OutfieldDan

No one is actually doing a camel back design anymore.  The camel back design can work if you do a telescoping roof line.  One in my HD is @2900 sq ft.  You cannot tell that it has a second floor from the sidewalk until you look around the side of the building.  What they are doing now is just building a second house with the original house being used as an entryway.  That allows them to just cut and paste designs out of the faux creole design book from new construction instead of actually having to design the renovation from scratch.  And the whole reason the ordinance is there is because the new construction looked terrible and was ruining the historic character of the neighborhood. 

A big addition behind an "entryway" that's the original small house is precisely a camelback.  Camelbacks are disfigured with disproportioned large lurking rear ends.  A well designed symmetrical two-story is vastly superior.  Camelbacks in the Heights were rare until this stupid ordinance.

It's time to face up to it. The problem with the ordinance is that it's forcing very ugly restorations upon the neighborhood.  The ordinance and HAHC are ruining the Heights. There are lots of larger new homes in the Heights that fit in nicely with our look and feel.  Some new homes aren't craftsman and they look good too. After all, the Heights has evolved to be diverse in many respects. I would much rather see some of these obsolete dilapidated bungalows torn down and replaced by nice new two story homes instead of having new construction being forced into ugly camelbacks.  I despise the camelback design.

Congratulations on your new venture! One question, will the bicyclers have to wear regular clothes or can they wear their costumes?

Ha! You mean the Lance Armstrong costumes I see all these bikers wearing?

I haven't seen them on. Are they too bright? Do you object to the way they look?

And of course, there is Gonzalez, who is toast!

Just speculating here.... Because the city is redistricting, maybe Gonzalez will not be representing the Heights after redistricting. He may have already made a deal with MAP to remove him from the oppositon and anger that he has created by his support for the ordinance. Maybe district H will become a district with mostly Hispanic residents and one that is not designated historic.

If this is true, we really do not have any representation on Council except for the at-large seats. Gonzalez may be voting for Parker's plan with impunity.

In short, it means that WE WON!

The long version is that City Council voted not to accept the recommendation of Planning to accept the Heights East & West historic districts as they already are.

How did the vote break down? I assume Gonzalez was on the Mayor's side?

Dan, did you do this video? Its hysterical!

Not me! I agree it's hysterical and I hope it makes it around the Internet so we can get rid of Gonzalez.

The date Gonzalez introduced MAP as "my boss" was September 25, 2010. I was at Halbert Park enjoying the Sunset Heights Centennial celebration and I was surprised to see Mayor Parker there. John Ridgway started the stage festivities and introduced Gonzalez. Gonzalez made a short speech and introduced Parker by saying "and now I'd like to introduce my boss, Mayor Annise Parker." Parker took the stage and immediately corrected Gonzalez by saying that she is not his boss, but that Gonzalez is an independently elected councilman.

I personally met Gonzalez a couple of times at a few of the public meetings about historic districts that occurred last fall. I asked him where he was on the issue and all he would say was "I'm very concerned." It's obvious he isn't representing his constituents. He has not sent anything to me by email or mail asking about my position on the issue. His District H email newsletters have avoided the issue completely, as if he purposefully sought to not solicit his district's support or lack thereof for the ordinance.

I hope Gonzalez' comments end up on this website!

http://www.anyonebutedgonzalez.com/

He is unbeleivable! He completely ignores the overwhelming opposition in the historic districts in District H. They gave him the evidence last week but then the next day he went on the record and said "we had a process, whether it was flawed or not" and its fine since some of the people want it. The rumor on the street is that there will be direct action against Gonzalez for ignoring the majority of his constituents.

I will actively campaign against Gonzalez in the next election. He has not replied to my email complaints about the Historic District Ordinance. I think he is weak, and a complete wimp. We don't need a weakling representing us in City Council. The mayor has him as her pet. He even introduced Parker at the Sunset Heights centennial in Halbert Park as "my boss." Actually, this embarassed Parker who immediately corrected him on the stage as being independently elected.

They've been very agreeable lately. They weren't before the spotlight was on them. They were a major pain. Now that the Mayor fired Sharie Beale, maybe they will be better. I wouldn't be surprised of all of their willingness to work with people right now won't be short lived once they get a few months down the road...although this issue won't be going anywhere any time soon so they will be under lots of scrutiny for a long time. Get your remodel requests in now if you want a reasonable process.

I'm looking for a second home bungalow to buy. We will probably rent it out for a while and then after a year my wife's parent's will move in. We are reluctant to consider anything in a Historic district. I don't care that the HAHC is being nice now. The ordinance prevents a reasonable second story addition that looks nice, and the HAHC's track record is not good with for instance many denials being for use of hardiplank. Ask Allison on Courtland about her experience with "too many fenestrations" for her remodel.

We've been in the market for this home for about two months. It's very refreshing to see new construction in Sunset Heights, and NE of Main St. I had no idea that these neighborhoods were progressing so much. There are many instances of dilapidated bungalos being replaced with very nice new construction and the neighborhoods are improving significantly. FWIW, we are fascinated by the creativity of the new construction regarding materials, floor plans, etc. It's fun to go to open houses and the McMansions are the most interesting. Smaller well maintained, and updated bungalows near the new construction are attractive to us because the neighborhood is starting to look very nice. E of Main St and N of Cavalcade is where there seems to be the most recent improvement.

Unfortunately, there is nothing going on in most of Houston Heights. It's already stagnating. There's a bungalow in rough shape (particularly inside) on Courtland near 18th that is listed for $279,000. No central AC, only one bathroom, 1970's kitchen, etc. I doubt they will get more than $200,000 for it. It's been on the market for a while - not sure how long. Before the ordinance, it would probably have sold easlily at $279K for lot value alone. We looked at a few camelbacks in the Heights, but they're all cramped in the camelback second story adddition. Upstairs ceilings are low, floor space is limited and the bedroom closets are very small. The camelback additiion is a design failure, in my opinion. Most camelbacks look stupid from the street too.

Too bad that they didn't send out the "survey's",(ahem - BALLOTS) with the annual tax bills and asked that the survey be returned with my tax payment. Since they limited me to one vote, but still collected taxes on the multiple properties in my ownership, I wasn't able to vote with the weight of my ownership dollars(and tax dollars). They have gladly accepted all of my tax money, but they didn't offer me an equal say in this debacle representative to my ownership level. This tactic certainly benefited their vote totals and was another planned method by the politically saavy to sneak this ordinance by. Keep up the fight. Expose the lies. Speak at a minimum with your vote. Vote em out.

Knowing how unethical the city's actions have been, I wonder if the threshold needed to for repeal is 51% of the properties. I wouldn't be suprised to discover that ISMDAVID's single vote was overcome by ISMDAVID's multiple properties.

This is why we need a full disclosure of the votes returned and a full disclosure of the process including the threshold needed for repeal.

That's the problem, Dan. They intentionally set up the "survey" (they refused to call it a vote prior to the results being released), so that there was no way for supporters of the ordinance to register their approval. The only vote was AGAINST. So, the official tally would be 25% AGAINST the ordinance, and 75% UNKNOWN. Not only is there no way to gauge the number of supporters officially, it is also impossible to know even anecdotally, because everything required opponents to do the work. Anecdotally, those of us who gathered petition signatures found in excess of 90% opposition by the people we surveyed. There was no survey by supporters. It should be noted that we did not have time to petition every resident, because they only allowed us 30 days.

Is there a freedom of information act or similar ordinance that requires the city to reveal the results, including the individual votes? After all, it's our city, we the citizens are entitled to information that the city gathers, aren't we?

Chron.com has an article on the votes:

http://www.chron.com...an/7371547.html

Pay particular attention to Bart Truxillo's comments.

Why is it that Bart Truxillo seems to know the vote distribution? What makes him so special? Does anyone here have the numbers?

I suspect that the actual vote count is in favor of rescinding the districts - probably in most, maybe in all of them.

If the cards returned are from 60% of all properties, and if 35% of all properties voted to be free of the HD, then the vote of returned cards would be 58.3% to 41.7% against Historic District status - a landslide by any measure. This is probalby why Kathleen Powell is admiting that some historic districts might be recommended for change. I believe that someone in city hall is waking up to political realities.

I don't think that it's over. City Council wil receive a recommendation, and if we show up to stress the real count; insisting that it be revealed, we may ultimately triumph.

As we work toward reversing this bad outcome....

Ok, we lost this battle. Let's get going on repealing this ordinance. We can attack it on two fronts - legal with lawsuits is good; vote out the mayor and replace city council members is also good.

I am not a lawyer, I'm sure Red Scare will lead us on the legal front. Red, let us know how we can help.

I propose we start the 2nd option by replacing Annise Parker. How about we convince C.O. Bradford to run for mayor? When I spoke before City Council against the ordinance before it passed, the most attentive City Council member was Bradford. He's sincere in his belief that the city has too many regulations and he has consistently stood up for freedom and property rights. He spoke out against the ordinance and he voted against it.

Bradford is a respected well known leader in Houston and he's a Democrat (probably necessary to be elected in Houston). Please read his website (http://www.cobradford.com/) to discover his views. He sounds good to me. In my opinion he would TROUNCE Annise Parker.

We also need to work on replacing the weasel Ed Gonzalez. Any ideas?

According to the 8th edition whatever you call it traffic manual, a Walmart supercenter generates 10,000 car trips a day. This number has been controversial because it is based on the assumption that a 24 hour store will have fewer trips than a store with limited hours. Thus, a CNBC documentary about Walmart stated that the real number of car trips for a Walmart supercenter is 22,000. Both figures are well sourced and not made up. The only thing that is mysterious is why you think you can jump in to this and claim some sort of authority on the issue when it is clear that you know nothing about the traffic issue.

Let's use our common sense and try to estimate the real traffic burden. We don't have to be "authorities" to use arithmetic and our own traffic experience.

In El Paso, a traffic study by an anti-Wal-Mart organization concluded 10,968 additional trips to a proposed new Wal-Mart supercenter. Wal-Mart estimated 7,598. Both estimates are "new traffic additions." It isn't the total number of car trips to the store that's important. It's the increase in traffic that matters. It would be silly to assume that all patrons of Wal-Mart are from outside the area and represent new traffic on Yale.

Let's assume there will be 9,000 new cars on Yale in a 24 hour period and that most of them (66% = 6000) are between the hours of 10:00am to 9:00pm (11 hours). During the busy hours, there will be 545 more cars/hour = 9 more cars/minute. Yale goes both North and South, so the traffic burden is about 5 more cars/minute each direction. Because each direction has two lanes, the burden becomes 2.5 more cars/minute in each lane.

2-3 more cars/minute in each lane doesn't sound like it's a big deal. Most of this traffic will be on and off at the new intersection of Yale and I-10, so little additional traffic can be expected on greater Yale.

what is dumb is the attempt to discredit the anti-Walmart points by questioning why there wasn't a similar opposition to an entirely different development. Target is not a supercenter. It is not open 24/7. It is not abutting residential neighborhoods. It is not on a major artery that serves as the main connector between the Heights and Downtown/Upper Kirby/River Oaks. It is on a road that can be widened enough to have a signalized intersection to the entrance with dedicated left turn lanes, while still having two lanes of through traffic in each direction. It will eventually have direct driveway access to the new feeder rd. It is not on a main commuter route to downtown from I-10. It does not send overflow traffic throw residential neighborhoods on 21 ft streets. It did not recieve 6.05 million in tax payer dollars, including 300k for onsite stormwater detention on private property. And it was not the third Target to be built within a five mile radius.

And a lot of people who did not fuss when Target went in are making their voice heard now because a lot of the promises about the Target development were BS. Traffic inside Woodland Heights is much worse. Watson is now a steady stream of traffic where it used to be a quiet neighborhood street. The developer also promised boutiques and nice restaurants, but delivered payless, radio shack and ATT store. Promised mature shade trees on the site gave way to parking lots of solid concrete.

So, if anything the Target has taught the community to be more involved and more vigilant.

A few inaccuracies above. Target may not be a "supercenter," but it's very big and close enough to be a good comparison. I believe if you google Target in Houston, you'll find that there are already four that exist inside the Loop 610. Wal-Marts? - Zero. So much for the five mile radius statement above. Incidentally, most of the Targets abut residential neighborhoods. Regarding the 24/7 argument, CVS on 20th St. is open 24/7 now; I believe the new Walgreens at Heights and 20th will also be open 24/7. I live within two blocks of the CVS and I don't fear for my life because of the business hours.

A work colleague of mine lives in Jersey Village about one block from a Wal-Mart. He loves the convenience and says that they keep their pantry less stocked because they can always get what they want when the need arises. Also, he doesn't fear for his life either.

I find it hard to believe that Woodland Heights traffic was made much worse because of the Target store. I don't know what deal the city struck with Target regardinig tax breaks for improvements. Do you know the specifics?

Doth no one dare respond to Materene's points?

Materene is spot on. I hope the Heights HD's are rejected in the reconsideration process. The Heights has achieved what it is without City government intervention, and will be much better off without the new HD ordinance restrictions on new construction and remodeling.

Don't you think that the Metro area is getting tired of the Heights? Unfortunately the Heights has an activist minority that is behaving like a spoiled child clamoring for attention all the time and whining for mother's help. Whining about historic preservation, whining about a Wal-Mart.... What's next? It's time to spank that child!

10% should be a number easily attainable...by areas who do not agree....the harder part will be getting people to actually check their mail and return the cards. Even if the initial ballot cannot get the ordinance repealed because people do not return their cards.

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

Assumptions:

A landslide of landowners return the card, say 75%

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

In a 100 home HD, here are the numbers:

75 return the card

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately there was no specific discussion about the 10% minority that can abuse the ordinance and force historic district rules on their entire neighborhood every year or nearly every year. Therefore I plan to present this topic to City Council next Tuesday. I think we need another good turnout to support our opposition position.

The Heights needs homes like these about as much as the Heights needs a Walmart.

The problem with your comment and the Chronicle's Sunday editorial is that both of you deny that the Heights homes that were built in the 1920's are obsolete. They're too small, they're built with obsolete materials, they have obsolete designs, and they have obsolete energy efficiency. The list goes on and on. Forcing my neighborhood to not evolve is stupid. It's like forcing motorists to drive 1950's autos, forcing them to replace tires with obsolete bias ply designs, and forcing the use of leaded gas. All this so some arrogant snobs can have their pleasure to stop progress, and live in their personal definition of utopia.

All the remodels before historic district rules were forced upon us used modern materials such as Hardiplank, new energy efficient windows, and modern designs including some very nice second stories. All new construction has been creative and replaced the worst old homes. New construction and freely administered remodeling brought the Heights out of the gutter. After "no means no", the HAHC routinely denies use of modern materials, the HAHC denies demolition permits for even the most dilapidated cases, the HAHC absolutely denies widening your home, the HAHC absolutely denies adding a second story in the front, and the HAHC makes everyone seek their permission to do any structural modification to the outside of the home at all - including minor structure changes despite the misinformation published by the Chronicle.

Since the Heights has been around for 100 years and has preserved its historical character on its own, it's a very safe bet that the Heights will preserve its historical character over the next 100 years on its own. More remodeling will happen that is necessary, and that remodeling will continue to be in the character of the Heights, just like it has been in the past decades. Government permission for normal structure and building decisions has not been necessary before and it's not necessary now.

If anyone cares, I live in the Heights, I'm not a builder, and I have no business relationship with any builder, realtor or home designer. I'm a Houston citizen who has lived in Metro Houston for 25 years and I moved into the Heights because I appreciate the diversity of my neighbors and all the homes - both old and new. If my neighborhood had been under government control, I would not have in the least considered moving here. I'm sorry that you're so against new two story new homes being constructed. I happen to own one of those and I resent your prejudice. It's jerks like you that are ruining the neighborhood, not my new construction.

BTW, you may have noticed that I've been persistent in this thread and elsewhere. I'm not going away. I had a sign in my front yard for Annise Parker last year. I will not vote for her again unless she starts supporting my freedoms instead of taking them away for the "greater good."

Here are a few new homes that will not be alowed in the Heights. The Heights which is soon to become less of what it was - less freedom, less diversity. Thanks a lot, Annise Parker.

http://www.nytimes.c...ef=design-issue

I got the identical email from Ms. Lovell. I cannot think of a nice word for it, so I'll simply have to say she lied to us. She has not kept her word. She apparently does not realize how much effort we will expend to right this wrong, including voting her out of office. My email reminded her that the overwhelming majority of voters is opposed to this ordinance. We may have to prove it to her at election time.

In the meantime, I plan to show up tomorrow night, though I may be late. I look forward to meeting my neighbors who oppose this draconian and expensive restriction of our rights to maintain our homes.

I'll be there tonight. I'm itching to get to work!

Here's what they're planning to do. The key is that the neighborhood has to petition to OPT OUT.

1. Heights South scrambles for 25% signatures for reconsideration in 15 days - success!
2. Cards are mailed out to all owners of record in Heights South
3. Most cards are returned - perhaps 60% vote for removing historic district status
4. OOOPS! Guess what! The 60% voting to opt out are less than 50% of all recorded owners
5. The recommendation to City Council is to leave the neighborhood status unchanged because less than half of the neighborhood voted to get out

There is no language in the new ordinance or the Transition Provisions about how the Director of the Planning and Development Department must interpret the vote.

Heights South - Welcome to Historic District Status!

It's troubling that so much misinformation has been distributed about the revised ordinance. Yesterday we received our copy of the Leader and it has a cover page article with the same false report that historic districts will all be required to re-vote for their historic designation. Bill Baldwin is quoted as favoring the new ordinance. I'm not a conspiracy freak, but the misleading articles in the Chronicle and the Leader might have been created to purposefully diminish the neighborhood's reaction to the ordinance.

There is a public meeting tonight where everyone can have one minute to speak. I predict that plenty of the historic activists will be there just like the last one. I fear that the misleading articles in the Chronicle and the Leader might serve to reduce my neighbors to participate and thereby reduce the voice of reason and dissent about the detriments of the new ordinance.

If you care about your neighborhood and want your freedoms preserved about how you can remodel your home, I suggest you plan to attend the meeting tonight and plan to speak. It's our last chance for public comments. All Houston neighborhoods are affected because of the new language in the ordinance that provides for immediate historic designation when an application is made with only 10% homeowner signatures. It will take at least six months for the process to occur to return the neighborhood to normal and those same 10% activists can do it again one year later. This will happen.

If you live in a newer home and think that it's not important to you personally, think again. Your neighborhood will stagnate and decay if the new ordinance becomes law. Please be there tonight and speak up.

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

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

What's worse is the language (see p.13 at bottom) that an application for a historic district can be made with only 10% of lot owner signatures, and poof! the applied for district is immediately and completely restricted as if it were already approved. It will take about 6 months for the process to occur that may return the neighborhood to normal. This can be repeated a year later!

Do I believe that this will happen? Yes, absolutely. I currently do not live in a historic district, but I’m very close and there is an active minority that wants my neighborhood to be one. It’s almost a certainty that they will apply for historic district status if this new ordinance is passed by city council.

Article on the new ordinance. This is not how I read the thing, but if it requires South Heights (and others with only tepid support for a more restrictive ordinance) to re-vote, then I might could live with it. I do not relish having to walk the neighborhood in order to be left alone, but if it keeps the City from becoming my interior designer, I'll do it.

http://www.chron.com...an/7206511.html

Looking at the Transition Ordinance, I don't think the Chronicle article is entirely correct. The pending districts are specifically mentioned, and have 15 days to appeal.

http://www.houstontx...sitionDraft.pdf

See bottom of page 2.

The Chronicle article is misinformation. Here is the pertinent language and the burden is on the neighborhood to officially request redesignation:

"The owners of property in an historic district previously designated by the City Council who desire the City Council to repeal the designation may submit a request for reconsideration of the designation of the district. The request must be submitted in writing...not later than 15 days following the date of the passage and approval of this Ordinance. The request must be signed by the owners of at least 25 percent of the tracts within the historic district or proposed historic district."