializing the heights will be utilized. The way this has been conducted to date is some of the ugliest politics I have ever seen. Its exactly why people stop voting...because slimy politicians can slime their way into giving vocal extreme minorities whatever they want as long as they remain in power. I dont think you can get 67% of anything to even return a ballot. Those who feel strongly one way or the other will vote, all the others will toss it in the garbage. If the ballot goes out, the opposition needs to be MUCH more organized. We will need to hold public meetings, and distribute many many more signs to let our voice be heard. I really dont think many people have any idea of how negative this can potentially be.

Despite accusations to the contrary from the supporters I am fairly certain that most people are dreadfully misinformed about this ordinance. While I fully intend to fight it, I am becoming disenchanted with many of the people in the Heights...I see signs supporting the ordinance in the yards of new construction and several homes that have additions that would never pass the ordinance standards. I see signs supporting the ordinance in homes that in all likeliness really need to be torn down, and I see signs supporting it in the "eclectic" artistic homes that definitely do not pass the ordinance standards. I cannot understand how someone can support something that by the very wording of the ordinance prevents them from doing exactly what they are currently doing. Its so hypocritical, and nonsensical that the only real answer to the question why, is that they are either dreadfully misinformed about the repercussions and the wording of the ordinance, or they are just hypocritical snobs. Not surprisingly, almost all of the homes with the tacky little yellow YES signs also have the anti-Walmart sign. It seems to me that the supporters of the ordinance, and the anti-Walmart groups are really more concerned about getting their way, regardless of what the majority of the people want or say. They are hell bent on imposing their beliefs on everyone else, regardless of what those beliefs do to the area. I actually think that they will oppose almost anything that gets built anywhere near the heights that does not fit their narrow minded utopia. They are against Walmart, because they want mom/pop and a walkable neighborhood, yet they oppose the dense construction that is necessary to support a walkable neighborhood. Essentially they oppose everything that does not fit their dream building, whether or not it is a nice home next door, or the building of a store that they dont like. I have also given quite a bit of thought to the argument that the building of a new home reduces the value of a bungalow to only the lot value. While I don't believe this argument to be true because I believe there will always be a strong market for a small home in a nice area, the real questions is, so what if it does? So long as the value of the property continues to increase, which as long as new construction is allowed it will, who cares where the number falls? If you bought a nice little bungalow for $200,000 to live in because you like nice little bungalows, who cares if the value of the lot when you sell it is $350,000 and the value of the home is $25,000? You still have a property that is worth $375,000. I always thought that people bought a house they like to live in, and that appreciation is a nice secondary bonus. If you bought the house because you like it, and you intend to live in it, you should not care where the value on the home falls. If you bought the home as investment, and you dont really care whether the home fits your needs, again...who cares where the value falls? If you bought the home as an investment the banning of new construction around you does nothing more than to destroy your investment. People need to see that they cant have everything their way. If you want to have a walkable neighborhood, you need a more dense population, which means new construction. If you want to have increasing property values, new construction and rehabilitating old construction to modern standards is the way to achieve this. If you want stagnation, and eventually decline, freeze everything as it is now, prevent anything new from happening, dig your heels in deep and oppose everything. Everytime I see a vote yes sign, or a stop the Wal Mart sign, all I see is a stubborn starving donkey with his heels dug in deep refusing to take the last step to the food trough. That donkey because of its stubborn tiny brain, will die 2 steps from food because of its tiny brain and stubborn nature.

I believe the demand for bungalows in the Heights is driven by the ability to purchase a house that currently meets their needs in terms of size and price, and is also in a nice area. I believe the area has been made nice, not by those people remodeling the bungalows, but by those people who have invested large sums of money in improving the area with new construction. The new construction was a signal to people to buy up the smaller homes as the values are going to increase because of the new construction. The new construction mixed with people improving older homes to be livable is what has driven demand throughout the heights. To think it is just bungalows driving demand is dishonest at best. The value of the bungalow is that it is a home that meets a single professional, or a married couple, either young or old, for the time being. Families, those with kids, are generally seeking out the larger homes and making the larger investments. The drive in property value has been driven by the new construction, and the ability to purchase in an area that is improving. The ease of selling a bungalow is also not because of its historic nature. It is always easiest to sell the smallest/cheapest home in a nice area, than it is to sell the largest/most expensive home in a nice area. Demand for the cheapest home in the nicest area will always be highest, it is driven by people wanting to say that they "Live in the Heights." If you take away the new construction, you are left with exactly what Red is saying will happen. Your left with stagnation because the new construction has driven the area for years. The bungalows will always sell....there will always be someone looking for a small home in a nice area, but the fast appreciation days will be over. I oppose this not only because of the property rights that are being stolen out from under the landowners without any real say, but also because I like money. I like to make my money while I do nothing. Passing the ordinance will mean I will make less money, while at the same time having to answer to a bunch of people who think they know better than I do what I should be able to do with my property.

And what about the people who signed nothing at all? Who simply bought a house with no restrictions and not inside an existing historic district and with no ordinance at all? What about that huge group of people? Most of the people who signed the petition were uninformed or worse..They were intentionally uninformed and misled. It is pretty clear to everyone involved now that this has been on their agenda for a long time. Whether you can be honest enough to admit it was a bait and switch, the reality is that a bait and switch is exactly what it was. They promised one thing to get the ball rolling got a bunch of folks all fired up about living next door to huge condominiums, and three story town homes, and now they are attempting to enact something completely different...something the majority of people do not want. I did not sign, agree, or have any notice whatsoever that the city was planning on taking my private property rights. It is just happening. The city, the dishonest preservation group, the chronicle, the mayor, and the HAHC, are now just attempting to cram these changes through as quickly as possible before the people have time to get wind of it, and stand up and stop it. I believe if properly informed the majority of people would never sign on to have this type of restriction imposed upon them. The key here is "if properly informed" this has been as dishonest, and political as anything I can remember. Most people I think are in favor of reasonable restrictions. Minimum lot size, setbacks, height, etc. I do not believe that most people are against new construction, remodeling, or in the case of new construction forcing people to build what some political group thinks is historical new construction (what a joke). There are already areas that have the restrictions you seem to covet...Woodland Heights seems to have all the restrictions you covet, and you see no complaining about anything there, because they all knew what they were getting when they bought. It was not a surprise to them to have a whole new set of rules forced upon them.

The op ed treatment was tame? She claims at the end to want an "honest adult discussion" but she distorted facts, and made assumptions throughout her op ed. The chronicle would NEVER allow a dissenting piece to make it on its pages, so there is nothing honest or adult about this discussion at all...just more propoganda. Actually its huge and on the bottom of the home page....Why realtors....I dont really consider that dishonest. Not as much so as distorting facts to get your way and impose your beliefs on your neighbors. They are not asking us to fix the language or clarify their crappy ordinance for them...they are cramming it down our throats as is. I have posted it time and time again. The ordinance as written CAN dictate paint color and AC placement whether or not they tell you it cant. The language is broad enough to allow it. We could actually come to some agreements that make everyone happy if the discussion were open and actually allowed. They are not asking for a discussion on the topic they are cramming what is written down our throats and just hoping to get it done before enough people wise up on what is being done. Well I am sure they feel much better knowing that if their house burns down they can not rebuild their home the way THEY want.....rather they have to rebuild it the way YOU want. Im sure that gives them a warm fuzzy feeling all over. Now lets all get together and cram our beliefs down everyone elses throats whether they want it or not. AND AGAIN - they are not asking us to help revise the ordinance. They are voting it into LAW the way it is currently written. What part of that are you not understanding? Speculation, and nothing more. Some people want small bungalows in nice areas. The cheapest home in the nicest neighborhood is always the easiest home to sell. The bungalows are benefiting from the new construction, plain and simple. This is most likely as much about not wanting taxes to go up as the area continues to improve as it is about preservation. Here you are wrong again. Having a Smaller bungalow or a larger home does not mean that the people who live in them are any different at all. That argument just shows your bias against not just the home, but also the people who buy them. You apparently are offended and afraid of people who have more money than you. I wonder what went so wrong in your life that you have such hatred of those who may have more than you. Its absolutely a credible argument. Condemnation has nothing at all to do with insuring the value of the property. Rather it places a value upon the loss of property rights that were present at the time of purchase and are removed without compensation or agreement. I guess you are an attorney and all your legal knowledge is at work here. Your "On Notice" argument is also worthless. There is no "notice" that you could have the rules changed just because you bought an older home. Its a ridiculous argument. The less like California that Texas remains, the better this State will be. California is a model state of things NOT to do. It is a bankrupt state full of some of the worst ideas/planning/governing in the United States.

SC/Red, etc - So who is doing any organizing to stop this? I have not seen a coherent centralized response to the city or any centralized organizing to stop it! If we are to be successful in preventing new districts, and stopping the ordinance we need a central website, or voice. We need something legitimate where people can really see what is so bad about this and to get the word out. HAIF is great, but only so many people see this. It needs to be more legitimate than Facebook as well. I am willing to help but I do not know where to direct my efforts at this point.

First as to the damages portion - condemnation law (regulatory taking as I have argued previously in the thread) does recognize a decrease in value without a sale. Damages still have to be proven, but an actual sale showing a loss is not necessary. Lots and older un-repairable homes having to reduce their asking price, or accept less than they previously would have been able to get can be evidence enough as proof of damages. It is more difficult to prove, but you can put up realtors, appraisers, and real-estate investors who can testify to the fact that the area is now less attractive to investors, builders, and the ordinary public as a result of the ordinance. That would likely be enough to show actual damages. As to worrying about what gets built next door...the lot values have gone up so much to effectively destroy any real chance of anything other than residential from being built anywhere in the area anymore. There are still business sitting on large sections in the middle of the heights, but from the looks of most of them (they make no repairs for aesthetic reasons) they are only still where they are because the land is their largest investment. I would venture a guess that most owners will sell the business, or at least the property the business sits on when they reach retirement age....that is just my guess though. As to expecting a profit....I did not buy my property expecting to make a profit...but I did not buy it expecting it to go down in value either. There are risks in every investment, but I would be foolish to not fight to protect the investment. You would not sit idly by while some stranger robbed your home...letting them legislate changes that will reduce my value is not much different. I do not think it will be wide spread havoc and mass devaluation of property ....I think it will simply stagnate the area and send progress and all the benefits (better schools, more families, more tax dollars) somewhere else. I think we would see a 70-80% reduction in new builds, I think old homes that should be torn down will be required to be restored at a cost that most owners are not willing to spend on a 1200sq ft home. I think the people who do restore the smaller homes without making additions will seldom be able to recoup the cost of a historic restoration upon trying to sell their home. I do not think it will be devastating, I think it will stagnate, and I think the imposition of the city and HAHC upon the people will be an enormous pain in the rear end....as if remodeling was not bad enough, now you have to deal with a bunch of snobs telling you how they want your home to be. I agree with you here. I would love to live in the rural country side...It is my dream. Unfortunately my wife is a city girl, and she works downtown, and I'm not willing to leave her for the country so....I chose the closest thing I could get to the country and still be within 10 minutes of her office (unrestricted property) Also, when I chose my house the Heights Association, and the preservation people were only trying to get people to voluntarily sign deed restrictions....I could easily just tell them no thanks and close the door and be done with it. This is being forced on everyone involuntarily without asking.

I got home last night, and I had a flyer on my door talking about the ordinance. I read it over, and while it had some decent information, I personally did not think it was harsh enough towards the ordinance. It contained an old 2004 chronicle article that was written by someone Sullivan, I think, that talked about the ordinance....I doubt the chronicle would ever print something like this now. It was a good start, and I am glad someone actually took the time to get out and put the word out. Hopefully those who actually care about the area enough can band together and put a stop to this awful ordinance before it passes and becomes law of the land. I'd like to know who is organizing and working to stop this so that I could get in touch with them and offer some assistance.

You made my argument for me. Thanks! - I have argued that the restrictions are a regulatory taking, inverse condemnation - that by imposing them you reduce the value of the lot. You have confirmed it, by imposing the ordinance you reduce the value of the lot to everyone except yourself...the ordinance is hurting one person at the expense of another, and the person who is benefited does not believe they need to pay for that benefit, even though they have in fact harmed their neighbor. The new house would not devalue your house at all. If historical is as desirable as you say, it should be easier NOT harder to sell your home after you have rehabbed it. You dont need an ordinance to do everything you are proposing. You can simply enact the restrictions that SCDesign has repeatedly pointed out - that any single block can get together and set prevailing lot sizes, setbacks both front and side, and even single family/multi family requirements. The reason this is not done, is that 66% have to agree to do it. When you give people the opportunity to preserve value or destroy it, most choose preservation. So now we need the government telling us what is good for us. That is what this ordinance is!

It is my opinion that when you give power to a few and take it away from the many - the few will abuse it. History shows us that power corrupts. But my logic in determining what materials can/cant be used is not such an opinion. I will address the reasons why 2/3 of the above statements are not misleading or wrong. The ordinance does require that you use certain materials. This is found in the following paragraphs of the ordinance that when read together paint a fairly clear and limited picture. I will even underline the pertinent portions for you. Section 33-241 - Alteration, rehabilitation, restoration, and construction 1) The proposed activity must retain and preserve the historical character of the property. 3) The proposed activity must recognize the building, structure, object or site as a product of its own time and avoid alterations that seek to create an earlier or later appearance. 6) New materials to be used for any exterior feature must be compatible with the materials being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. 9) Proposed design for alterations or construction must not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material and must be compatible with the size, scale, material and character of the property... If the material must preserve the historic nature, not appear newer, be compatible in composition, design, and texture, while all at the same time being of the same size, scale, and material - I am pretty sure that means it needs to be either a salvaged old materials, or a new piece of material that is an exact replica of the old. As to the hardi plank - It was not around in 1920, it appears newer, it is not the same composition, design, texture, or material. The ordinance does not say " No Hardy Plank" but you don't have to spell out the letters " H A R D Y P L A N K" to write something that expressly forbids its use. I know its a violation of the 1st Amendment - but that does not stop them from using this ordinance to write you a misdemeanor citation and then force you to appear and defend yourself. I will admit that I was stretching the argument to go with the political speech, but the ordinance is so broad, I was merely trying to make a point, that it controls everything, even the yard by defining site so broadly. The ordinance controls the site - and the site is defined so broadly as to include everything all the way down to landscaping if they want to apply it that way. Site is defined as : "property upon which a significant event occurred, including, but not limited to, any land, building, or natural resource....whether ruined, demolished or relocated" This is so broad, it essentially allows them to control everything. Land allows them to control the dirt itself, building is well covered, and it appears even the minerals are contemplated......If one wants to apply an equally broad reading of this very broad statute, and compile it with the rest of what is written they can require a person to rebuild a structure that was destroyed or removed before they ever owned the property. The ordinance is THAT broad. They can even write you a citation for every day that you dont do what they tell you to do. Its awful! There you again - trying to make the argument that only realtors/builders are against this. Its not true. I am neither and I am firmly against it. I have been given no money by either a Realtor or a builder either. Its a scare tactic you keep trying to use. The big guys against the little guys. Everyone hates builders and realtors - we better make them the face of this. Why not just say George Bush is the one who is secretly supporting the opposition??? Its just as honest and you can probably get alot more people to sign the anti-George Bush Historic Preservation Ordinance petition.

Welcome to the 1% of the time that you are wrong then. I have not made even one comment that cannot be supported by the wording of the ordinance. While Sue Lovell, and the GHPA can attempt to dispel myths by talking about all the inaccuracies that are allegedly being spread around, the fact remains that the ordinance is what is controlling, not what they say in a meeting. When it is all said and done and the HAHC has all the control, it will not help your cause any that Sue Lovell said they would not do exactly what it is they are doing to you. The fact remains that it is the black and white wording of the ordinance that will dictate what can and cannot be done. All the fluff you hear in these meetings is nothing more than a campaign promise, and everyone knows how worthless campaigns promises are.

That PDF from the GHPA - is propoganda. I am not faulting you or saying anything at all about your posting it, you are doing a service by posting it here for discussion....I'm just stating, and I am stating it as fact, that what is written on that PDF is 100% not supported by what is written in the ordinance. Does anyone else not think that it is very odd, and extremely untruthful, that the GHPA is taking the time to create a web site, and have meetings to dispel the myth of all these untruths, while 100% refusing to do the much faster, much better, more legitimate process of just modifying the ordinance to actually say what they want you to believe it says? They wont modify the ordinance to actually conform to the propaganda they are putting out because the truth remains, that they do in fact want to control all exterior aspects of your home. If they did not, they would just modify the ordinance to state explicitly what it is that is covered and put to rest the items that are not. The only truthful statement is that the ordinance does not currently control any interior modifications.

Newly created - means I lost rights, I lost value. The restrictions will reduce the value of the property as people like me (the silent majority) no longer want to move there. Builders will be much less interested in building there because of the probable delays, increased costs, and increased construction time to get materials and approvals. Its a negative for every single person except that small vocal minority of people who want everything to be the way it was in 1920. Unfortunately the small minority is just louder. I am free to move, but I am not leaving till I get paid for the lost value in my home because of the restrictions. I know of some homes that I would not build b/c I dont like them. But I would not call many of them egregious...there are maybe a handful egregious ones...All in all 90+% of the new homes are very attractive, and add to the neighborhood, not detract. Of those 90% its likely that only 35-40% of them would get approval based on the HAHC guidelines I have seen. Wrong - there were no rules and they knew it when they closed. There is a disclosure form in your closing package....the title company checks off the box as to whether or not there are deed restrictions, set backs, etc. It was clearly checked unrestricted. If you bought with bungalows and they are unrestricted you knew full well the risk that anything, even a high rise condominium complex could be built. It is a risk that you take by purchasing unrestricted property. 9 times out of 10 the unrestricted property gamble pays off. Unrestricted property is worth more money, that is why it is sought out. I came from a neighborhood with deed restrictions...very harsh deed restrictions. I hated it. I intentionally moved where I did because there were no deed restrictions. I bought where I bought for a reason. Now your trying to change the rules. There was never any expectation by anyone of anything when I bought. It is all new and its wrong.

Existing bungalows get renovated all the time now, right next door to new builds. Its been going on for 10 years, I have a feeling it will continue. Some people want new, some want to save old. Its not 100% in either direction....there are areas of the heights (woodland heights) that are all old. If you want an expensive small home, thats your place. The person paying taxes gets benefits from their tax dollars....if you dont want to pay high taxes dont live in an expensive home. That may require you to move, b/c lots are now at least $200,000 for a 66x132 Builders want to make a profit. They are not building for fun or to make neighbors angry. They generally know what sells Victorian, or as the bungalow snobs like to call them McvVics. The Bellaire style home is not being built in the heights, b/c it most likely wont sell. If you want a house like those in Bellaire, go live in Bellaire. The drive to make a profit and sell a house has been working pretty well so far. I can think of only 1 house in the greater heights area that resembles a Bellaire home and while I think it sticks out like a sore thumb....the guy who built it, built it for himself, not as a spec home by a builder. What egregious things are we talking about?? I really do want to know what egregious things you object to. Is it Tricon building the 2 story homes with the front facing garages? Tricon has several other nice contributions to the area. The homes that they built before those over the garage homes are on average very nice. I can think of several stand alone homes that are quite nice. I would rather trust someone whose financial well being is dependent upon there being a good strong market for their product, than a group of close minded, politically appointed hacks, who are drunk with their new found powers. People who are invested heavily usually make much better decisions than those who are not invested. Profit is a strong driver for people to build something that will sell. Im not asking for no land use regulation. It makes sense that the area prevent industrial business from expanding...though we dont have zoning, the requirement for drainage for new structures is very effective at preventing industry from expanding here. The lot value also is very effective, and I support the prevention of subdiving lots to cram more homes on them. I am not advocating no control at all...but I am firmly against a vocal minority of people who want to keep things exactly as they are against dictating to everyone else how its going to be. Most people just want to know what they are buying, and then find something they are happy with, and be left alone. They dont expect the rules to change half way through the game. The people supporting the ordinance whole heartedly are a very vocal minority. If you asked people now to sign the petition with all of the information you would not even come close to get 50% of the vote. This was a bait and switch. Plain and simple.

I think alot of people would be alot more comfortable with the ordinance if they knew WHAT was actually covered. Also, it would be much more palatable if it exempted property currently owned from the restrictions so that they could do what they want to with their own property. There were not restrictions when the property was bought, there should not be restrictions for the duration of their ownership. I am still not in favor of restrictions popping up at the time of sale, but its better than the current proposition b/c at the very least the owners of the lot now who may have had plans to build a new home later are not completely robbed of doing what they had long planned to do. Any new owner would buy with full knowledge of the current restrictions. It would still have a negative effect on property values, but at the very least if you want to stay in your home, or build a new one on your lot, your personal expectation of your property are not completely destroyed. While I completely agree that a Realtor is the most overpayed profession based on the pathetic amount of work they actually do - I do not agree there is anywhere near as much interest in restoration and addition as there is in new builds. If you wait 100 years you may eventually get enough people to restore and repair all the blight that dots the area - but that wait is a negative to the area. The builders who are putting up attractive new homes where blight used to stand are doing a great service to the neighborhood. They are allowing families who need/want more than 2 or 3 bedrooms and 1 bath to come into the neighborhood. They bring with them their money. They increase the value of your property, they increase the tax base which benefits everyone, and they bring money into the area, that has already shown to have a positive impact. The horrible run down Kroger is now a nice Kroger - nice restaurants are popping up and people are visiting them. The increase in value/liquid cash has been a huge boom to the area. It was builders who took the initial risk to come in and make the Heights desirable again, and now that it is, the new residents who are moving into the older homes b/c they cant afford the new ones are trying to stop the builders from doing what they have been doing for years. Also, there is no chance of the Heights turning into a Bellaire - Almost all the builders who are building new homes in the area are at least trying to go with a Victorian/New Orleans style....nobody, or at least very few are trying to throw up a bunch of spanish style homes with orange roofs, or the stucco homes that are throughout Bellaire. There is no chance at all that the Heights will ever look like Bellaire. It already has a unique quality to it, and the mix of new/old on many street is very attractive. I think you will find zero opposition to this ordinance in Woodland heights where those homeowners bought with full knowledge of the restrictions....but an after the fact imposition of a restriction is just wrong. Painting can easily be considered either ordinary maintenance, when repainting to the same color, or an alteration when you change colors. The fact that it is ambiguous makes me believe that it was intentionally made ambiguous so they could evoke the ordinance when someone does something that makes those who just happen to be in power (or their friends) upset . I am willing to bet that if you paint your bungalow an artistic purple with huge bright yellow flowers next door to one of the HAHC board members, that the paint choice would be considered an alteration and not normal maintenance. It is not at all unreasonable to think that an appointed board would abuse their power. History shows us that where there is the opportunity for abuse, it will occur. We need to remove the opportunity BEFORE we put the system in place that will enable it. I love hearing this argument. Deregulation is not what caused a near collapse of our financial system. There was abuse in the system, and some took great advantage of it (mortgage brokers), but the sub-prime mortgage fiasco headed up by Fannie and Freddy are the indirect cause of the collapse. Fannie and Freddie CEO's both warned the government years before the collapse that we were headed toward a collapse if the system was not changed to allow them to turn down unqualified buyers. The congressional black caucus was the leading cause of lending rules being loosened so that anyone could qualify for home regardless of income. When they were told that the system would collapse they played the race card and the disgusting abuse of political correctness took hold and the abuse continued. The collapse was not caused by GWB, or his congress, or the deregulation of the financial market...it was caused by a Democrat congress, and a politically correct president who could not find his own rear end. Technology has occasionally arisen to enable the government to loosen their grips, such as in telephones and a few other monopolies, but when it comes to creating bureaucracy, how many government programs can you name that have ever been eliminated? I can think of only one...the TRCC, and that was just a state program that was doomed from the start because it was bad for builders and for homeowners. The courts were a more effective/efficient use of time and resources than the TRCC.

That is the problem with the back room way that this ordinance is being done. They got people to support one thing, then they perverted it. You will most likely not be able to repair or upgrade your bungalow later, or it will cost you significantly more than it would cost you to do it today. That is not intended to be a scare tactic, its the truth. As to the scare tactics - have you ever seen people get fired up, excited and mad and show up over something that had a marginal impact on their life? No - People only get excited and stand up when something is absolutely terrible. If it were just an inconvenience nobody would be opposing it. It is not an inconvenience, its a huge change to the property itself.....The city has introduced an extremely harsh extremely restrictive ordinance....if you want to end up in the middle with something that everyone is happy with the opposition has to be extremely to the other side. Otherwise we will end up with something that is extremely to the city side. I agree with the James - if you limit or restrict construction, the improvements that have fundamentally changed the heights from an old run down neighborhood into a nice place that people actually want to live will dry up. I am in support of preventing the subdivision of lots to cram lots of houses onto a small lot....I dont want to see large brownstones completely change what the heights is...but at the same time, I also agree that at least 2/3 of the new homes are nice, aesthetically pleasing, two story homes that are adding to the neighborhood, not detracting. The value of the lots are too high to prevent two story homes from being built next door to small bungalows - that is an economic reality. Most, if not all new builds are going to be two story homes. I think the majority of people would support an ordinance that prevented sub diving lots, that supported prevailing lot lines, and set backs, but did not limit what the house could look like, what materials it could be made from, and what color it would be. The problem with the ordinance is it has gone way too far - much farther than anyone ever intended it to go. I think the majority of people have no idea what it is that is being rammed through. They get an email that says come get your yellow sign, and stop big townhomes from being built next door...stop new construction. What they dont know is the negatives....they are not being told, because there has been no media attention, mailers, or flyers. They are most likely seriously misinformed. Very few people actually know how bad the ordinance actually is....that is the truth, that is the reality...we live in an uninformed, apathetic society now....You may be informed, but your neighbor sporting the yellow sign most likely is not, or is misinformed. You seem to be relatively well informed, but even in this post you stated that the HAHC would not be able to control the color of your house. The precise wording of the ordinance actually does allow them to control the color of your home. I know you don't support that aspect of it, and you think I am just fear mongering, but I am not. The wording of the ordinance allows the HAHC to determine the color of your home until they remove it from the ordinance, if passed it will become reality. Will it be enforced? I dont know - I seriously doubt it, but its better to not have ordinances and laws that are in force just not be applied. It does not make sense to pass something that will not be enforced unless someone complains...When a law or ordinance is only enforced on a case by case basis it gives rise to serious questions of fairness and equal application. I close with my libertarian beliefs....Just remember, that once the government has the power to control this aspect of your life, they will not give it back....they never downsize and return rights to people...its just a constantly expanding black hole of bureaucracy.

Every post you have made in support of this topic has failed to rebut any of the SERIOUS issues that us homeowners have with the proposed ordinance. I don't care if some 2-bit politician also owns property in the area that is under consideration. As the ordinance is proposed there can be vastly different outcomes for different people. The ordinance is entirely subjective. For all we know these politicians already have expanded their homes, or have back room deals with the HAHC to give them a free pass. I posted a long list of facts, that are serious problems with this ordinance. Please refute them and provide facts proving me wrong. Until then, all you have done is post emotional fluff....We have to do this to stop Tricon...I posted facts that will impact every single person in these districts. Please tell me where I have posted misinformation, and if I have correct it with a cite for your information so that people actually know what is being discussed, NOT what you want, or what a politician wants, or what you think it will be or how it is supposed to work. If there is going to be a massive rule change in the middle of the game, the rule needs to be spelled out exactly how it will be applied, people in the game need to be given a vote, and the law needs to not be written so vaguely as to allow the HAHC to do anything they want.

The ordinance specifically states that they can require you to perform a mandatory repair. It also requires that you go in front of the HAHC to get approval before doing the mandatory repair. So they can force you to do something their way. All they have to do is determine that it is a mandatory repair. I do agree with you though that the ordinance needs specificity. Any time you have a vague rule that can be applied differently to different people you will have an unequal application of the law. When there is unequal application there is abuse, there is fraud, there are back room deals. It is everything that everyone is very sick of at this point. Not only does it need specificity, but those whose homes are affected by it should have a vote on whether or not they really want it at all. The way this has all come about has been very back room deal / dishonest. The powers that are being granted to a very partisan HAHC board are not at all what the people who casually signed the petition thought they were getting. This a vast expansion of what was promised to them. This needs to be a very upfront, very honest, what is allowed, what is not, discussion that is then voted on by those who own the property that is being regulated...I think a super majority (66%+) will vote down the regulations.

I have lived in the area for 3 years now....I see both sides of the issue as well. Many nice bungalows are beautifully restored because that is what the owners wanted. They look great and the patchwork of them makes the whole area look better. But the newer big homes that are done in the New Orleans or Victorian styles also look great. Even next to smaller older homes.. Here is a good example. The old home is next to a new smaller one, which is next to, a newer big home. Nothing in this picture appears out of place or strange. Nothing about the larger home detracts from the smaller ones I understand peoples desire for things not to change and to not want a big house next door, but at the same time it is not their right to have what they want at the expense of the owner of the property not getting what they want. If they wanted an area of town where they could control every aspect of every house, they should have bought into a neighborhood that already had deed restrictions. The heights does not have deed restrictions...the fact that it does not have them, makes the area MUCH more valuable to people who want to build a house of their dreams in a nice part of town. Many peoples dream homes don't fit the deed restrictions of suburban areas, and still others, cant afford the lot in River Oaks to put their dream home. So they are left with two areas of town West U, which is also very expensive, and the Heights...which is less expensive. This imposition of back door deed restriction through an ordinance, is nothing short of one group of people getting their way at the expense of another group. The HAHC would have way too much power if this ordinance passes. It will single handedly get to control every aspect of everything about the exterior of your home. Everything you would do would have to be approved. Everything. I do not want the hassle of having to ask for permission to do everything. Its stupid. Its absurd. Its my house, not the HAHC, not my neighbors, not the city, not the state...its MINE. Whats next? The ordinance has no limit whatsoever. They could potentially prohibit political yard signs that dont support their particular party! There is no perceivable end to the control.

Krol, Your post is nothing but propoganda and scare tactics. I posted a list of MANY of the problems with the ordinance, I quoted from the ordinance word for word so you would not even have to go look it up, and your response is .....(crickets chirping)...oh thats right, you did not respond to it in any way. Instead you think you will gain support by saying that its evil Realtors and builders who are against this and everyone else has just been mislead....its not. Im neither a Realtor nor a builder... I am an ordinary person who will be negatively impacted by this power grab. This ordinance is terrible....People are tired of empty promises coming from talking heads - they want the truth. The truth is written in the ordinance for anyone who is not too lazy to download it and read it. You go dropping evil names like Tricon, thinking you will pick up all the support of those who hate Tricon, while you are trying to hide the real facts of the ordinance, such as these FACTS 1. The ordinance CAN dictate color of your house, despite what is said in the meeting. It is WRITTEN in the ordinance. 2. The ordinance CAN dictate materials used in repairs/maintenance/new builds, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance 3. The ordinance CAN dictate what type of light fixtures you put on the outside of the house, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance 4. The ordinance CAN dictate whether or not you can expand your home, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance 5. The ordinance CAN dictate what plants you put in your front yard, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance 6. The ordinance CAN dictate what color, what type, where you put a fence, it is WRITTEN in the ordinance The ordinance as it is written can dictate absolutely everything about your house that can be seen from the road. The only thing the ordinance SPECIFICALLY exempts from control is the inside of the house. EVERYTHING else can be controlled by the intentionally vague wording used by the ordinance. My posts are FACTS, they are not propaganda, they are not misinformation, they are not scary names like Tricon or George Bush, they can be VERIFIED by simply reading the ordinance. You are doing nothing more than trying to scare people into passing your agenda. People who are against the ordinance are against it because they want to protect their investments and private property rights. People who support the ordinance are either misled, or believe that they should be able to control every aspect of every persons lives, including what color their house is painted. lets see you rebut something with facts this time. We are all waiting....

Sec. 33-241 - requires any exterior modification or addition to use the same material...unless they change the wording, hardi plank is forbidden, it was not invented until well after the original homes were constructed. "The proposed design for any exterior alterations or addition must not destroy significant historical, architectural, or cultural material, and must be compatible with the size, scale, material, and character of the property, and the area in which it is located" I am not trying to be dishonest, or sell misinformation in an effort to defeat this...its all in the ordinance....the worst part of the whole ordinance is the only part of your home they cannot control, by the open and vague wording they intentionally used is the interior. Everything else, even the landscaping can easily fall within the wording of the ordinance.

You CAN add to the side if the HAHC decides to allow you. That guideline takes your neighbors home into account before allowing you to do additions. If your addition would be larger than the neighbors or the blocks, then you will get rejected. The ordinance also requires your addition to use materials that are historic. A reading of that guideline with the ordinance, makes one believe that if your house is currently historic, and has hardi plank siding you recently replaced, but you wish to make an addition, then the whole house would have to be resided with wood siding which is what is approved by the HAHC. Hardi Plank is expressly forbidden by the ordinance. You should still be worried, we still have a very subjective HAHC deciding who gets to do what additions on a case by case basis, with no real avenue of appeal. You are no longer in control of your own property - a board of people who are obsessed with arbitrary control now gets to decide for you.

I am fairly confident that a strong case of regulatory taking can be made...and yes I do have a rental house in the historic district that is not historic, and it was bought with the express purpose of possibly knocking it down and building a new one, but not a spec home for someone else...you see if you go back to the original posts I have on HAIF (3 years ago), I bought a new home in 2007 that had significant builder defects. I was having a very difficult time getting the builder to make the required repairs. I bought the older house, and renovated the inside with the thought that if my builder does not remedy my problems and instead exercises his unilateral option to simply purchase the home back instead of repairing it (as was provided by the TRCC) then I would simply live there until I had a set of plans and then knock it down and build a new one. As it turns out my builder stepped up to the plate and went above and beyond in repairing my house. So I rent the other house. Its not in great shape structurally, it has old house issues, but aesthetically it is quite pleasing on the inside. I have had zero problems renting the house, and I am not a builder or speculator...I did not buy it thinking I would later knock it down and build a spec house...I bought it thinking I may have to make it my home at some point..and property at the time was not getting any cheaper, and I had pulled all my money out of the stock market (anticipating the declines that come with a Democrat presidency) leading up to the 2008 election, which is when I bought the property. Its been a good investment to date, I see no point in pulling out now...its been a winner. I would gladly offer my professional time/energy at no charge to defeat the ordinance, but at the moment I do not have the need or desire to kick out a very nice renter, design a new house, have the plans drawn, go through the hassle of building, and then try to sell a spec home...I am sure there is money to be made doing that, but I am not in that position or looking to be in that position. I am not a builder and I am not looking to move...but I am an attorney, and I am willing to offer my time/energy to help someone else do exactly what I would have to do if I needed to build a new home. As I stated before - to make your claim ripe, you have to be actually trying to do what is expressly forbidden by the ordinance I am not trying at the moment....A builder who has a lot they are trying to build on, with a set of plans that will get rejected is in a much better place than I am....I'm offering an expensive legal service free of charge to somebody who wants to challenge the ordinance. They have nothing to lose by letting me fight the ordinance for them...worst case scenario we lose, and the builder is back where he was before the suit. The only thing lost is time....If the plaintiff wins, the only thing won is the right to build...or minimal compensation for the actual taking of the rights....Its not going to be about money, its going to be about principal and property rights. The current Texas Regulatory Taking test is below: Texas courts, on a case-by-case basis, have employed several general tests to determine whether a compensable governmental taking has occurred under the provisions of the Texas Constitution, such as: (1) whether the governmental entity has imposed a burden on private real property which creates a disproportionate diminution in economic value or renders the property wholly useless, (2) whether the governmental action against the owner's real property interest is for its own advantage,22 or (3) whether the governmental action constitutes an unreasonable and direct physical or legal restriction or interference with the owner's right to use and enjoy the property.23 I believe that numbers a person can offer evidence satisfying all three tests, especially number three. The restrictions certainly dont make a property useless, they just make it less valuable...

Well, there is a very certain set of circumstances that will make this work. Only a builder, or an individual wishing to build is going to really be able to meet the requirements set forth in statute in order to make their claims ripe. There is a VERY similar case out of dallas that speaks to the ripeness issue, TCI West End Inc. v. City of Dallas....274 S.W.3d 913 Essentially your claim for a regulatory taking via inverse condemnation is not ripe until the city denies the permit, and the HAHC denies your plans. Then you essentially have to request a variance. Once they deny the variance, then and only then is your claim ripe to even be able to sue. If the city wants to, they can pick/choose the cases...if by chance they think the person applying wont sue, or does not have the funds to sue then they can deny...if they feel that the person will sue and has funds they can grant the variances, and allow the construction. If they grant everything prior to it becoming ripe, they can essentially pick/choose who gets into court, and who gets to build. After researching the regulatory taking in Texas, I am certain that a case can be made that this ordinance is a taking...the unfortunate side is that the person who wants to try to overturn this is essentially going to have put out the funds to have plans made, apply for permits and run the whole HAHC horse race, be denied, and then apply for the variance, be denied...then they can sue. That is quite a few steps to just get into the courtroom over something this outrageous. James (SCDESIGN is correct for now...if it passes) As to just putting a porch on the side of your house...(Im guessing your on Ashland at 14th - I have seen a house that has such a feature there) it would appear that all you have to do is take pictures of it now...make up plans for what Jmyou want to do, have an artist rendering or sketch completed, give them a list of materials and the costs, and then apply through the HAHC. If they deny you can go for a variance, if they deny again, you can sue. Its going to come down to a homeowner angry enough and with enough money who is willing to take this on. It would be good if it were a builder, who actually wants to build the house, already owns the lot, has a set of plans...then we could drum up community support to pay expenses of suit and get this thing declared a regulatory taking. It only takes one good case to set the precedent, and the city will have to follow it from then on. It just needs to be set up right from the get go. It would not be good to get a bad case as precedent as the first case to try the ordinance.