Marksmu

Well Ive never been to it and b/c of the policy I doubt I ever will....its not that the policy offends me, b/c it does not...its just that if I want a nice dinner out, I am sure as heck am not going out for mexican food....When I dine out without the kids I much prefer to goto places that serve food that I can't get at most other places I go regularly with kids...also while Im not a chef, or even a good cook, I am pretty capable of making good mexican food - so mexican food is pretty much my absolute last choice when out and about.

I heard on the radio this morning that there was a "popular" restaurant in the Heights that is now banning families with children after 7pm from dining with them. They did not name the restaurant or really explain the policy, but I am curious what place it is, and what the policy really is? When the clock strikes 7 are they handing families their checks, are they just not sitting new parties with families after 7? I am really curious as it seems to me that nearly every new resident in the Heights is a family with children or two a couple who is likely to soon have children, so unless its a very nice upscale restaurant, or a bar more than a restaurant, it seems to me to be a move that is likely to isolate quite a bit of its customer base. With that said I am 100% for allowing a restaurant to serve the demographic they want. I have zero problem with it and I am not going to attempt to question their reasoning, its their business they can and should do whatever they want...I just was curious as to the place and the policy.

I would never knowingly buy into a historic district. EVER. That said, I own a rental house in the district...it was not historic when I bought it, all my closing papers showed it as unrestricted property, but magically by the wave of a magic wand, it now has lots of restrictions...what you seem to miss Brie (and I mean this respectfully) is that this is not actually about architecture, history, or consistency. Its about property taxes. Its about a bunch of folks trying like hell to prevent others from driving up the value of their house so that they can afford it in perpetuity. These people like where they live, they like the influx of business & restaurants, but they dont like the price tag. The ordinance was their way to not pay the true value of the property and try to freeze appreciation, or at least drastically slow it.

If you want good public schools in Houston inside the Beltway you are going to spend a lot of money on your house, or you are going to live in a dump on a very expensive piece of dirt, or fight the constant battle of getting into magnets, and getting your second child into the same one, and then driving to that magnet b/c its probably no where close to where you live...its a frustrating mess My calculations were basically competing properties. A $1.5M house in the memorial area is going to be the equivalent of a $700K house in the Heights....closer to $1M in the small area zoned to Harvard.... Believe it or not people frequently stretch their housing budget to get into school districts. $1.5 on a house is a pretty safe investment...it can fluctuate but in Houston it is historically very safe....That cant be said for all kinds of alternative uses for that same money....Your interest is deductible, your taxes are deductible...your coming out way ahead and you are getting a very good education...not only that your kids expectations are not those of ferrarris & gulf-streams....Ya the public schools in Memorial still have alot of money, but its not St. Johns, or St. Agnes money. As to your assertion of spending less and driving...in a dual income family it would be awful to live in the suburbs work in downtown and have both spouses spend the 1+ hr commuting instead of spending it with your kids. There is a cost trade off to everything...I would rather spend 60% of disposable income on my house/schools than 30% and drive 1hr each way each day and have to hire someone to watch my kids b/c I am commuting. Is it financially better? Sure - a nanny is like $18/hr but there is no price on the time spent with my kids and I intend to maximize that time while also attempting to put my money somewhere that is historically safe and I feel confident my kids are surrounded by a good demographic. I am the exact person you say does not exist. Im closer to 50% of disposable on housing/school...which is high, but I see it as a very safe investment, one that is good for me, my family, and my children.

I will give you the qualifying for the mortgage bit but I did account for property taxes....in my monthly outlay that number was Total cost (including property taxes) subtracted from a sales price (3% appreciation yr/yr) 14 years down the road. The actual monthly cost assuming a 3% increase in appreciation and property taxes for the two broke down as shown below...I also gave the Private school house investment income of 5% yr/yr on the difference in mortgage and property taxes to keep the playing fields as even as possible. $1.5M actual monthly cost = $9342.27/month $600K + Private School actual monthly cost = $6556.71./month. (private school got the advantage of investing about $2800/mo *12 * 14) with compounding interest of 5% At the end of the 14 year term you are free to move b/c schools dont matter anymore...when you do so, and you assume my conditions (20% down, 3% appreciation & Property tax increases, 30 year note, 14 years of payments, and investment of the difference of an annual return of 5%) then financially you are still better off with the bigger house....assuming you can afford the note. The added advantage is the crime rate is probably closer to 15% of the Heights crime....the disadvantage is the drive.

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you? Schools matter in all price ranges. I know of no fewer than 10 people, myself included, who have recently left the heights, bought $1M+ houses based ENTIRELY on public schools. Schools are the ONLY reason I just moved out of the Heights...Private School is exceptionally expensive....so much so that if you have 2 kids, you can easily spend $1M on a house for 18 years and come out way ahead financially as opposed to a $600K house and 14 years of private school....if you have 3 kids it is not even close. Perhaps you have not done the math. Perhaps you are not good at math...I don't know - but I do know that with the current private school tuition and it rises every year its cheaper to buy a nicer house in a better school district, then stay in the Heights and pay for private school. To say that people who can afford a $1M house dont bat an eye at private school tuition is an absurdly incorrect generalization. Its like saying all Democrats are mentally deficient. Yes, many are -but certainly not all of them. A $1.5M house using Memorial as an example vs a $600K house at the end of 14 years (Pre-K through12) will have multiple advantages (less crime not even being calculated)...My calculations show that the more expensive home in a better school district at similar interest rates will yield substantial savings AND that is assuming you can get your kid into the private schools....Its become increasingly difficult, even for the well connected wealthy elites to get into the good private schools....I know quite a few students with wealthy parents who did not get into the schools b/c their kids could not score well enough on the tests. Public Schools, $1.5M House (20% down 3% appreciation, 4% interest rate, term 14 years) **Payments based on 30 yr notes** Total cost - appreciation = $-936,991 or $5577.33/month Total Monthly Payments for $1.5 M House + public school $9342.27 (yr 1) -->$11067.53 (yr 14) Private school $600K House (20% down, 3% appreciation, 4% interest Rate, Private school tuition, term 14 years **Payments based on 30 year notes** Total Cost - appreciation = -$1,089,234 or $6483.54/mo Total Monthly Payments for Heights + Public school are $6,556.91 (yr1)-->$8,045.34 (Yr 14) Even assuming a 5% return year after year on the difference in monthly payments, the more expensive house is a much better choice.... Then you still have all the advantages of mortgage interest being deductible (student interest is not) property tax payments are deductible (student interest is not) and real estate is a good investment when trying to shelter your money from inflation. There are lots of factors, but a nice house + Private school costs more than an even more expensive house + public school.

Based on S3MH's community views expressed in the Historic District thread, I can't see how this apartment complex is a bad thing. The complex will make a more efficient use of the land than a single family would ever be able to, will provide housing to far more people, will be located on the absolute most walkable part of the city of Houston, and will enable at least 1000 residents to be on a bus route, within a few miles of work, if they work downtown. Based on those criteria, I believe that Trammel Crow should be permitted to use eminent domain to acquire any property that they want in the Heights without any regard at all to what the neighbors say. Its clear that an apartment will increase the density, increase reliance upon public transportation, add a tremendous amount of dollars to the tax base, spend more locally, including at the walmart (thereby increasing the tax payments and getting our money worth out of the 380)...Based on S3MH's view of government intervention it appears to me that we should be allowing Trammel Crow to do whatever they please to any block in the Heights. Its better for the community as a whole because it promotes the health, safety, and welfare of more citizens than any grouping of single family homes ever could.

But all you have to do is rent a building, cook the food just like at your house, and then mark everything up 300%....what could go wrong *sarcasm*

I hate the districts as much or more than the next person, but if its done from the street or sidewalk its pretty clearly not tresspassing.

Im not sure why they do it, best as I can guess is that its done to give you a rough idea of the price, but that you still need to contact a realtor to actually find out for sure. I think its just another way to generate leads - Data that gives you an idea, but really just drives your curiosity into making a phone call to find out the exact price. That phone call is the foot in the door and the agents are happy. That is however, just my guess. Its not something an agent inputs, at least I don't and I don't know where it would be input...

Now you are using facts/logic to argue with preservationists....the preservationist loathe facts & logic. They fight with emotion, emotion, no matter how illogical, can never be wrong. The ordinance is about control and property values...if you control the structures, you control the value. Its not about preservation, history, or anything else. Its a very vocal minority attempting to assert control over people who just want to go on about their lives. S3MH says we "cant get the political support to repeal" the ordinance - but that is a half truth....the support is there, the political environment is not. To repeal something is very different than enacting it, and everything is politics....this is a very insignificant issue in Houston, its just significant in our neighborhood. The council, the HAHC, everyone is making sure that everyone who appeals wins - that is not coincidental. To appeal costs money, if you have the money to appeal and to stage the fight, then you probably have the money to sue too - As it is right now, there is an argument that the ordinance has not actually caused anyone harm...without harm or damages there is no standing to sue...It will most likely take someone being denied at the appeal level to gain standing. If the council just approves everyone, the ordinance can not be judically over-turned, which is why everything gets approved. It takes money to win, and so far not enough of it has been ponied up. The support for the districts, and the ordinance is nowhere near what the preservationist would have you believe it is...they used dirty methods and trickery to enact the ordinance, more & more people who later find out they are harmed by this will continue to drop their "support" for this ordinance. I see it daily, as more and more families want more space without moving out of the area. The ordinance IS anti-family, and while it IS possible to live in a small space, very very few people want to do so....especially those who have the money to live where they want and in the house of their choice, like so many Heights residents.

I logged into my realtor portal for you - This is direct from HAR: 337 w. 22nd sold for $655,000, after 2 days on the market. 344 W 22nd sold for $675,000 after 42 days on the market.

Again with ground floor retail and transit!!! THIS IS HOUSTON - ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. If you want ground floor & Transit, you need density - if you try to build density anywhere nice people want to live, your met with COMPLAINTS! NIMBY's and hypocrites everywhere you look!

Very well spoken!

I think this is the end game the entire time. Make it as hard as possible to get past the HAHC, put up road blocks right and left, but then when it gets to council allow them to do whatever they want. I think the council, the HAHC, the Mayor, everyone, knows that this was not legally enacted and can be overturned by a court. However, I think that the courts will dismiss any case attempting to overturn the ordinance unless they are damaged by the ordinance itself...it appears that by just approving everything at council, they are preventing any plantiff from having standing to sue... I could be way off on this, as I have not done any research, but I know quite a few municipalities use this tatic to put draconian ordinances out there that are impossible to legally enforce...its just a deterrent.

But if you makes the homes bigger and nicer, the taxes will go up for the preservationists....thats been the end game the whole time. They want to keep the neighborhood old to stop any more growth, which will prevent any more increase in taxable value. The preservationists are not really preservationists, they are just folks who are getting priced out of their own home.

DOH! Accurate Facts are like Cryptonite to NIMBY's!

I see no false or slanderous statements in her post at all. She asked if you were the person who wrote a letter that completely mis-represented her. Perhaps living in your tiny well maintained shack has caused you to down size other aspects of your life as well...perhaps your underwear clinch too tightly around your testicles thereby creating headaches or other symptoms which may or may not contribute to your rudeness and apparent over-sensitivity issues. In all seriousness, lighten up - the ordinance is TERRIBLE and its destroying the neighborhood. Small well maintained shacks are great for singles and old people, but the Heights is evolving into a real neighborhood again full of young, wealthy, working families....we dont need an ordinance standing in our way so that the original residents can afford to continue living here. Im sorry your taxes will price you out of the hood, but inventing a historic ordinance for 19XX tract homes is a complete and total waste of private & public funds. The heights was one of the original suburbs of Houston, it was full of tract homes of that era. Change is inevitable as it is in a very desirable area of town, not prone to flooding. Those who are in support of preservation had a method of doing so prior to the ordinance...Individual deed restrictions. The rest of the neighborhood (the silent majority) just want to go about their lives without the intervention of the vocal minority who wish to freeze time.

I sent my email in support of the approval. Hope it helps!

He is right, City Centre has at least 6 ways in/out with streets on both sides of the main boulevard. Just at the moment several of them are not open due to ongoing construction from the amazing success of the chain stores that draw people into the area to shop/eat.

I am a realtor, I have been tracking every single sale that closes b/c I was selling my house outside of the west HD and my rental is inside the West HD. Lots both inside and outside of the district are moving rapidly. Lots that have non-contributing houses on the East side of Heights are selling for the most money and the fastest. Newer construction on the east side is getting the absolute best price, followed by new construction on the West side. After that its bungalows that are remodeled, regardless of location. The west side is the real place you can see the difference. Bungalows that in reality should be torn down are moving faster outside of the district than inside...Prices are higher outside of the HD than inside if the particular block is developed. If the block is relatively undeveloped its builders making the investment. It seem individuals are not quite as keen on taking the risk of the block not developing as a developer is.

How is it surprising that a boutique nobody shops at goes out of business? Only in your world is that a surprise.

Since I am moving out of the Heights, I would sell my rental in the Heights if the market in the district was as good as the market out. I also firmly believe that people are getting more and more frustrated with the ordinance and that it will eventually be repealed. Since the rental is leased, and has been very easy to lease, I will leave it as a rental and just roll the dice on whether or not the ordinance gets repealed. I generally do not like to own rentals more than a couple miles from where I live unless its on my way to work, since the Heights will soon no longer fit that bill, I would prefer to sell - but I firmly believe my value has been impacted and thus Im going to hold out and hope for repeal.

Just to paraphrase exactly what you just said. Someone else bought the land a long time ago with plans to do something I don't agree with, so I want to change the laws to suit MY preferences exactly, even though I bought after them without doing any research. When you buy a house, its your JOB to look at the entire area and decide if its a good buy - its not someone else's job. Every house and property I have ever bought I have looked at ALL of the surrounding properties and who owns them. Prior to moving to the Heights I wanted to buy 2 lots totaling 8800sq ft on the 1000 block of Waverly. They were $129,000 each, which was at the time SUBSTANTIALLY lower than other lots in the area. I did an hcad search and looked up the blocks owners...about 8 lots were owned by an LLC, I did a SOS search and got the contact information for the LLC and I called the guy asking what the deal was with the lots. He told me 2 years prior to the construction that he intended to build the outpatient mental treatment center that is on the 1000 block of Waverly now. I looked at his website after that and saw that he focused on schizophrenia, and Bi-Polar mental disorders, and then decided that was a very poor choice of location to buy. I was proactive - I absolutely did not expect that I could buy the lots I wanted at a reduced price, and then go in and change the law to stop this guys plans. That is not a reasonable expectation. If you dont take the time to research who owns what, you deserve what you get. If the current owners do not want MLS restrictions then you do not get to impose them on them b/c you do. It is the perfect example of a MINORITY of people who think their opinion should prevail over the majority of the other owners. If the current owners want to sell to people to build townhomes, why should your opinion be more important than their opinion? Why should your expectations prevail over their expectations? The minority and current or historic use is NOT and should NOT be given ANY precedence over the majority of the property owners. Your investment is not, I REPEAT, is NOT, more important than another persons, regardless of what percent of your income that investment is compared to theirs.

The HAHC is not shutting down developers. The developers just quit buying the lots in the district. Its harming homeowners, people who bought a house that was free from government intrusion and then had their development rights stolen from them by a bunch of arrogant, snotty politicians and neighbors. I don't really sympathize with those who bought into the districts AFTER the ordinance went into effect, but those like me, and Red, whose development rights were literally stolen, so that a minority of very vocal residents can participate in a social experiment in creating their own personal utopia at the expense of others. There is very very little support for the ordinance and the districts now, but until we get a new mayor its pointless to fight. When Parker goes, the districts will follow her and we can abolish this monstrosity. The irony is that once the ordinance is fully repealed, the developers will raze every home they can as fast as they can in fear of a new ordinance being reinstated. It will produce exactly the opposite effect that was intended and more old homes will be demolished. Like it or not, your views are radical. Those of the free market, and private property, are NOT radical. Those are the core values that our founding fathers fought for. A government that does not intrude and impede its will upon its people. You sir, are the radical - not those who only wish to protect which is LAWFULLY theirs. You are clearly far more delusional than we thought.