RedScare

Why does s3mh keep talking as if my house was in an historic district when I bought it. It was NOT historic when I bought it. In addition, when the petitioners came around 3 years ago, South Heights voted AGAINST historic district status. Now, they are cramming it down our throats. What makes s3mh think that I am at fault when there was NO historic district and we voted NO? Why does HE get to tell me what to do with my property?

What's most infuriating about s3mh's argument that his opinion counts more than mine is that I was here FIRST! Why does he get to come in a year ago and change the rules for me? Why don't I get to change his rules?

There you go. An elegant an educational post that shows exactly how it should be done. Those who buy into the neighborhood buy into the deed restrictions as well. Nothing is hidden, nothing sprung on the homeowners after the fact, and no strong arm tactics by elected officials who were theoretically elected to serve their constituents. Somehow, when I try to explain that deed restrictions are a better solution, I am seen as the enemy, mostly by those who believe their vision should be inflicted upon their neighbors without recourse. But, heights yankee is one of the preservationists. She explained how only ONE homeowner waited out the 90 days in the last 10 years (sorry I was wrong about the 3). Unfortunately, in spite of the resounding success of the deed restriction approach, heights yankee still supports the draconian approach of a city ordinance (unless she's changed her mind).

A couple of things I'd like to point out to the couple of posters who will invariably label me a realtor or builder. I am neither. My property is deed restricted, one of the few on my block, and it was when I bought the house. I have no intention of violating it. Additionally, my block is governed by the lot line ordinance, though I have always argued that this promotes the building of larger homes. And, lastly, when I sell, it won't be in the high 200s or low 300s. It will be more like the low 400s. And I don't have a large addition on the back of my house, or anywhere else, for that matter. I do, however, have a brand new garage in back with a 2nd floor gameroom. I don't know if these anecdotes prove that the historic district homes sell for less than the non-restricted areas, but please understand that I do not want to find out.

I agree and I personally don't think the Sawyer development is that great either. Instead of just one big box there are also 2 medium boxes with petco and staples right there. The only traffic control I see is still on sawyer which is still an alteration, but dragging Heights and Yale into the Wal Mart site will be twice the alteration that is on Sawyer.

I would hate to see that development repeated one mile down the street (or now on one continuous feeder road). Still sawyer does not cross washington as a through street and more importantly when sawyer turns into Watson their are some vicious speed bumps on the two lane road which calm or divert any through traffic, Yale and Heights won't have that benefit.

I do silently agree that the comparisons of target as good (or their just different) and wal mart as bad is sort of silly and probably hurts the wal mart opposition as much as anything. In the Mayor's quote she spends as much time addressing concerns as dissmissing the idea that a costco or target should go their instead.

I've really tried to see this from your point of view, but I simply cannot. Yale and Heights will be upgraded to handle the needs of the area, yet you seem to be complaining about that. There is nothing the least bit good or attractive about this 3 block stretch of road, yet it seems that there are people who seem to be suggesting that the crappy pavement is charming too. New concrete with new timed lights is a good thing. Along with those new streets and timed lights will come new sidewalks and landscaping, perhaps suggested by area residents (if they can stop the fear and loathing of Walmart for a few moments). Maybe Heights residents view potholed streets and broken sidewalks as some sort of urban adventure or something. Maybe they see ratty infrastructure as charming and historic. All I know is that the most vocal ones do not seem to even know what it is they are trying to save or why. I call that obstructionism, not preservation of character.

Curious if homes outside of historic districts would be enjoying a boost in market value due to these proposed changes? Seems that way under these arguments.

Signed,

Just trying to post some facts with real data points (a change for some on this thread)...not you Red

My limited, but nonpolitical research suggests that there is and will continue to be. I have been mildly debating whether to sell my house for several months (long before the historic district issue cropped up). The reasons appear to me to be that the new, larger homes that everyone complains about drive up prices for the smaller homes nearby. Take my street. Across the street from me are 6 new large homes of 3200 to 4000 square feet. They are valued at $650,000 to $850,000. By comparison, my house is 1358 square feet plus a garage gameroom at 600 feet. If I sell at $425,000, it looks like a bargain on my street. But, if everything around me was my size, I would be limited by the lower prices.

My realtor doesn't think a historic district designation will move prices a dollar either way, for the simple reason that buyers do not pay attention. They'll look at my cute remodeled kitchen and brand new garage and that's all they need. He may well have a valid point.

EDIT: I should point out that I didn't find huge differences between historic and non-historic homes, but if I sell I don't want anything impacting my price at all, even a small drop.

I think he was saying 1000-1500 sq ft, for $275-$300 PER SQ FT. I did a quick search too and found many in the 77008 zip. Here are the top 5 based on asking price. FWIW, I am against these changes to the ordinance, but I also don't think property values are going to crash if it gets signed. People do want to live in these bungalows because some people just like the character of them (and some don't).

$410,000, 1200 sq ft, $341/ft

$389,000, 1224 sq ft, $317/ft (Option Pending)

$365,000, 1341 sq ft, $272/ft (Option Pending, Continue to Show)

$365,000, 1382 sq ft, $264/ft

$360,000, 1372 sq ft, $262/ft

Signed,

Not making up crap

I used "Houston Heights" instead of "77008", since we were discussing the Heights, but even using your search term, most of the same homes are on there. And, my point is still the same. Only 2 homes are listed at $275 psf or above, and both had reduced prices, suggesting there wasn't much of a fight to buy them at those prices. Interestingly, the only one of those houses located in a historic district is number 5, on 1105 Tulane. They had to reduce their price 18% for lack of takers.

So much for historic districts hiking property values.

Signed,

Yes you are

People already fight like hell to buy 1000-1500 sq ft bungalows for 275-300 per sq ft.

That's weird. I just searched har.com for 1000-15000 bungalows in the Houston Heights. 14 are listed. The most expensive one just reduced the asking price $115,000. Why would they do that if people were fighting like hell to buy it? The only other house priced above $275 psf ($276) also had a price reduction. Why is that?

You aren't making up crap again, are you?

I'm no lawyer ...

Clearly.

Well, don't do anything primitive such as specifying the post in which she made this statement. And much as I like and admire the fellow HAIFer, are her statements 'irrefutable'?

Thanks. I won't.

The 90 day waiver did very little to keep builders from demolishing historic buildings and replacing them with monster mansions and overbuilt clusters of townhomes.

I don't know if you are intentionally lying, or perhaps simply ignorant. I suspect the latter, since you stated much earlier in the thread that you are new to the Heights. I suggest that you investigate this claim. You can check with a fellow HAIF poster and fellow preservationist, heights yankee, who is on the board of Proctor Plaza Historic District. She stated in this very forum that only 3 homes were demolished in the 10 years of historic district staus WITH the 90 day waiting period. That is irrefutable proof that the old ordinance worked. You and the others are over-reaching, and I promise that it will be met with fierce resistance in my neighborhood. As I've stated before, I don't care what you do to your home and neighborhood, but I'll fight to keep your hands off mine.

I plan to print your post to let my South Heights neighbors know what you think of their property rights. Thanks for putting it in such glaring terms.

I think Citykid is talking about the large cool video screens and flashy lights factor, restaurants, and such. Houston could stand to do a little more of that type of thing.

Restaurants? Houston is routinely ranked as one of the best restaurant markets in the country. Better stick to the video screens and lights, because our restaurant scene is not why we are boring. Besides, this is one anonymous blogger. My vote counts the same as his.

From the Chronicle:

Scare tactics cloud Houston preservation debate

More misinformation and strawman tactics by the preservationists I see. As I noted in the comment section, this underhanded attempt by the GHPA, Sue Lovell and others has so soured me (and others I am sure) on the entire concept of preservation that it has probably done more to hurt historic preservation than help it.

Never thought of it that way, but it makes since.

Also, yeah mixed use centers like City Centre are generic and are in other cities, but its a start. How about a mixed use center with unique architecture and high end retail? wouldn't that bring tourist? I don't know, maybe fix up and line one of the inner city bayous with retail, restaurants etc. To me the most exciting area to be in in Houston is the Uptown area. It would be nice if those strip centers could be torn down and converted to walkable tourist destinations. The city should try to attract places like Legoland Discovery Centre, ESPN Zone, etc. Maybe even a tourist Spot with a NASA theme in the uptown area. Another way to get tourist is talk-shows/live audience sitcoms. Tourist like to be on TV, if one of their favorite shows tapes in Houston, they'll want to visit the city and be in the audience. Just a taught.

We already have one. It's called the Galleria. 24 million visitors annually.

The HHA deed restrictions are not enforceable against your lot, unless you (or a previous owner) sign onto them. You are subject to your own deed restriction and whatever historic district rules that are in place. If both the deed restriction and the historic district rules apply to a particular situation, then the more restrictive restriction controls. For instance, if your deed restriction required a 15 foot setback, but the historic district required 20 feet, you would be subject to the 20 foot setback requirement.

I can only speak for the South district, as it is the one I live in, and the one I drive and walk around in. It appears that what little support the district has comes from streets closer to Heights Boulevard. There appears to be almost no support for the ordinance on Oxford and Columbia streets, but a little more support on Arlington, Courtlandt and Harvard (though I would not call it majority support, much less 67%). I could see the western 3 streets gaining district status, and the 2 eastern streets carved out. That would be fine with me if those streets voted for it. At least everyone gets a vote. If a vote is allowed, I promise not to ignore it like I did last time.

And, if Lovell pushes 51%, then she just made a block walker outta me. I've got two more on my block who were at the meeting who said the same. A concentrated block of 'No's will be hard to ignore.

Ainbinder, not Ainsworth, FYI. And this isn't just Heights, this is concerning several neighborhoods along the Washington Corridor that use these streets and share resources. You are entitled to want WM, I am entitled to not want it.

Yale's repaving was getting done before WM was announced. That's great all the streets above I-10 got so much attention, but between I-10 and Memorial there leaves much to be desired. You do more to prove AF's point than mine. As for the schools, you have got to be kidding me. I've taught in HISD and just spent the last year researching the elementary level to find one for my kid. Unless you live in the right exact spot or can pass the Vanguard, you're kind of screwed.

My question is why would they want to build it? I am very well aware that they certainly can build it (but your loan comment is like borrowing from the mafia), I just don't understand their "built it and they will come" system.

Thanks for noticing.

As for why Walmart wants to build there and your failure to understand, well, the proof is in the pudding. Walmart is the world's biggest retailer. They clearly know what they are doing.

Oh, by the way, you may want to go back to teaching at HISD. After Walmart builds their 3 inner city stores...2 within HISD...and all likely valued in excess of $20 million...they'll be paying HISD taxes of up to $500,000 or more annually...with no homestead exemption.

Just got back from the meeting on the historic district. I must say, the proponents badly overstated their numbers. Whenever they applauded, it never sounded like more than a few dozen, whereas opponents seemed to number in the hundreds. The question indicating opposition vastly outnumbered support as well. It seems to be having an effect, as they are now suggesting that Heights South will get another vote on whether to become historic. Based only on the number of Yes versus No signs, it would be a landslide against the historic district. I count only about 8 Yes signs in my neighborhood, and 60-80 No signs. Considering a vote would require a 67% approval, that can't bode well for passage.

Yeah, I have to admit it's sometimes difficult to tell when you're being sarcastic, being argumentative, being an ass, or all of the above. /SARCASM.

Well Walmart/Airbinder are on the hook (assuming their tax deals go through) for the stretch up through I-10, but not north of it. So Heights residents get the shaft on a road that really needs a new surface.

If Yale north of I-10 is shelved, it is because Heights residents complained too loudly. Don't blame the City. It was our vocal minority that shut it down.

First of all, I do not claim to be cool or popular. Don't be so nasty, name calling puts your credibility in question, not mine.

I am perfectly aware of what is being offset here. You guys have feeders and streets out where you live off of 1960 or feels like Dallas (your words, not mine) or wherever you are, and so having street work here isn't that out of the ordinary. I pay a lot of tax dollars on my property and we generally have crummy roads and the school I am sending my kid to is sketchy. There are better ways to spend tax dollars than a feeder we never asked for and have lived without happily. That isn't something the city ever had to build. The most roadwork the city pays for in this area seems to be the freeways that get the suburbanites in and out of the city so they can take their paychecks outside of the beltway and enjoy paying low taxes and having better schools. Yeah, we sure are winning the financial war here living in the city. Sarcasm.

I don't see why you have to be so nasty when you don't have a personal interest in this, unless your personal interest is the benefit of Wal-Marts everywhere.

How about me, then? I live in the Heights, and I don't have a problem with this store. I also take issue with your traffic claims, infrastructure claims, and who pays for what. To begin with, the City is not paying for the feeder roads. That is federal stimulus money given to TxDOT. Take it up with TxDOT. Secondly, the 380 agreement would allow the upgrade of Yale, Heights and other streets now that the City doesn't currently have the money to pay for. It is not a tax incentive to build Walmart. It is a reduction in Walmart (or Ainsworth)'s taxes as payback for their rebuilding of our city streets. Think of it as an interest free loan to us taxpayers. Thirdly, what's up with the claim that none of our streets get repaved? Studewood was completely repaved in concrete 3-4 years ago. The big Main Street intersection was also redone. North Main was just completely repaved, including new storm water pipes. More improved storm water pipes were installed in Woodland Heights. The Heights got new water mains a few years back. Beauchamp has been repaved. Harvard between 6th and 11th was redone, as was Courtlandt. 11th Street from Studewood to Heights is about to start. In the future, Arlington, Columbia and Oxford will be repaved, including curb and gutters. We just got a brand new bike trail all the way past that other big box store on Taylor.

Crummy schools? The biggest HISD remodel in the entire district, $40 million, was just completed up the street from me at Reagan High School. Virtually every other school in the area has gotten, or will be, remodeled, as well.

As for rhetorical questions of why Walmart, why here, the answer is because they can. The mayor has already stated that they cannot stop a business from locating in the city just because a small but vocal minority opposes their corporate culture. The Walmart is coming, whether you shop there or not. It really is that simple.

Note to moderators: Hopefully, this post is not considered offensive, even though it contradicts what another poster wrote. There was simply no other way to print the truth without contradicting that poster. No malice was intended. Please don't delete the important parts.

signed, RedScare

No, I have not read it, and I did not imply so, but knowing the topic of the .pdf, I know it will be interesting to me and most likely others.

It actually was pretty interesting reading. I just couldn't pass up a chance at gigging you over a 6 story hotel.

You said jort!! This thread is now worth keeping.

Never pass up a chance to insult the Florida Gators.

Uh, and can a mod fix the title? This college grad is prone to typos.

What a maroon!

Wow, we even outranked Dallas, Atlanta and Austin! Too bad those college grads will be bored once they get here.

It was only gonna be 6 stories?

Well, maybe I was thinking that way with ES because it's a more high-profile location and looks so puny next to One Park Place? I guess I was hoping for a more towering surrounding of DG.

Can I retract my ES complaints?

You should probably retract your 'interesting reading' comment first, since you obviously did not even read your own link.

That's a shame. Well, this can be interesting reading for those of us not ever on the inside of these things...

http://www.loopnet.com/Attachments/D/D/5/DD5EF9D8-D3C3-41F5-8327-013CA82FBD90.pdf

I would think you would be happy that a 6 story hotel is not being built, considering how disappointed you are with the 19 story hotel down the street. In fact, I'd expect you to be celebrating.

The position of helping the poor was brought up by Walmart supporters. I'm suggesting that is a fallacy based more on a successfully advertising campaign than any actual evidence (other than anecdotal evidence from Attica). A survey of 30,666 indicates their prices are only average for a big-box retailer.

Regarding what can or cannot be accomplished, the opponents of the Ashby High Rise seem to have been successful in their efforts, and that development was only projected to add 2,000 extra vehicles a day vs. 10,000 for this project. Repeated community efforts like this may eventually result in some form of zoning in this city, and I know that scares the bejesus out of some folks who view property rights like an NRA member views the second amendment.

You did mention that some folks want a Walmart built on that site, but those people have yet to organize a group, perhaps out of embarrassment or more likely out of apathy. The perceived impact of a Walmart not being built is far less to the Walmart supporters than having the store built would be to the folks opposing Walmart. There are plenty of Walmarts and similar retailers within reasonable driving distance to satisfy big-box shopping urges. But I think it'd be really funny if someone organized a facebook campaign to show support for the largest corporation in the world in their fight against the tyrannical local residents who are trying to have an impact on their community.

I believe that the argument was made that Walmart hurt the poor, and several posts were made showing that studies suggest otherwise. Be that as it may, Walmart's pricing scheme has been studied as well (nearly everything about Walmart has been studied). Walmart will routinely price its least expensive item below its competition. As long as one always buys the 'base model', so to speak, he will usually save money over shopping elsewhere. However, Walmart will place successively higher priced models with more options next to the base model in an attempt to encourage the shopper to move up. The shopper is thinking that, for only a few dollars more, she can buy the coffee maker with the automatic brew cycle. THESE models are often times priced well above Walmart's competitors. Walmart calculates that the basic consumer urge to have the fancier model will kick in often enough to subsidize the low cost model. In this way, Walmart both improves its bottom line and allows the more vain shoppers to subsidize the more frugal shoppers. So, across the board, Walmart may not be such a discount. But, on its lowest priced brands, it is.

This is not unique to Walmart. All retailers engage in 'loss leader' marketing tactics. GM and Ford for years have sold compact cars nearly at cost, subsidized by the pickups, Suburbans and Expeditions loaded with overpriced options, bringing over $10,000 in profit for every vehicle sold. Toyota makes a killing selling Toyotas badged as Lexus' to those whose vanity will not allow them to purchase the more reasonably priced Toyota.

Can you imagine how much more pass-through traffic would result from a Trader Joe's at that site given that there is no traffic sink to the north? A lot of stores other than Wal-Mart would induce significantly more pass-through traffic on Yale. Womeone concerned about traffic on Yale Street in the Heights should be welcoming Wal-Mart as the perfect store for this tract of land.

Exactly. The Crosstimbers store will limit traffic from the north. Silber will limit traffic from the west. This store will draw from the immediate neighborhoods, and from the south. Maybe the real concern is that the Montrose gays will be frighteningly close to the Heights.