OutfieldDan

Arguably, the worst language in the new ordinance is on the bottom of p.13 where applications for historic district status immediately invoke historic district rules until the application is declared a failure by the director of the HAHC. To declare a failure, the full procedure must occur including: 1. Notice of public meeting to property owners within 15 days 2. Notice of public meeting in newspaper 3. Public meeting no sooner than 30 days thereafter 4. Cards mailed to property owners to vote yes or no after the public hearing 5. Thirty days required for receiving cards from property owners 6. HAHC decides to either modify the boundary to achieve 60% within or declares failure of the application. Therefore, the earliest the application can be declared a failure is approximately 90 days; probably it will 180 days given the HAHC meeting schedule, etc. A year later it's permitted to do this again. The bottom line is that if you live in a neighborhood in Houston with at least 10% activist preservationists, they can invoke historic district rules on you every year and you will be under those rules for approximately 6 months until the application is declared a failure one way or another.

I have read the new proposed ordinance and despite the cover letter language from Anise Parker, there are no provisions for removing a historic district from historic district status in the future. However there is a temporary provision for the current "Transition." The proposed "Transition Provisions" allow for reconsiderations that require formal requests including 25% tract owner signatures within 15 days after passage of the new ordinance. Two weeks? Ten business days? This is certainly disingenuous. The formal request must be given to the Director of the Panning and Development Department who must mail out a first class letter to all property owners notifying them of a public meeting and that includes a card for yes or no support to historic district designation. Apparently the Director can do what he wants with the vote. He just has to "consider" the current level of support in making a recommendation to city council. In other words, there is no threshold of support that must be exceeded - nothing about 50%, 60% or 67%. The Director may recommend no action, repeal of historic district, or change of the HD boundary. The new ordinance is essentially the same as the previous one except for specific exemptions of landscaping, paint, fences, and light fixtures from application for certificates of appropriateness. The term "roof" is also included as an exemption, but in other parts of the ordinance there are specific roof limitations and requirements to be considered in granting of CA's. So, that's unclear. If your home is "non-contributing" and it's destroyed by a "natural disaster", (whatever that means) you can reconstruct it like it was. Is arson a natural disaster? Is an accidental fire a natural disaster? Pretty much all the rest is the same. You can't alter the original structure of your home; you can't add on unless you construct a camelback, you can't do anything to change the front exterior. To do anything to an old bungalow you're going to need a certificate of appropriateness from the HAHC. Have fun with the red tape. It appears that you cannot add-on by replacing the back of your home unless you include the old exterior inside the addition - "proposed additions or alterations must be done in a manner that, if removed in the future, would leave unimpaired the essential form and integrity of the building." "New materials to be used for any exterior feature...must be visually compatible with, but not necessarily the same as, the materials being replaced in form, design, texture, dimension and scale" Notable is that the language does not say you have your choice - "but not necessarily the same as" means that it might be required to be the same. It's up to the HAHC. So far the HAHC has denied the use of aluminum frame insulated windows and hardiplank. There is no provision in the new ordinance that relief must be granted for these materials. I guess you'll have to scavenge for old windows if they need to be replaced. Basically, all contributing structures will be museum pieces that you cannot remodel the way it's been done so successfully in the Heights up to now. Your home will be straitjacketed. Isn't that wonderful?

Any news about the revised proposal? I thought the final version that is to be considered by the City Council was due out today.

The fact that the Heights has not become overrun with unconstrained overdevelopment speaks for itself. The neighborhood has certainly evolved, but it has not changed its basic historic character and new development is sympathetic to that character. Sure, there are exceptions, but most of the these have also enhanced the neighborhood. I know you disagree, but I mention again the modern Victorian on Harvard that my neighbors appreciate despite a lack of historical conformity. In fact one can argue that the new modern home is more historic than what was torn down; being that it represents uniqueness in art and creativity. Because of economics, cheap land is what the developer wants and cheap land is scarce in the Heights. The only candidates are properties with homes that need to be torn down and replaced. A typical Heights bungalow home on a 50x132 lot costs upward of $300,000, unless the home is so unlivable that it detracts from the property value. Consequently, most new development and virtually all cheap development has been bypassing the Heights. The cost of land is much too high compared to other areas, such as North of I-10 and West of TC Jester. There's lots of new construction there, including higher density stuff. Simply put, property values are high enough to prevent the rampant development that is so feared by the proponents of the new ordinance. Property values have been high for a while and that's why the neighborhood has not lost its character over the 100 years of its existence. We simply don't need this new law. The neighborhood speaks for itself and defends itself by attracting neighbors that cherish the existing character and who can afford to remodel their older home to enhance and preserve it. I think the ordinance we have now is about right. The 90 day cooling off period does influence people to consider alternatives, and it's enough penalty to achieve real effect. The HAHC might actually have a better idea of designs that work and the current law provides those perspectives to the remodeling/rebuilding homeowners to consider. The best outcome of all this would be for city council to simply vote down the change to the existing ordinance and let us go back to where we were before Memorial Day. This battle has already hurt us too much by pitting neighbor against neighbor, sign against sign. I want my neighborhood back.

Camelbacks in New Orleans are not much different than they are in the Heights. However, In New Orleans, a camelback is always a shotgun home design, not a craftsman bungalow. They're pretty ugly too, and the only reason they exist is because the home was taxed as only one story. Once the tax code changed, people stopped building them. So, they don't exist because they're beautiful, they aren't. They exist because of stupid government rules, just like what's happening here.

There's been some minor mischief affecting blue signs near my home. Someone pulled one down at the business building on 20th at Harvard, and in front of an apartment building on Harvard someone keeps bending the sign over.

Norhill has stagnated. You're in denial. When we were deciding where to move inside the loop, Norhill was much less attractive than the Heights. The Heights benefits from new investment, new people, more diversity, and more going on. The Heights has evolved from it's dilapidated mid-70's character to what it is today with no government intervention. Not so with Norhill - because of too many rules, it's stuck in limbo and consequently it's not as nice. The reason for the stagnation is HAHC and your Board. The main reason for my opinion about the proposed changes is that I don't want to live in a Norhill type neighborhood. I use Norhill as the prime example of the wrong way to go all the time. It's a credible argument.

You may be correct. Maybe the ordinance we have now has no re-poll provision. I guess that means that we leave the current ordinance in place, including the 90 day waiver that was agreed to by the petition signers. Ok? Apparently you were one of those that spoke and argued against re-petitions. Frankly, that effort probably hurt your cause. The new ordinance (to be proposed) will supersede the old one and should provide for opting out. Your point is meaningless if there is new proposed language. If the proposed new ordinance does not include opting-out, you can be assured that the ordinance will fail. Otherwise the will of the neighborhood will be perceived to have been hijacked by a minority that uses unethical tactics. City council knows the score, and if they ignore it, they will suffer when they run for re-election. Other speakers at the meeting whined that there should be no re-petition because their four years of work would be for naught. Well, guess what? If that's what the neighborhood thinks, that's what the neighborhood thinks - regardless of how long you've been trying to change our minds. Again, without a re-petition, you are disenfranchising the neighborhood. The most troubling comment was that I shouldn't be allowed to participate in a re-vote because I live in a newer home. Hey! The proposed ordinance DOES affect me. Not only will it drastically change the character of my neighborhood, but I will have to apply to the Historical Commission too. It is specifically written in the current proposed ordinance that ALL structures in a historic district must apply for certificates of appropriateness. If I want to replace my porch columns, maybe the HAHC will make me put in craftsman columns, thereby ruining the architectural integrity of my home. This attempt to subrogate my vote is disgusting and should have been obvious to the HAHC committee. Having said all this, I think City Council knows the score. The activists were well organized at this latest meeting, but their arguments fell flat and were self serving. I think our sides' comments, although less numerous, were much more logical than the ones from your side. You've been out-numbered at all the other meetings and you will be outnumbered again.

The historic activists were out in force at last night's meeting. By number, public comments were much in favor of the proposed changes to the ordinance. Because this was a public forum where anyone could speak for two minutes, it was an opportunity for our neighborhood to express our opposition for a change instead of just being allowed to write a question on a piece of paper. It's too bad the side of property freedom was not represented with more comments. The historic activists were obviously well organized, wearing tshirts with their logo and labels saying to preserve history. There were many comments by the activists that were troubling to me. Several preservation activists said that there should not be a re-petition, that it is unlawful for a re-vote, and that it would ruin four years of effort. One even said that if there is a re-vote, no one from a new home should be allowed to vote because they are not affected by the changes. The overwhelming phrases they used was that it was for the greater public good, and that it's unfortunate that some might be harmed. Where was everybody?

So, what's the deal about the meeting tonight? This is a HAHC public comment meeting. What is the purpose of the meeting and who will be attending that can affect the City Council's vote? Is Gonzalez going to be there, or any other city councel members? The mayor? I actually have no beef with the HAHC. Their job is to enforce our historic ordinance as it is written and the problem is not the HAHC, but the proposed ordinance. Maybe the media will be there (for a change) and if enough go to protest the changed ordinance, they will report it. I notice that the meeting is going to be in a large room at the Geo R Brown Conv Center (General Assembly Hall B, 3rd floor). It would be good to have a large representation there that correctly mirrors our neighborhood's opposition.

Here are some specific facts and information about the meeting last night: 1. Additions must be approved by HAHC. If they don't like your addition, it's NOT approved. If the addition is visible from the street you may not be able to construct it at all. 2. At last night's meeting it was said that painting your home is OK. However the language is broad enough to allow HAHC to require approval for painting. It seemed last night that they attempted to placate the audience about paint, but in the future HAHC could include paint color in their subjective decisions. One comment from the floor was from a Historic District resident who was DENIED by HAHC to replace his light fixture on his porch. Information provided last night also concerned appropriate window replacements if a homeowner wanted to upgrade to be more energy efficient, and of course HAHC must approve your windows. All windows must be appropriate to the historic look and choices are limited and more expensive in the marketplace. 3. Most requests do NOT get approved by HAHC. Eventually the property owner relents because there is NO option. I would like to see the statistics of approvals of plans as proposed by the homeowner. 4. Demolitions of dilapidated property get approved now and will continue to get approved. This is false. Very few demolitions are approved and very few will be approved in the future under the new law. 5. Tax incentives are limited to a portion of city taxes (small part of total property tax), expire after 15 years, and apply only if the homeowner spends a large amount for restoration. There is no tax break for living in a historic district, or for improving your home unless you spend more than $50,000. 6. New construction will NOT be allowed unless the HAHC approves of it. If your home burns down you will NOT be allowed to rebuild it without a certificate of appropriateness and you will be required to change your home design to be appropriate historically. As an example it was mentioned last night by a HAHC representative that in the Heights, porches would be required and flat roofs that exist now on many commercial properties will be prohibited. FWIW, the meeting format did not allow anyone who attended the opportunity to speak We could only pose a "question" to be answered by Lovell or her minions. Despite the rules, some did interrupt from the floor and expressed their opinions - which were ALL critical of the new rules. The only questions being answered concerned new procedures until someone interruped from the floor and requested that the "tough questions" be answered. Later, comments from the floor were ignored. It was mentioned that many of the questions were not questions, but instead statements of opinion, and these were discarded with no comments to the audience. Apparently the idea that the meetings are to gauge public reaction is false and instead the design of the meetings is to supress the public's reaction. I guess that there were 200-300 that attended. Apparently attendees will have to be more disruptive at the next few meetings to get their opinions heard.

I read the ordinance and I'm shocked that the HAHC has so much authority over how we even maintain our homes. The restrictions being considered go far beyond the deed restrictions we have now. There is language that the HAHC can require maintenance if they decide that the property has fallen into "...disrepair so as to result in the deterioration of any exterior architectural feature." That means that it is within their subjective authority to tell us when to paint our homes, etc "No person shall conduct any mandatory repair of a landmark, protected landmark, or of a building, structure or object within an historic district or archaeological site without a certificate of appropriateness." If you care about our neighborhood and want to stop this movement to impose HAHC authority over your decisions concerning your property, please come to the public comment meetings and speak up. I stand by my earlier post that the proposed amendments are designed to run off modest income families. It is snobbery, elitism and racism we have to fight, as well as our freedom and property rights.

No petitions, just a mayor appointed board to name historic districts? No process to canvas the neighborhood for discovery? Expand the reasons for applying for the Commission's approvals? Does the Mayor mean paint color, or maybe [in practice] the resident's race, income, religion, etc., etc. Race, prejudice: THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT, ADMIT IT. At least that's the pratical consequence of this disaster. Do you think a modest income Hispanic neighbor will want to apply to a stupid Commission for permission to put up a fountain somewhere on their property? For that matter, how about anyone of modest means who may want to change something on their home? This historical district movement is absolutely disgusting. Sounds like fascism to me.

The property that's being developed was a steel mill and a 1960's shopping mall. I don't think that zoning is an issue because it is clearly a commercial area historically. Incidentally, this is one instance where McMansions are not the ones making the fuss. It's almost certainly the historic bungalow fanatics, who are deluded into believing that thier utopia might be ruined.

Channel 2 had a story about the proposed Wal-Mart. The story ended with a quote from someone who called the Heights residents that oppose the development "snobs." It does appear that way, actually.

I don't think a Wal-Mart is going to bring in huge amounts of car traffic. It isn't like a sports event that ends and floods the local streets. Regarding the current congestion, I don't know about rush hour in the afternoon, but in the morning I go down Yale St. every weekday about 7:30- 8:00 am and there is no problem with any backups. There is a small backup now on Heights Blvd at I-10 because of construction and reduced lanes, but it isn't a big deal. I agree that new stop lights should be studied by a traffic engineer. It all depends on how they are timed, etc. I'm not worried that a solution will be found that doesn't block our movement in and out of the Heights. I look forward to the development. I think it will be much better than the existing ugly lots. Would I prefer something else? Yes, maybe a park with a dog section. However, you can't always get what you want... Wal-Mart is certainly an improvement over what's there now, and I am looking forward to riding my bike there to shop.

The mayor acted like a bully, interrupting the debate several times. She also mis-represented the ordinance by statements that diminish its true impact, including among other things, implying that the temporary limit (end of 2010) is realistically only until September when she hopes a final ordinance will be passed. She said that "it does not change the [current] ordinance" - a blatantly false statement.

I watched the entire session about 37 and 37a and I greatly appreciate Councilman Bradford's comments. He is the only one who stood up for our property rights, and the only Councilman who voted no. Maybe he’s been reading our forum. Ed Gonzalez was silent. Hopefully we can get him to support our property rights and freedom side before a final vote on historic district changes comes up. Ed, where's that promised information about all this in the District H Newsletter? I’m disappointed in Anise Parker’s comments about "eyesores." Parker also misrepresented the impact and significance of the "time-out" by saying that voting for the moratorium doesn't change anything. The idea of a prejudiced board imposing home appearance restrictions in my neighborhood is disgusting. I don't think there is much solace in this being temporary. The Heights doesn't need a narrow minded arrogant political body telling me and my neighbors what our homes have to look like. Freedom, creativity, and diversity are now compromised, at least for a while.

Wrong. Heights appeal has improved with the construction you describe as inappropriate. What do you think about the modern Victorian on 22nd at Harvard? I and my neighbors appreciate this home very much and we think it has enhanced our neighborhood. As a matter of fact, the entire block of Harvard between 20th and 22nd represents a mix of the old and new, including New Orleans, modern, old bungalows, Victorian, new craftsman, old craftsman, and an apartment building. I think it's one of the nicest blocks in the Heights, including the variable home designs. It's the people that live in the Heights that make all the difference. Good people of all types live near me in all types of homes. If some neighborhoods want to change their deed restrictions to impose construction guidelines that a board determines, fine. Any deed restrictions that exist now can be changed by a 66.6% signature effort where each property gets one vote by Texas law. Note that it takes 66.6%, not 50.1%. The reason the margin is high is to ensure that a consensus exists for the changes, and not just a weak majority. Changing deed restrictions is a big deal, and it should be. Imposing deed restriction changes by using a back door method of 50.1% historic district approval and then changing the historic district law a year later is an attempt to circumvent the spirit and fairness of Texas deed restriction law. Regardless of where anyone is about liking or not liking home designs in the Heights, it should be obvious that the current effort to effectively impose new covenants as proposed in City Council is unethical, and cheating.

If City Council passes the proposed temporary and permanent changes to Historic District construction guidelines, it will be very difficult for more Historic Districts to be approved by their residents. Watch out for City Council passing an ordinance that takes the resident's choice away and provides for annexing of Historic Districts - if not now, then sooner or later. What's being considered now demonstrates the arrogance of City politicians.

Whoever influenced City Council to rush "temporary" changes to demolition permitting in Historic Districts has misled the Council. Apparently it was their plan all along to obtain Historic District status so that they could achieve concealed goals without having to resort to a petition that was more forthcoming. Proposed permanent changes that restrict construction approvals to a self-serving political body will ruin our neighborhood. I know. I used to be on an Architectural Board in my previous subdivision. Say good-bye to diversity, say good-bye to anything that doesn't have craftsman columns. Say hello to government making decisions about your repairs and remodels and forcing you to comply. If City Councilman Gonzalez supports any of this, I will be very disappointed in his ability to represent District H. This speaks of dirty politics, inside deals, and a lack of transparency; all the things that are wrong with politics today. Why have we not heard of this directly from Councilman Gonzalez? Why do I have to find out about this stuff on the Internet? From Ed Gonzalez's Chief of Staff Jesse Dickerman in an email to me: "Permanent changes will not be considered without significant public input. Be assured that we will send out information about opportunities for public input in our District H e-newsletter." This is disingenuous because there has been no mention of "temporary changes" in any email to me. Who gets the District H e-newsletter? - So far not me. Why is it an e-newsletter instead of a real letter? What has been revealed so far (but not to me) in District H e-newsletters?

I just used the City of Houston Service Center web site to report this. I asked them to have the barriers removed. We'll see if anything happens any time soon.

What's the deal with the construction barrier along the back of Heights Hospital along the 400 block of W 20th street? There has been no activity for at least four months and the street is reduced by cordoning off the East bound lane behind the Hospital.