Marksmu

No, sorry. It doesn't work that way. If you are going to get into arguments, you have to back them. You can't just cry "you are always wrong, therefore I must be right that attorney's fees are recovered from defendants in medical malpractice cases and don't have to prove it." And why is it you don't know enough about it to prove me wrong, but know enough to post about it in the first place. Can't have it both ways.

Face it. You were completely wrong about attorney's fees in medmal cases. Just like everything else, you have no trouble pretending to be an authority on legal matters but just start calling people names when you go too far and can't back it up. Take a look at Tex. Civ Prac and Rem Code 38.001. Start there and let me know when you find the part about bifurcating attorney's fees and damages (hint: courts bifurcate the issue of punitive damages--might want to admit you mistakenly thought the same for attorney's fees).

You mean like I just proved you wrong with the criminal statues that easily handle intentional misdeeds by an OBGYN??? Are you aware that not only is an intentional act against another a tort, but if the intentional act is outside of the consent to treat (which it always is if an OBGYN is intentionally hurting, raping, etc) that was granted, it is also a battery? Hmmm...guess you just overlooked that after getting proved wrong for the 99th time.

I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. I have no big ego or pride issue....if I'm wrong about the fees in medical malpractice, an area in which I do not practice and am not familiar with, then I am wrong. I do not need to spend hours looking it up to make you happy. You have changed your facts, and lied on more than 80% of your posts here...forgive me for not trusting a thing you say. When you have a reputation for being dishonest people stop believing what you are saying, even if what you are saying is true.

And, finally, some doctors do hurt people intentionally. There are cases of OBGYNs raping women, drs operating while they were drunk or on cocaine and drs ignoring patients' problems in order to keep their social schedule. Doctors are people. Most are good, but some are bad. Malpractice lawsuits are the only way to keep the bad ones out of practice. Licensing boards are made up of doctors and never pull licenses.

Well your in luck - we dont need med mal to punish those doctors who rape women, operate while intoxicated or drugs...we have criminal statutes that deal with all of those situations.

I dont know enough about it all to fully go line by line proving how wrong you are about everything you have written, but basing it on your history of being emotional, irrational, and flat out wrong 99% of the time, I am going to assume everything posted above is complete and utter rubbish...

Unless they are incompetent ones who are too risky to practice in any other state.

That is nothing a licensing board can not easily deal with.

I thought Texas already did this. I am not in the medicine business (nor a lawyer) but I thought Texas leads the nation in limiting malpractice and capped pain and suffering at $250,000 and damages in case of death at $1.6 Million or something like this.

The result being more doctors in the state, but no meaningful reduction in medical expenses.

More doctors in the state sounds like a good thing to me....

This is spot on. Med mal lawsuit filings dropped by over 90% in Texas after tort reform passed. In order to file a med mal case in Texas, you need an affidavit from a doctor who has reviewed the case and concludes that the doctor breached the applicable standard of care. It usually costs anywhere from $25k to $100k to get that affidavit, depending on the volume of the records, complexity of the case and need for different specialists to opine in a single case, and the total bill for medical experts, economists, etc. through trial will usually get up to $250k on average. All that cash is fronted by the plaintiff's attorney and charged back to the plaintiff as an expense upon recovery. Thus, it is no coincidence that the cap on soft damages is $250k. It prices the typical med mal case out of existence. Unless there will be significant damages in terms of lost wages, consotrium, etc. beyond medical bills (which just go back to the insurance company or hospital), people who are harmed by a bad doctor can't find a lawyer in Texas unless they are willing to front tens of thousands of dollars in expert witness fees. So, if you are left in horrible pain and discomfort as a result of a bad doctor, but can still do your job and care for your family, you are basically SOL in Texas. And in return, health insurance premiums for a family in Texas have gone from @6,000 a year to @12,000 a year from 2000 to present. Tort reform went into effect in 2003 and had no discernable impact on premiums. And it is no coincidence that health care premiums keep going up as people keep getting fatter and fatter and need more and more treatment for chronic conditions associated with obesity. And it is no coincidence that Walmart has greatly expanded its market share in the grocery industry in Texas since 2000.

I get tired of you spouting off something ridiculous, having it refuted with facts, just to have you not even acknowledge how stupid you sound and then change topics and spout out something equally ridiculous! It's asinine. Its like arguing with a brick wall....Last post its big Ag and Big Grocers fault that Wal Mart sells unhealthy food, and stupid lazy people buy it...You are met with facts showing how you dont actually know anything other than what you saw on a documentary by Michael Moore, and what do you do? You jump topics and spout out something that sounds just as dumb. A quick google search on med mal in Texas instantly proves you wrong though.

Texas does not have a cap on attorneys fees at all in a med mal case. (http://www.mcandl.com/texas.html) As long as an attorney has a winning case he will get paid what he deserves. That is he will get a reasonable fee for his services! Will he get $4,000,000 because a doctor made a small mistake? NO - but you know what? We have doctors here, and I would much rather have doctors than Personal Injury lawyers! I do not think personal injury attorneys deserve even a fraction of what they receive so I have no problem at all at preventing an attorney from collecting a huge sum of money when his client gets hurt. The lawyer gets what he deserves, a reasonable fee for a reasonable service. Does he have to roll the dice and take a chance he gets nothing? Yes he does, but that is what causes him to actually make sure that you are actually injured BEFORE he takes your case....its what separates the frivolous suits, from the legitimate ones. Legitimate suits still get filed, every single day.

And you are incorrect about how a recovery works in med mal case too....the attorney gets fees and costs of court - that includes expert testimony, documents, etc. That does not come out of the clients settlement. When fees are bifurcated from the recovery as they are in med mal in Texas, the attorney will collect his reasonable fee and the costs of court will be included in that. The client gets up to the statutory maximum, and the attorney gets what he earned and nothing more. Are there some patients who are not going to be happy about their recovery? Yes, but having millions of dollars is not going to fix their injury....its just going to make them feel better about it. Doctors do not hurt people intentionally...bankrupting them over an accident does not fix anything..it just means we have one less doctor when we need them.

Finally, much of the increases in health insurance premiums are a direct result of hospitals and doctors not getting paid for treating people without insurance. An overwhelming number of those without insurance in this country are illegal immigrants. They use our hospital resources, and they skip the check. That cost gets passed onto the people who actually pay their bills...those with insurance. Each person with insurance is being forced to cover the tab of those who feel its their right to get good care without paying for it.

A hospital is not going to operate a loss. When they lose money treating illegals because it is against the law to turn them away, they have to raise the cost on those who do pay to cover for it....the super majority of those who pay have insurance. Insurance companies are not going to operate at a loss either, so they raise the rates to cover the new premiums....its a vicious cycle. But that cycle does not come full circle back to Walmart like you seem to think.

Do you ever get tired of sounding like a fool? What is your next topic of idiocy?? I wait with anticipation....its not big ags fault you are fat, its not big grocerys fault you are fat, its not the televisions fault you are fat....its your poor choices. You are fat, you are lazy, and you are unwilling to change. Now lets blame all those things on someone else....who has lots of Money??? Oh OH Walmart does! Its their fault! Maybe we can get being fat and lazy declared to be a disability and you can collect more money for doing nothing! Heck you can probably find an attorney to take that case for CHEAP, since they cant make any money doing medical mal, there should be plenty of them sitting there just waiting to sue someone like Big Ag, or Big Grocery! They have lots of money!

I am not deciding what you can eat, but the government sure is. Grain subsidies make fatty, salty processed foods very cheap and inflate the price of produce by pushing farmers out of the business of growing vegatables in favor of grain and meat production (meat production is indirectly subsidized by grain subsidies as most farms use grain to feed animals even though it makes cattle very sick and requires piles antibiotics to keep them from dying). And the fact of the matter is that people in this country are getting fatter and fatter. It is increasing our health care costs and is actually putting our national security at risk because so many showing up for military service are too fat and out of shape. You can blame people for their own bad choices all day long, but they are still going to make them, especially when so many aspects of their life that are beyond their control (work hours, lack of walkable space/recreation, subsidized junk food, etc.) require a herculian effort to maintain minimal fitness and health. Walmart makes big bucks off of the garbage food they pedal. The can out discount other grocers on junk in order to get people in the door. And it is no coincidence that Walmart has put health clinics in their stores and heavily markets their pharmacy. They make money off of people when the get sick and make money getting people sick. If nothing changes, the obesity epidemic will bankrupt this country. Diabetes is one of the most expensive chronic conditions in terms of yearly medical care. This problem is not going away and it will affect people who make the right choices just as much as those who make the bad choices. So, you are left with a decision to make, you can get rid of grain subsidies, go in the complete opposite direction of supporting local producers of fresh vegatables and stop subsidizing Walmart with tax deals and government benefits for their underpaid employees, or you can watch the country bankrupt itself with obesity related disease. Individual responsibility comes up short when individual decisions have impacts beyond the individual. Slogans like "you just want to tell me what to do" are just a cover for preservation of the status quo on behalf of those who profit from the misery of obesity and the garbage food that Walmart peddles at low prices.

Do you get all of your facts from Michael Moore Movies? Seriously? Do you?

Let me do some enlightening for you, since this is actually a topic I am guaranteed to be 100x more experienced than you are in, since I am involved in this daily. I run a ranch part time, and I actually receive a grain subsidy. Do you know how much grain I plant? None. Not a single acre. I am actually being paid not to plant grains because the price of grain is too low and the USDA does not want more competition in grain farming....I farm grass, not the type that you go buy at Home Depot, or Houston Garden Center, but good ole native coastal variety grass...the kind that was here before people started changing everything up. Why do I farm grass? Because I have cows. Lots of em. I love working with cows, I love raising cows, I enjoy being around cows.

Now, lets get to your alleged points. First and foremost being that all cattle are raised entirely on grain. Wrong. Very Very Wrong...just another stupid Michael Moore inaccuracy. There are grain raised cattle, but they do not in any way make up the majority of cattle marketed and sold in the United States. The majority of beef cattle (I am excluding dairy since they are not beef cattle), as in somewhere along the lines of 80-85% are raised on grass. They are born to their mother on pasture. They are left to nurse off their mother for an average of 242 days (recommended weaning date) After +/- 242 days they are weaned off their mothers milk. By that time they are usually approaching 550-700 pounds, depending upon breed of cattle. Up until this point, only 2 vaccinations are given. BOTH are required by law if you intend to market them for consumption. 99/100 farmers/ranchers do not use antibiotics because antibiotics are expensive, and farmers/ranchers are usually cash poor(not actually poor).

It is at this weaning date that cattle go one way or the other....(1) most of these cattle (80%) goto pasture again and are allowed to approach 1000 pounds, at which point they are about 1 year old and are moved to a feed lot and fed grain mixed with hay for 30 days to add fat to their meat....Grass raised beef is far leaner than grain raised. These cattle are not given antibiotics like you suggest. That is all BS you see on movies. A sick cow is given antibiotics, but the FDA prohibits the slaughter of a cow if it has been given any antibiotics, and that includes medicated feed (creep feed). The FDA requires that cattle given antibiotics be held for 30 days after the antibiotics administered and prior to slaughter. Feed lots do not want to hold a cow for an extra 30 days, it costs about $6/day per animal to feed them....that adds about $180 to the cost of animal, whose profit is about $100/animal. The antibiotics are only given when a cow becomes ill....it is cheaper to save the cow then allow it to die. But when antibiotics are given, the feed lot will lose money on that animal.

The second option and the one you like to pretend all cattle in America follow, is the grain feed yards. This represents about 20% of cattle in America, and this usually represents the more expensive, much higher quality cuts of meat. These cattle are still raised on pasture for 242+/- days and weaned from their mothers. They are given a medicated creep feed when they are weaned to stimulate certain microbes in their rumens to aid in the digestion of the grains...some of the creep feeds contain a steroid to make the cattle gain weight faster. These cattle are moved to feed lots, and fed out a high quality mix of grain/hay. They are not medicated unless they become sick, except during those first 30 days that they are on a medicated creep feed. These cows do eat mostly grain, about 65% of their diet, and they have a higher fat marbeling as a result of it. These cattle are off of medicated creep for at least 60 days prior to slaughter to allow the antibiotics to run their course. Again, these cattle make up about 20% of all cattle in America and are by no means considered the cheap cuts of meat. This is the meat you get at a fine steak house...this is not what you will find in a Wal-Mart.

The only intelligent statement in your entire post above is that health care costs are out of hand. I agree with that. Though I do not agree with the methods we are using to tackle those costs. Its not your right or the governments right to dictate what we eat, even if your neighbor being fat effects you. You want cheaper health care? Cap medical malpractice verdicts. Cap the percent a personal injury attorney is allowed to recover in a med mal case. Allow employers to get together with other employers and pool their employees so they can leverage their group size against the insurance companies. Allow insurance to be bought across state lines. Those are ways to drastically reduce costs....but the government does not want to do those things because that hurts their labor unions...so they come up with the crap we have now.

I actually do agree with one other thing you said. We do need to eliminate all farm subsidies....they are artificially driving the prices of goods. Even though I receive a subsidy I support ending them. But I support ending all subsidies. The free market will find a good equilibrium. Food Prices in the US do not represent the true costs of production because of subsidies.

Bottom line - people will make poor decisions no matter what you do....cheap processed foods are not to blame. If you eliminate processed food, people will just start frying chickens and eating donuts....that is not any better....just because you eliminate one source of fat, does not mean they are not going to find it somewhere else if they want. You can not eliminate fat from the world. Its not possible. Its about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Its the individuals responsibility not yours. I take great offense to your notion that you need to control what I can purchase and eat.

bull fing poop.

as with everything, you have no idea what you are talking about.

you know what is more convenient than the soft drinks packed on your grocers shelves (or walmart's shelves)? getting water off the tap, and it is infinitely cheaper, hell, if you don't trust tap water, you can boil it, that still takes less time than going to the grocery store and stocking up on soft drinks.

you know what else? you don't have as much waste involved either, whether recycled or not, the idea is to reduce, reuse, and then lastly, recycle. so buy one bottle of water, and reuse that bottle over and over again filling it from the tap.

with all that going for it, people have to try really hard to buy coke instead of getting water off the tap.

what's the difference in price between going to the produce section and getting some green beans vs going to the canned food isle and getting a can of green beans (french cut, or whatever)? It just takes more effort to deal with fresh green beans, so people don't want to deal with it.

what's the difference in price between a box of cereal and a box of oatmeal, and some raisins for flavor (unless you're allergic)?

yeah, basically, you're full of it. below is the real story.

people buy what they do because it is what they choose to do, there are alternatives, they can even find the alternatives in walmart, they just choose not to get them. cite whatever reasons you want, taste, prep time, whatever, but it sure as hell isn't for a lack of the product being on the shelves.

Hell, I suppose because a person buys their TV from Walmart, that Walmart is to blame for them not getting exercise. Even though they sell bicycles at Walmart too, in fact, they're cheaper than a TV, and the cost of ownership is much lower as well.

But it certainly isn't because a person chooses to plop their *** down in front of a TV rather than getting some exercise, it must be because Walmart sells TVs.

*self moderated, and deleted the rest*

I wanted to see the rest - I completely agree with everything you said. People are just lazy.

MarkSMU = angry militant hippy?!?

Just tired of other people thinking that they actually get to dictate to me what I should do with my life....whether or be what I do with my money, where I shop, what I eat, or what I do to the property I own....All of these people who think that they, or some elected bureaucrat should get to decide these things for me, make me sick.

Hippy though? No, I dont think so, pretty far from it.... Just highly protective over the rights I still have, and not willing to give any more of them up, so that people like S3MH can decide what I get to eat, or what the outside of my house looks like because they have nothing better to do with their life.

To blame Walmart as a whole for our national weight gain would be as simplistic as simply referring the sky is one color.

As much as people like to throw around the "sheeple" word out there, that's basically what we are, whether we like to admit it or not.

We fall into the trap of buying something that is cheap and easy.

As a single person, I can afford to buy whatever I want as far as food goes, but I'm busy as hell, so I have to make smart choices that fit my lifestyle.

A family of four with a tight budget doesn't have the time, means, or energy, to constantly be "healthy" in their food choices. Sometimes it just has to do with put something to feed those "walking stomachs" I referred to in another post. But to be fair, sometimes it is also ignorance that keeps people from making proper choices, but then again, it goes back to time.

Time will unusually win out to feed the family with budget and time constraints.

I fully understand the time constraint. I am a family of 3, 5 if you count dogs (I dont count the dogs) ...add another kid next year and it will be even harder....but instead of watching the football game on Sunday, watching your nightly news or television shown, sleeping in, or whatever it is that people do with their free time, they need to make the conscious decision that they are going to put a healthy lifestyle above these other things. If you do do a little something every day it will make it all much easier. If you set a menu on Sunday, buy all of the food for the week, then its very easy. When I start doing the dishes from my dinner each night, I look at tomorrows menu, get the things I need out, and set them aside, thaw them, marinade them, or whatever it is that needs doing. Its not hard and it it does not take more than a couple minutes each day...I had to make a big life adjustment to get dinners ready after our baby came along...it was tough at first but once its been made a part of a nightly routine, its easy. If its routine it will get done, if its an exception then its an inconvenience and it wont get done.

There will be always be exceptions when you need to buy something processed, or when you eat fast food...but those exceptions should not, and would not matter if you were eating properly.

Every family has time to provide a healthy alternative for breakfast, lunch, and dinner...it just comes down to putting the time and effort in. Its much easier to be lazy and go the unhealthy route. People are lazy. There are affordable options for every family with every set of time constraints....they just take some effort.

People who want to blame WalMart are just idiots. Its not the store's fault...they did not force you to buy it, they did not force you to serve it, they did not force you to eat. They gave you an option. I would prefer to have cookies and ice cream for every meal, but it is not healthy or practical. If you let kids decide what they are going to eat, they are never going to decide to eat healthy. That is the parents responsibility...not the neighbors, not the grocery store, not the bureaucrats....its YOUR responsibility to eat healthy and provide healthy food for your family. PERIOD.

People who want to blame someone else are just weak minded!

It is directly Walmart's fault. But it is much more the fault of big Ag and big grocers. The reason grocery stores are packed with highly processed foods is because they have a very long shelf life. Grocers can pack their shelves to the rim with junky cereals, snacks, sodas and other garbage because they will always sell before they go bad. Add in the corn subsidies, and you get aisle after aisle of cheap garbage. Families on a budget with parents that work multiple jobs or late shifts will buy the processed crap because it won't go bad, it will fill them up for a fraction of the cost of fresh produce and lean meats and doesn't require any preparation time beyond opening the box or popping it in the microwave. Walmart exacerbates this problem by using its buying power to get the best discounts on things like chips, pop tarts and other highly processed junk. Thus, when a family shops at Walmart, they can get junk like chips, soda, pop tarts and frozen crud (hot pockets, pizzas, etc.) for a fraction of the cost as eggs, milk, fresh produce and lean meats. And the junk never has to be thrown out because it went bad, and there is no prep time for junk when the parents are working late and the kids have to make their own food or when parents come home late and don't have time to cook. You can wag your finger at people all day for not exercising and making bad decisions, but that won't do anything to solve the problem.

Are you really that ignorant and do you really need to blame someone else for everything so badly? Do you really think that someone else SHOULD decide what is good for you? I know you do, because I read the rest of your posts, and you believe the government and regulation is the solution to everything.... but I dont and neither do most Americans. Whaf it the powers that be decided too much environmental waste is created by eating fresh food because its thrown out before its used??? Then they tell you that YOU can only buy processed food...you would probably switch sides then....So you have no more right, duty, or prerogative to tell people how to eat than you do tell someone else how to vote.

Walmart buys processed food because it sells, not because it has a long shelf life. If it does not sell, they stop buying it...They want to make money, not fat people. Processed Food sells because people are lazy. It is not your right or duty to tell other people how to eat and how to live their life. WalMart sells fresh produce and unprocessed meats that do not go bad in the freezer isle. People's life style choices are to blame, and it is not your right, nor should it be your right to be able to tell people that they need to change their lifestyle.

Both my wife and I work full time jobs....she works on average 12 hours a day, while I work about 9.5....we have a daughter, who goes to daycare. I leave early in the morning so I can pick her up...my wife leaves later so she can drop her off.....we both have no time at all in the evenings yet, because it is important to us we eat quality food...we cook...we plan our meals.... We eat fresh veggies....we make a menu every Sunday, we buy a weeks worth of food, and we freeze/unfreeze it as we use it...its not hard, it just takes getting off your butt.

Buying processed food does not save these families any money either...I am sure if you added it all up, it actually cost substantially more than eating healthy. When you dont have quick processed foods in the house there is nothing to snack on, so you dont snack...when you do not snack constantly you are less prone to getting fat, and you save money! If the families would adjust their lifestyle to eating healthy (something they are too LAZY to do) then obesity would not be a problem. Even the families working multiple shifts and whose parents are SOOO busy have the time to put together a casserole and stick it in the fridge...its healthy it just needs to be microwaved, and its ready to go. They dont because they are lazy, not because they are poor, or because they work too much.

Everything in moderation is a great theme to live by. We dont need you or some other bureaucrat telling us what to eat....we dont need it! We dont want it! For someone to be successful they have to want to change....fat lazy people dont want to become skinny and productive....they are happy being fat and lazy. When they pass that onto their children we get more fat and lazy....

Wal Mart is not in any way to blame for any of it. Neither is bag ag or big grocers. You really do believe everything Michael Moore tells you dont you? Get a brain, learn to use it without regard to what the tv tells you.

Study: When New Walmarts Open, People Get Fatter

http://consumerist.c...ple-fatter.html

I'm not going to directly blame Walmart for the obesity epidemic, but it's an interesting study.

Dont even have to read it to discredit it....Its not even indirectly Wal Marts fault. People are responsible for their own weight. Just because you are lazy, dont exercise, and do not want to cook something healthy is not Wal-Marts fault.

For the same price as anything unhealthy that is frequently on sale and located more prominently throughout the store, anyone can buy the big bag of frozen chicken breasts for next to nothing, and some frozen vegetables.

People dont buy healthy, because they have to do more than open the box, or microwave it....they actually have to *GASP* cook something, and then *GASP* clean it up!!! That is not Wal Marts fault....its the idiot who buys the foods fault.

Its ridiculous to post something like that and claim its even indirectly WalMart's fault.

No, it's not paranoid. It is just nuts. The word "determines" obviously refers to the process of the director counting and verifying the returned ballots, not some super secret special way the director can say that an unreturned ballot means a ballot in support. I mean come on people. This provision is one the realtors and builders wanted. They made it very difficult for further expansion of the districts, if not impossible. But even in the pro-builder/realtor provisions, you all see some secret plot. This is about as bad as the paint/HVAC/political yard sign arguments. Just because you think that it is possible to read an ordinance a certain doesn't mean that it is read that way. Move on. Go get in on the hot property market surrounding the Historic districts. Property prices are going to shoot through the roof as every builder, resident and renovator flees the historic districs and rushes to west of Ashland to build monsterous McVics. But watch out! The decay in the historic districts will be so fast and devastating that the old bungalows will become crack houses and meth labs (granite countertops are a plus for cutting drugs). People moving into the non-historic areas will probably see their property values plummet as soon as they move in due to the crumbling historic districts. Eventually the entire Heights will become a post-apocalyptic war zone where gasoline is currency and gangs of out of work contractors fight for control of the Citgo on W 11th and the Valero on Shepherd.

Or, actually, life will go on. Gas will eventually go to $4.00+ a gallon when the economy rebounds and people will pay piles for a bungalow in a Heights Historic District to avoid paying hundreds a month to drive in from The Woodlands.

I do not see what exactly is paranoid or "nuts" about believing that the city will use whatever tactics necessary to achieve their goal of larger Historical Districts throughout the Heights. The original survey was obtained fraudulently. People were not allowed to remove their names from a list that they signed years ago and under completely different pretenses and sets of circumstances.

The "re-survey" was done more dishonestly than anything I have ever seen done. Counting a non-returned ballot as a yes, and not allowing owners of contiguous property to have their percent ownership counted the same as everyone else is also dishonest. The resurvey was THE most dishonest, disingenuous, back handed, back room, political process I have ever witnessed. It does not even begin to pass basic tenants of democracy...yet that is how it was done.

The original wording of the ordinance required a positive vote of 67% of respondents....that is it actually required a VOTE. That wording was deliberately dropped.

If you read Sec 33-222.1(e) it reads "The notice shall include a card to be returned by the property owner which shall indicate whether the property owner does or does not support designation of the historic district"

(f) "After the deadline for returning the cards mailed in accordance with subsection (e) has passed, the director will determine if owners of 67 percent of all tracts in the proposed district support the designation of the district"

NOWHERE in that text does it require a returned card to be a yes.....they could very easily, and likely would again use a non-returned card as a yes vote.

All that is required is a card be mailed and that the card have an option for it to be a yes or a no. The method of counting the yes and no is not described. It is DELIBERATELY not described because they want to have the ability to use whatever method they believe will leave them with the highest probability of success.....

I also believe it was written this way to remove the chance that the ordinance as written be used against them in attempts to invalidate the current Historic District designations because they know they could never achieve 67% of the owners to actually vote affirmatively to form the district.

Its not nuts, its not paranoid, its not even a stretch of imagination to conceive....its an unfortunate reality of the world we are now operating in. We have idiots, actual idiots, people with low IQ, in charge of our city, our laws, and now, unfortunately our private property.

The ordinance says 67% of tracts, not of respondents. The HAHC does have the power to modify the boundaries, but even within the modified boundaries, the standard is 67% of tracts. In order to respond, the owner of the tract has to return a card (affixing postage) within 30 days of it being mailed out. Contrast this with the requirements for existing districts in which there was essentially unlimited time to get signatures representing 51% of the area.

Barring some future change to this standard, historic district designations of any significant size will probably be few and far between.

I am with Samagon here, and I do not think he is being paranoid....look at the past for a prediction of the future...same crooks, same back handed deals....the wording drops respondents....I absolutely read the wording to allow the director to decide whether or not an un-returned card can count as a yes again. With the crooks currently in office, the same process could repeat itself....it makes me want to vomit profusely.

I think samagon has it right. The preservationists will whittle away at the non-historic areas a block at a time. My biggest concern is that 15 peopls will get together and create a new "district" of 150 homes and make a submittal. That sumbittal will immediately put those 150 homes under the rules fo the Historic Ordinace until the "vote" is done. They will use the same approach of "no vote is a yes vote", since they are getting away with it this time, and so effectively the new district will have to get 53% (because 10% is assumed) of people will have to vote against to district. That's not going to happen so the new districts will start popping up everywhere starting very soon. Ans I would hate to own property there during this mess.

I read the ordinance to allow the blocks to be redrawn following a vote, but the 67% is a full 67%, it does not assume the 10% is a given. Each district vote will need 67% of the cards counted to be created when received....if they can get to 67% by cutting out blocks that did not support the ordinance they will...and if that means only one side of a block is protected they will do that too.

The bigger question is if they just continue to use an un-returned card as a vote in favor of the district. That is very dishonest.

You get an F for lying one way in one post, and then saying something exactly opposite of that in another post.

lets review what you have said:

and then you say:

so out of one side of your mouth, you say that there are few bungalows in the heights that haven't been renovated, yet you happen to live next to two structures that need renovation, more than just granite countertops.

I suppose that this is just an exceedingly rare specific case of 2 of the rare structures in the heights that require work, and that it is just bad luck you are sandwiched between them. at first I am of your bad luck, and then I am at you.

and you wonder why people call you a liar. you can't even be consistent in your lying!

Woohoo! S3MH - liar liar pants on fire! Its fun to say Its proven and its more than 10 minutes old, so we must forever protect the historical status of SM3H as a liar. I will work on the ordinance, but in the mean time we will need an administrator to go ahead and tag S3MH's future statements with a disclaimer that says "it is an exceedingly high probability that all content in this post is completely untrue, based loosely in the truth, or is a figment of my imagination being asserted as fact"

I read the posts from SM3H, and I have to think that he/she is a she....lots of folks call him a he, but I believe he is a she.

You really need to learn to speak less in absolutes...

...the Heights is appreciating rapidly not because it is "historic" but because its become a nice, safe area of town that is also an easy commute. It has nothing to do with the "historic" aspect at all.

Hey, I thought we weren't supposed to speak in absolutes. I have a problem with this assertion - I understand that it takes a lot more than "historic" buildings to create a massive run-up in prices - case in point the fifth ward - but to say it has "nothing" to do with the Height's appreciation is outlandish. I guess all those people who did buy and restore bungalows had no idea why they liked their houses. I can say for certain that my wife and I, and various other friends of ours in the Heights, made a point of buying houses here over the last 10 years because of the historic aspect (among the usual other reasons to be sure). I understand not everyone feels this way when they buy in the Heights. I'm OK with that. I'm just saying that the "historic" aspect is indeed important to a lot of people.

I fear this thread has become the equivalent of a red state/blue state knock-down drag out argument where one must take sides - radical preservationist or realtor-tool opportunist. It seems to be bringing out the worst in otherwise knowledgable and engaging people.

And while I have the soapbox, Heights Homeowner, I invite you to stop by Proctor Park in Norhill on a warm sunny afternoon after school and see all the kids and families there. You might be surprised how many families can and do raise kids in these small homes.

I withdraw my previous statement saying it has "nothing to do with historic aspect at all" You are correct - I should not have spoken in such absolute. The Heights has appreciated rapidly because of its proximity and its quality, it has less to do with the historic aspect. There are certainly those who love its historic nature, but I believe, they are the minority of the homeowners.

Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy in post. Unlike some other posters, I have no problem admitting when I have made an error.

"Dilapidated structure in the districts will remain forever". Right. I guess Bungalow Revival will just go out of business. And the builders that made a nice buck taking two teardowns down to the studs in my district won't ever make that mistake again. Don't believe everything realtors tell you. They are good at one thing and one thing only--getting their commission.

You really need to learn to speak less in absolutes. You come off as unintelligent not only because the things you are typing are stupid, but also because they are absolutes. I can say with almost (notice its not a certainty) 100% certainty that realtors can do more than just one thing well...even if that one thing is drive a car, or dress nice.

I never said block busting happened by pre-planned design. And if you think there was a racial implication in using the term, you don't understand what the term used to mean and how it is being implicated now. Builders know that when the go big, the houses in their shadows lose value, especially the ones that have not been updated. Builders can always out bid an individual on a historic house that needs updating. Thus, while it is not planned, the effect of putting up a giant house next to a historic bungalow is well understood by builders and very much welcome when that bungalow goes on the market. They may not be planning it, but they are well aware of it. A certain realtor in the Heights told me that bungalows are only worth what a builder is willing to pay to tear it down.

That is strange because I live on a block that is "busted" and I just went back on the hcad values, and I can tell when the new homes went up next to the old ones...can you? Both are adjacent to new 2006/07 construction 3000 sq ft, and neither have ever been updated. Both are 1920s well maintained shacks

Tax Year: 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 Appraised Value: $180,000 $183,666 $146,926 $149,371 $116,039

Its strange that new homes on my block were completed in 2007 and again in 2009....I guess that new home block bushing really crushed the value of his home huh? Maybe it was just this one...lets look at my other neighbor....nicer house, 2200 sq ft larger lot.

Tax Year: 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 Appraised Value: $221,000 $203,643 $185,130 $168,300 $153,000

Just as I thought, your facts are not facts at all....in each and every case I looked at on my block and 2 others the values of the well maintained shacks rose the most the years FOLLOWING the construction of a new home, and my block is about 60% old 40% new...Perhaps you can point me to just ONE example of an owner whose overall value went down after a nice new house was built next to his/her well maintained shack.

And your prediction about the districts becoming run down is just silly. I guess you do believe everything realtors tell you. The Heights historic districts will become run down the same day you can average driving 65 mph from Cypress or The Woodlands or Sugar Land or Clear Lake to downtown during rush hour. Houston is supposed to add 2 million residents in 10-20 years. People will gladly pay a massive premium for a tiny bungalow and happily submit their plans to HAHC in order to be able to commute to work without spending three hours a day sitting on the highway. Looks like the irrational fears have gotten to you.

So you recognize the real truth....]The Heights is appreciating rapidly not because it is "historic" but because its become a nice, safe area of town that is also an easy commute. It has nothing to do with the "historic" aspect at all.

In fact, in 10-20 years, preservationists will be celebrated for standing up to the developers and realtors. I have actually seen this happen in other parts of the country. When the historic rules are adopted, everyone cries foul. But after years of practice, the neighborhood becomes an attraction and property values rise beyond imagination (especially when in close proximity to a major urban area).

Most worthless thing you have said yet....imagine that...a safe area of town in close proximity to a large workforce that appreciates rapidly. This area of town could be a corn field and due to its proximity and the fact that the homes being built are nice, and the yards are well maintained, it would appreciate at the same rate. The "historic" aspect of the Heights has had little impact at all on the rate of appreciation....and even if the ordinances stays in place, 10-20 years from now I would still expect the Heights to be significantly more valuable than it is now....unless of course the environmental crazies find a way to permanently stop the exploration and drilling of oil/gas....in which case I would expect values throughout Houston to tumble or at best remain where they are now.

Does any action have to be taken by the opposition for this ordinance to be thrown out by some judge? I think this is an easy case of the city going well outside its power and undertaking a very unfair process. If it ever falls to a judge I can't imagine them taking long to overturn it.

Someone needs to be denied the right to do what they want because of the ordinance for their claim to be ripe. But given Red's statement above about being red-tagged already as a result of the ordinance (which I thought was not even possible given the grandfathering of work in progress) I would say his claim is now Ripe.

The problem is that the HAHC, could theoretically grant variances to prevent claims from becoming ripe. You have to exhaust all available remedies at the city level prior to filing a lawsuit....If Red were to apply for a variance, and have it granted, he would no longer have standing to sue because the ordinance did not actually prevent him from doing anything he desired to do.

There are other ways, but I am not going into them all here.

The Heights were walkable (corner stores, sidewalks and tree lined boulevards) and integrated work, play, education and shopping all within a few miles.

First the Heights was made this way THEN because at the time 1920 - only 1 in 13 families owned a vehicle or could even dream about buying one. The Heights is the way it is, because cars were considered a huge luxury at the time. It was not till the late 20's early 30's that Americans began to have cars in large numbers

And your inability to understand what the Heights is about is why you do not understand historic preservation.

I have to problem at all seeing what the Heights is about....To you its about History, that is your perception...It is not what the majority of people perceive it to be. The majority of people believe it to be a small, relatively safe, trendy, rapidly appreciating neighborhood, where until recently a person could pretty much design and build whatever they wanted. The mix of people, homes, and architecture was great! People flocked to strange homes, old homes, new homes....everything was perfectly fine until the vocal minority got involved.

My block is all bungalows (with only two exceptions) with mature trees up and down the street. The trees are probably taller and there are a few camelbacks and goofy porches. But the street looks like 1920. It looks like Houston's original planned community. It is that way because the historic homes have largely been preserved. The next street up has a number of huge new homes, some drawing upon craftsman themes, most giant McVics, a "creative" renovation that kept the frame and not much else, a small apartment complex and a few beautifully preserved and renovated original bungalows. That street looks like a mess. Yeah, there is a new build that did a decent job of adopting craftsment themes. But it towers over the real thing next door.

Most builders will goto extremes to save mature trees. A mature tree is worth a huge sum of money...Mature trees are beautiful, and enhance property values. Builders and lot owners only cut down mature trees when they leave the lot economically un-developable.

I also do not care that your block looks like it did in the 20's. That means NOTHING to me. If you could not go up and down your beautiful "historic" block and get the actual owners of those homes to agree to preserve them by signing your "reasonable" restrictions, it just proves that you did not, and still do not have the support that you pretend you have. People dont want what your selling, you forced it on them. It was backhanded, it was dishonest, and it was un-democratic, but you dont care because you got your way.

Furthermore, you think the street that is redevloped looks like a mess - again your perception. Many may find it beautiful and wonderful.

Camelbacks aren't my idea. They are the work of your builder friends and realtors. Demolishing a viable bungalow and replacing it with new construction does not preserve history no matter how nice the new construction is.

Camelbacks are your preservationist idea...not builders. A builder would only do that if thats what a HOMEOWNER wanted. They do them to still be "fauxhistoric" and have a home that is not a well maintained shack.

And again with your perception that the HISTORY of the Heights is what makes it great....its not. If people want an old home they can get it here...but the majority of people who OWN and want to own in the area really dont care about the fact that a house is old. You do....thats great, but you dont have the right to force your desire to preserve history onto the people who own the properties.

NO ONE, except you and your builder/realtor friends, thinks that the diversity of construction in the Heights is what makes it great. The well preserved historic homes are what makes the Heights great. People go to war to get 1000 sq ft bungalows on a 5000 sq ft lot in the Heights for what it costs to get 2500 sq ft townhome or a 2000+ sq ft house on 8-10,000 sq ft lot in Garden Oaks/Oak Forrest/Timbergrove (much less 3000 sq ft home with excellent K-12 public _schools in the burbs). We love these buildings because they are historic and are in a historic neighborhood.

Again your failure to perceive reality. Its your reality,but its not the reality of the majority.

Second, timbergrove did not explode like the heights for 2 reasons. 1) deed restrictions already in place 2) flood zone...it is all in a flood zone....you are in HOUSTON - flooding happens...people dont want to live in flood zones if they dont have too. TImerbergrove is great, but it floods badly. Oak Forest is not as convenient to the city as the Heights.

Location, diversity of people and homes, are what makes it great, not history...you like to brag your historic, but not everyone does. Your perception is not the perception of the majority...that is precisely why you could not get the support of your neighbors.

Unfortunately, there have been incredibly selfish people in the Heights

Yes - YOU - YOU are forcing your selfish desires on everyone else who does not agree with you. Which is the MAJORITY. That is why you could not do the process legitimately.

When faced with the will of the community, these same selfish people pretended to be for preservation in order to try to dupe people into believing that there should be absolutely no historic preservation in the Heights, unless an individual homeowner decided they wanted to do so. This selfish individualism is what has torn our community apart. Fortunately, the will of the community prevailed over the short-sighted self interest of the selfish few that do not value this historic community. But this is always how it goes with historic preservation. Some people just don't get it.

There was no will of the community. There was an ordinance crammed down everyones throats because no matter how hard you and your selfish friends tried they could not get the support of community. You are the selfish one here. Some people dont "get it" because they dont WANT IT. At some point you need to realize your desires are not the desires of everyone else, or even the majority.

And the greater population of Houston can own a McVic. They will just need to build it on one of the millions of acres of land in the City that are not protected by a historic ordinance. Or on one of the hundreds and hundreds of lots in the Heights that are not protected by the ordinance (yeah, I know, save your typing with the "entire city will be historic district because only 10% can trigger . . . ").

Did you really just now figure out that the term "McVic" is derogatory? Sorry about that. It was easier to type than having to hammer out "gaudy, out of place, oversized, selfish, block busting, tree razing, character killing, phony, lazy, suburban wannabe, new construction" every time. You may think historic houses are just shacks. That is your problem. Those well maintained shacks sell like hotcakes and people pour tens of thousands into restoring them every day. And now their investment is protected because they won't find themselve sandwiched between gaudy, out of place, oversized, selfish, block busting, tree razing, character killing, phony, lazy, suburban wannabe, new construction.

I dont mean to burst your bubble here, but the Heights was a "suburb" at the time it was created, and it was also new construction and cookie cutter homes at that time. All things you are apparently adamantly opposed to.

There are also plenty of nice new homes that are not lot line to lot line, but are set well within set backs on nice 50'x132' lots (6600sq ft). The width of many of these is actually smaller than the width of the older well maintained shacks, or dumps that they replaced. The only difference being the depth being much deeper, or height of the new homes towering over the single story well maintained shacks. However the owners of the single story well maintained shacks who support the ordinance, seem to want no two story homes. I see lots of complaints about the fact that the new homes tower over their back yards. But, I can drive through the Heights, historic and non-historic areas, and find plenty of OLD, "historic" two story homes. They are less common, but there are many many old two story homes in the Heights, and I see nobody complain about them.

I personally do not care to have one oft homes built lot line to lot line with no yard, but I do not think they are out of place. Half the old homes are crammed lot line to lot line, with less than 6-8 feet between walls. The original lots in the heights were platted 4400 sq ft. About the only thing I am adamantly opposed to that has been occurring is subdiving lots to cram more houses in. Otherwise, I find most of the new construction incredibly more attractive than the Camelbacks, if not infinitely more attractive, and most, are more attractive than the older well maintained shacks that you seem to wet yourself thinking about....though I do like many of the older well maintained shacks as well.

What makes the Heights great is the diversity of homes, and the friendly people....both things the ordinance effectively destroys. Now we are stuck with one type of home, and soon we will be stuck with one type of person....arrogant, selfish, needy people who think either they or the government know what is better for you, than you do.

Edit - those McVics as you call them also seem to be selling like hotcakes and people pour hundreds of thousands into them...what is your point?

So you would support a more restrictive ordinance, right?

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim the ordinance is a gross violation of private property rights and then criticize it for not going far enough. You are just proving the point that the ordinance is a reasonable middle ground that allows people to update bungalows to suit their needs while preserving the original structure. And a you can feel all proud of your McCamelback term, but the Heights will take the camelback over the giant McVics any day.

You will take the camelback....I think most would prefer not to. Camelbacks are hideous.

I believe the greater population of Houston, or for that matter the US, or possibly even the world would prefer to own a nice new large Victorian style home. Your use of the term McVic is derogatory in nature, similar to the way that I claim you have a well maintained shack because you live in a small old house. You like to call it a bungalow but I think that is just a trendy word for a well maintained shack.

I dont really believe that, but it makes my point.

Wow! This guy/girl is a (edit *a very derogitory word starting with a d*) regardless of which side you are on.

I wouldn't be so sure that the areas around the Heights are going to experience a rapid growth now. I'm predicting an overall slowdown of growth in the area and north through Garden Oaks and Oak Forest. Why? Because with this ordinance it only takes 10% of the residents to submit an application and start the process toward becoming an HD; and once the application is submitted, regardless of the validity of the applicaiton, the area is treated as an HD. I don't think any new HD's will be created,\ but I think that the strategy from now on will be to get that 10% to submit applications, delay the survey process for as long as possible, and once the survey fails to create the HD to have the shortest possible time between then and the next time the application can be submitted. I can't see investing my money in an area that has the potential to be paralized for 8+ months out of the year by 10% of the property owners.

I don't think it's all doom and gloom either, at least in the Historic Districts. At least I know the situation there, unlike the other areas that are going to be in chaos from now on. This could even be a good thing over the short term. I think a lot of the fence sitters are going to move now and do remodels to get their houses on the market soon. That may spur some new buyers to come in with the idea of buying up unimproved properties and fixing them up. It'll stop the huge property value increases, and will really slow down, if not stop, the speculation, but it could be okay if everything goes right. And I honestly hope it does work out that way because I love the Heights. I'm not betting on it though. I think the builders are going to pull out and the housing prices are going to fall like a stone.

I dont think builders will stop...they just will not buy a lot until they are ready to build upon it. The process between purchase and the start of construction needs to be very fast to ensure a new submittal of 10% would not catch them with their pants down. As soon as the lot closes a permit should be applied for....Its my understanding that once a permit has issued the rules can not change in the middle of the build, even if the actual construction has not begun.

Pre planned & designed homes rather than semi-custom would be more the norm simply because the floor plan can be easily dropped into the survey of a lot that meets its footprint.

I would think the new homes, which are selling great, would entertain a premium due to decreased supply because only a few builders could afford to have a floor plan ready to go within days of purchase of a lot....The smaller builders without floor plans of their own already ready would be forced to other areas.

The rules were very clear. And that's why we were all pissed off about it. They were clearly rigged. We aren't anti-preservationists... we are anti-ordinance. The debate WAS about getting a better ordinance. If you remember, there were several revisions to the ordinance before it was approved. I think the biggest thing that pisses everyone off is the HAHC deciding if something is "appropriate". That is NOT what anyone signed up for (to originally get the historic district designation).

The FACT of the matter is the historic districts only make up part of the Heights, so what you are going to cause is a greater concentration of McMansion's outside of the historic districts but still within the greater heights area. In my eyes, the neighborhood isn't limited to the 4 or so streets within my house, its the entire area (including shady acres, brookesmith, timbergrove, etc.) Good luck ever getting any other neighborhoods to become Historic Districts. If you would have done this process with integrity/honesty/reason it would have been much easier to protect the entire Greater Heights area from having more mcVics on small lots. Not just 4 clusters of a few streets. You did not win, you just made the entire neighborhood lose.

The funniest part of this is if it hadn't been for the McVics/Townhomes that you were trying to stop you wouldn't have ever moved here in the first place. You would not have moved here in the 80s-90s. Because of the gentrification of the neighborhood, it made it more desirable which is why so many more middle/upper class people started to move into the neighborhood. Now that the 'hood is doing well, safer/better schools/cleaner, you cut the hand off the one that fed it. I'm pretty new to the neighborhood (like yourself) but at least I recognize how the neighborhood got to where it is now. I can see this as a liberal, young, DINK yuppie (hope that doesn't throw off your perception of me too much)

I agree with this. It may be time to buy some more property that is not protected! The builders don't want to abandon the Heights - they want to stay, its the place to be. The properties outside of the Ordinance are going to go up in value disproportionately to the ones inside the districts.

The 11th - 14th streets from say Nicholson to Ashland, with a cut through Ashland for the awful ordinance covered area are going to be prime real estate soon....Good chance Heights Annex, and the west side of Shepard start improving quickly as well...the only thing that has been holding that area back is the flood plain, IMO.

The only thing preventing the area south of 11th from being just as hot is the outpatient mental facility on Waverly at 10th.

I live in a 1920 bungalow in a protected (fully!!!) district. How about you? Do you even live in the Heights? In a historic house? In a historic district?

And when I say "we", I am speaking on behalf of the silent majority in the Heights that are routinely shouted down by anti-preservationists on message boards and in public forums. The fight for historic districts has gone on for years.

This process has never been about the best way to preserve the Heights. It has always been a second bite at the apple for the builders, realtors and architects who originally fought the historic districts to try to undo what had already been done.

I am thoroughly enjoying reading about how all you anit-preservationists are going to do this that and the other thing. It is over. You had your remedy. You failed. Failed. All you had to do was get a simple majority to reject the new ordinance. That should have been like shooting fish in a barrel if this ordinance was such a radical violation of people's property rights. File all the lawsuits you want. It is well settled law that historic districts are not takings. And talk all you want about how you are going to get rid of Mayor Parker. According to off the cuff, it looks like she will run for reelection virtually unopposed. No one with any shot at beating her has taken any steps to run and time is running out. Good luck trying to get a candidate to run on an issue that affects a few hundred people in a City of three million (and don't even give me the argument that the Mayor intends on making every inch of the City a historic district, that is about as bad as the paint color argument).

It is over. You lost. You lost because you did not respect the intelligence of the homeowners in the Heights. All the mailings about how the historic ordinance would destroy property values, dictate HVAC systems, and lead to decay in the Heights made it clear that the blue sign crowd really wanted "no" to both historic districts and historic preservation and "yes" to higher realtor commissions, builder and architect profits.

If you are as intelligent as you claim, do you honestly, (be intellectually honest here if you are capable of doing so) believe that the process of voting was legitimate?

Do you believe the outcome would be the same if a non-vote was counted as a vote to keep historic districts out?

I do not believe there is a silent majority who favor preservation. I do not believe there is a majority who favor either side of this debate. 30/35% favor preservation, 30/35% favor no restriction, and the rest are apathetic, or completely uninformed.

I believe most people just buy a house they like and live in it, and want to be left alone. I believe most people did not return the ballot because they were either uninformed, misinformed, or just did not have a stamp. Only those who were active in the process are likely to have returned the ballot. Especially with the fact that you had to provide your own stamp.

I had to make a special trip to get a stamp to return my ballot. I seldom even check my real mail. I receive absolutely nothing in the mail except for the water bill that is of any importance. Everything else I receive comes electronically, and is paid electronically. I actually pay my water bill through my bank's bill pay option because I do not have stamps ever! I am not in the minority here.

The process was not democratic, and was completely rigged to favor a specific outcome. Can you imagine the result of the 2012 presidential election if you could vote against Obama by simply not voting at all? Really? Can you imagine that!? He would be voted out by the largest margins in voting history...it would be staggering.....it would be in the 80+% range or possibly even higher! This was no different....they conducted a rigged vote, during a very busy holiday season designed specifically to get the outcome they got. I actually bet they were surprised that the response against the ordinance was as high as it was.

This is not even taking into consideration how the votes were counted...we do not know. Did they count votes who may have left a zero off their hcad acct #?? I dont know....but I surely would not put it past them.

It now seems evident that there has been a concerted effort to dilute the "powers" of owners of multiple tracts of land by limiting their powers to a single "vote" for each owner per tract of land, regardless of how many lots that individual owns if they are contiguous pieces of land. The definition of tract placed in the ordinance diminishes the rights of larger property owners by limiting their full stake in the process that is determining the future of the neighborhood. Its seems to be an intentional definition placed within the ordinance that defined a tract of land as a contiguous piece of land under the same ownership.

Basically, a larger group of properties in the Heights that in some cases comprises an entire city block with a single owner, gets only one vote. This could be 10 individual properties with 10 homes on them, it doesnt matter if they are all owned by the same owner as this is defined as a single tract of property. An individual could in theory, own 90% of a city block and still have that block faces fate be determined to be historic or not if two landowners (10%) on that block decided that they had a differing opinion than you.

I haven't had much reason to be involved in a process like this before, but this "political" process has so often sickened me with the tactics that have been utilized. I have heard of Louisiana politicians with more ethics.

Are there any possible legal grounds to challenging this ordinance based on the limiting powers placed on these multiple property owners voice in this matter?

I just threw up in my mouth when I read that! These people will stoop to any level to get their way...this is a sickening display of politics gone awry...