SilverJK

I'm sick and tired of your rabble. You keep calling the anti-ordinance people anti-preservationist. Most of us are for preservation, and several of us have went to great lengths to preserve buildings/art/antiques/culture. Your labeling of "anti-preservation" is blatantly offensive, and I think you owe us an apology. And you have the audacity to constantly accuse others of Strawman arguments. LOL Some of the things said (paint color/political signs/hvac) were exaggerations yes, but that was the WHOLE point. You have to be concise/clear with the ordinance. If you leave an area open to interpretation crazy things can happen. Especially when people like you, who claimed after your "victory" that those who opposed it will pay for it. In truth, you must admit that the Walmart will have very little effect on your daily life. You blab about traffic, getting fat??, and all the terrible things that will happen from walmart (walmart chupacabra will eat your animals) but I know for me personally, I maybe drive by this location once or twice a month, if traffic really is bad on Yale (which i seriously doubt it will be any worse than Target on Sawyer), I'll just take one of the other choices to get back to the Heights. Sawyer should be even faster because Walmart is dilluting their share...

Face it. You are pretty much always completely wrong/misguided/misinformed/inconsistant/misleading. Pot/kettle etc.

There are at least 3 examples on Pecore alone, and that isn't a very long street. Although one no longer has a balcony (you can see where the balcony door used to be framed out from the inside of the house though).

I hope you wear chocolate shoes, cause you constantly put your foot in your mouth. Saying you have been very clear and candid, in the very same response where you say the values of bungalows will go down, and will increase in value is such a blatant display of contradiction I'm dumbfounded. As far as your last sentence... I obviously like bungalows since I bought one. I could have easily afforded new contruction, but I like the character and feel of bungalow. It is MY OWN PERSONAL choice that I made (well my wife and I made the choice together). I also love the Heights, where it has the ecclectic mix of homes/cultures/etc. I wanted a bungalow, but I generally like the newer construction McVics and McCraftsmens. Just because I like my bungalow, doesn't mean i want to force all of them to be "saved" (or raped with a camelback addition). If it is run down and crappy, i have no problem with it being torn down and replaced with a modern version McVic/McCraftsmen. You have already demonstrated/stated that if it is in good condition then people are willing to pay more than list price, and its Homebuyer vs. Homebuyer instead of developer vs homebuyer. Your ordinance will really impact those who live (and bought within the last 5 years) in the 200-300k bungalows in a historic district, who are living within their means but aren't super rich. It will be much harder for these people to renovate, now that they will owe more on their houses than they are worth, or at least have much less equity. People like YOU, who bought a house planning on using the appreciation to fund a renovation loan. Way to shoot yourself in your chocolate shoe covered foot.

Thanks for the suggestion, it has been added to my queue of "Must eat here soon" list. One of my other requirements for great Gumbo is it has to be affordable, and Danton's looks to be in the $10 range for a bowl of seafood gumbo, which I consider a fair price. How is the rest of the food there?

So... why did we need the ordinance again??? To stop the builders.... but you just said... methinks someone is a believer in Fuzzy Logic. You aren't saving any bungalows, because as you have already said, it will be impossible to get a loan to rebuild a bungalow. You just ensured that all crappy bungalows will remain as... crappy bungalows. BTW, I'm still waiting on your explanation on how I bought my house (renovated excellent condition) for 30k under appriased value (at time of purchase) after it sat on the market for over 9 months. This is a 250-400k range bungalow. Hotcake! Heights Homeowner, I have a 1925 2 story Greek Revival next door to me. The original front porch balcony has been removed and replaced with just a normal roof for the front porch, but it is still very much a Greek Revival home. I

I'm definitely willing to call at least one of my neighbors an idiot...

either way, their posts lack Truthyness.

You don't think the 20% number could have anything to do with the extreme short notice, short term, during holidays, and general apathy of the public to return/signup for anything? That number means the 1/5 of your neighbors were soo pissed off about the ordinace, they went out of their way to try to get their historic designation taken away. 20% is a pretty big number fool. What about my house? It did not need any renovations. It was exactly what you describe as the most desirable type of bungalow.

Calliopes is awesome. True New Orleans Poboys. Big Mamou owners are from North/Central Louisiana which is a totally different planet than South Louisiana. I've ate at several "true cajun" places all over Louisiana. Some were good, some were bad. In my opinion, the Creole seasonings where they have a solid kick mixed with proper French/Southern style cooking are what makes the best "cajun" food. I've yet to find anywhere in Houston with what I'd call great gumbo or etoufee. I haven't been everywhere yet though.

your claims of bungalows selling like hotcakes and paying list price make me laugh so hard. When I was in the market for a bungalow, i was well aware of pretty much every pre- 1930 property less than $400k in both 77008 and 77009. This was 3 years ago, until 1.5 years ago when i bought my house (although I still keep up with the inventory even now). So many of these were available for 6+ months I couldn't count. The house that I ended up buying is a 2/1.5, renovated/well kept, new 2 car garage, had sat on the market for over 9 months, i paid under asking price (which had been reduced a few times) and required the seller to pay all closing cost as well as contribute cash back after closing for repairs. The appraised value of the home when i bought it was 15% more than what I paid. Although I did an insane amount of research and I do believe I got a little bit lucky with timing, if they were selling like hotcakes this NEVER could have happened. I did have two houses I tried to make offers on sell at list price, but both times the price had been reduced that week by over 10%. I'm going to assume that you never actually get out in the neighborhood, because if you did, you would see that the same houses sit on the market for long periods of time. (often they are eventually pulled off the market, then put right back on a few months later at a lower price, or the same price with some new paint/minor renovations) I drive by about 10 of these a day in Woodland Heights.

Big Mamou has definitely improved from when they opened, but I feel they are still a good ways off from being a great restaurant. It has been a few months so I'll try it again soon. The do seem to improve upon each visit

what makes this neighborhood great... is the people (minus one). The truth comes out that all you care about is not being bookended by two story mcvics. Selfish Selfish Selfish.

You didn't get min lot size done because it requires a majority... not a strong arm, vote rigged, bait and switch, blatant disregard for democracy. But you sure told them! What an awesome neighbor. The historic district was EASY because when the petition was signed it was something COMPLETELY different/reasonable. The only continuity of the Heights is the lack of continuity, which is what makes it amazing. Restaurants, offices, houses, condos, apartments, gas stations, car washes (haha) all next to each other. If you want your 100% historic block preserved, that should be the choice of your block, decided for your block, and limited to your block. "we'll take a McCamelback over McVic" further proving the "preservationist" have no taste, and only care about telling everyone else how to modify their property, and not what the actual property looks like. Saying I can only blame the same people that put up the mcvics and etc. is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I blame YOU, the "preservationist" for the rediculous ordinance. I don't mind someone building a McCamelback, I just don't think they look right/fitting. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean I want to prevent them. Your allowing them is laughable, because it defeats the entire purpose of your rediculous ordinance.

you know what would really make one of those Sears Catalog homes ugly... adding a hemroid addition to the back of it that is more than 2x the size of said Sears Catalog home... Seriously, is nobody concerned about the aesthetics of the back of these houses? And don't give me this McVics spilling off of their lot BS. It would be very easy to get your block to commit to Min lot Size. (if it isn't easy, then the whole historic district relevence is moot). This would require the "Preservationist" to actually go talk to their neighbors and get them to sign the forms, i guess that is harder than strong arming. A McVic on a ~5,000 sq. ft. lot looks better than a McCamelback on the same lot, and would probably take up less of the lot. If more than 66% of your house is new, should it still be considered a "contributing" property?

way to miss the entire point... you used that as an example of how great the ordinance is because you can still build something like that. I think it is just as damaging to the 'hood as a McVic. I'm also really not to sure about why people complain so much about the "crammed" look of the McVic... i live on a 6,350 sq. ft lot, and my original footprint bungalow is quite close to my neighbors... I guess it just doens't look as bad because we aren't all two stories.(both my neighbors are original 1925 two stories). The McCamelback look is atrocious if you look at it from the neighbors backyard... McCamelback = "gaudy, out of place, oversized, selfish, block busting, tree razing, character killing, phony, lazy, suburban wannabe, new construction" Quit speaking for the entire neighborhood, you OBVIOUSLY don't speak for all of us (or even a majority). I can have it both ways... i claim it is a gross violation of property rights, and i make fun of how it forces all additions to be uglier than what a tasteful McVic would be. I don't want it to not allow these additions, I DON'T WANT THE ORDINANCE AT ALL. Sidenote... Are you Kanye West? You keep trying to act like your "the voice of a generation (neighborhood)"

Can i coin the term McCamelback? The earlier mentioned house on Ashland went from 800 to 2800 sq ft. Just the addition is around twice the size of most bungalows. Yeah, thats REALLY historic.

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 live in a 1925 bungalow, along a street which is 90+% original bungalows, not in a historic district. I am in woodland heights, but outside of what would be the historic district if they turn woodland heights into a historic district. I've been heavily involved with the neighborhood for 4 years (the same length of time I've lived in Texas) , lived here for close to 3, and been a homeowner for a year and a half ish. I bought my house because I'm obsessed with architecture and I love the style/quality of the craftsmen bungalows. I don't want to see bungalows destroyed, and I'd gladly support strengthening of historic districts if they were reasonable. The city should be working with us to help keep these houses standing, not against us (if you fail to see how this is working against us you are more rediculous than I previously thought). I believe having clear cut rules such as minimum lot size, minimum setback would prevent a majority of what is generally feared (mcmansions on small lots). The city should be making it EASIER to renovate your historic home by providing legitimate tax breaks for renovations. Imagine if the city provided incentives for builders to renovate bungalows, I would have no problem requiring the plans to be approved by the HAHC for legitmate tax breaks/incentives. Maybe waive some permit fees? I'm quite certain that a majority of people could support something along these lines. But this isn't want the preservationist wanted, they wanted it their way, they wanted it now, they didn't care who they pissed off to get it done. Congratulations on your victory. You got what you wanted, but you also caused a major turmoil in our neighborhood. Is saving a few more bungalows worth pissing off a lot of your neighbors? One of the greatest parts of the neighborhood is how ecclectic it is, and I believe that the passing of the Historic Ordinance has done a great blow to that part of the neighborhood. Is physical history more valuable to you than cultural? From reading your post before, i'm guessing so. As far saying "you only had to get a simple majority"... I refuse to believe you really feel that way. The 2008 presidential election was a record setting vote, ~56% of voters voted. If non voting would have cast a vote for spaghetti monster, guess who'd be president. And this wasn't even a vote, you had to send in filled out forms and etc. within 15 days during the holidays. If your such a majority (as you claim) why not just put it to a straight vote? Your internet tough guy threats are hilarious. How can you support Mayor Parker???.... she is pro-Walmart!

Well its good to know that you plan on abusing your (most likely short lived) power like we were all worried about. YOU have not fought for years, you just got here. WE didn't fight for years.. we all just got along and enjoyed our neighborhood. You obviously don't care about the neighborhood nor your neighbors, or you would show us more respect. And when I say you, i don't mean preservationist, i mean you, S3mh. Do you even live in a historic house?

How can someone say in one of their post that just because someone drives on yale it doesn't make t hem an expert, then in the same thread say you need to actually drive on Yale. This implies that S3mh considers their driving on Yale and observing traffic and etc. credible, but not others. Just another facet of your anti-walmart hypocrisy. I'm still waiting on the answer to this questin, "Why is traffic on Yale a problem for YOU?" Yale (not to mention south of I-10) is easily avoidable for anyone who lives in the Heights. I know you can't possibly be concerned about (non-heights) through traffic... but it would be hilarious to see you use that as your argument.

Yes, those are the ONLY two options that are possible. (give me a break) What are the traffic counts for walmart supercenters that do not have tire/auto departments or gas stations? Why does an increase in traffic really matter to you anyway, as I've said before, this is an easily avoidable street to the residents in the heights... one could argue that this will decrease the amount of rush hour traffic on yale North of I-10 because it will no longer be a quick cuthrough (coming from anywhere south of washington or heading to south of washington) to bypass I-10/610 traffic.

What evidence? Do you have the traffic counts? Have you done the traffic impact analysis? Does the drainage plan not meet the standards of the city's design manual? Is there no diversion of floodwaters that will impact surrounding residents? Seriously... just because you don't like walmart, you don't get to make things up. Incompatitble development, are you kidding me? If you live in the Heights, and hate walmart, I don't see why you would EVER even come in contact with this section of Yale. It is ENTIRELY avoidable. But keep up the good fight, you don't have a mayor to strong arm this one.

So it isn't ok for Walmart to impact peoples lives, but it is ok for the Historic Ordinance too. BTW, i looked at a map and saw that this was not in a neighborhood. Do you EVER actually do your own research, or do you just spit out what they tell you? sidenote: living in an old steel mill could be sweet.

This is quite possibly the most rediculous post I've ever seen on HAIF. Congrats. I don't even know where to start. The fact that you support the ordinance so completely, knowing that it downright infuriates your neighbors is enough for me to know that YOU are bad for the neighborhood. The ordinance should be thrown out. And before you start your rant about bulldozing bungalows and conservatives, know that althought not bleeding heart, i'm definitely left of center. I live in a 1925 bungalow in Woodland Heights but outside of the proposed Historic District. My house is very much the same as the original house (although apparently it was once converted to a duplex during WWII then back to a single family home in the 70s). Guess what... I'm NOT going to bulldoze it. Guess what else... I bought the house at pretty much lot value, after it had sat on the market for 9 months. Seems like a prime candidate to doze and rebuild... guess that means that I saved a bungalow... without the ordinance. Go me.