RedScare

Not to pile on, as I do think that stormwater and road infrastructure is important, but we've just been hit with new electric meters for "just $5 per month", as well as higher water fees for water and sewer infrastructure of "just $5 per month". It starts to add up.

I heard, or maybe read somewhere that the owner seriously believes if he paints it or fixes it up, his taxes will skyrocket!

You'd be surprised how many people believe that.

I was going along with WAZ's reasoning until he ruined it all with misleading or outright false statements like this...

But we can’t rely on City Hall to repair roads or drainage out of the general fund. They neglect our infrastructure and use our tax dollars to build new Soccer stadiums and Walmarts. We need Proposition 1, and a special fund that they can only use for roads and drainage.

Alas, such is the world we live in. Keep repeating misstatements until they become true. Ironically, the 380 agreement approved by Council for the area around the proposed Yale Street Walmart is for street and stormwater infrastructure improvements! Seems to me that if (WAZ claims)we cannot trust the City on miniscule $6 million 380 agreements, we'd be loathe to trust them with $8 BILLION for the same thing.

Thanks for talking me out of this vote, WAZ.

I'd argue that fees for drainage ought to be assessed in the form of a property tax on impervious ground cover by the square foot...

The Houston Chronicle endorsement claims that this is exactly how the fee would be imposed. Empty land would incur no fee.

Send me your name and email through the private message function on this forum, and I'll get you a petition to sign.

For those who only read Heights threads, go here for information on a meeting to explain the new ordinance and how to help repeal it in your neighborhood.

Reminder to everyone to show up at FBC Heights (201 E. 9th) tomorrow at 6 pm. You'll get an explanation of the new ordinance, a chance to sign the petition to repeal the historic district, and an opportunity to help gather signatures. Hope to see you there.

Austin....ya, what a great place I would never live...but I do think that the Heights has a bit of that Austin feel - you know keep it weird,.etc....

I mean, where else could you get away with doing this to a house other than here, or Austin? Notice the Bill White sign!

Actually, my gripe with the "preservationists" is that they seem to oppose a homeowners right to do exactly this sort of thing to their home. They have petitioned to impose rules on any alteration to the home that does not meet their standards, and have convinced the City to impose those standards with the weight of law behind them. They only wish to shop at expensive stores that the masses cannot afford. They oppose ALL change, even rehabilitated streets that improve traffic flow. In this way, that segment of the Heights is FAR from progressive, trendy, or anti-establishment. Progressives embrace change. Trendy is a word that describes an embrace of the newest trends. Anti-establishment suggests an aversion to bend to the will of the government, which is seen to be controlled by the wealthy and powerful. The Heights residents pushing these issues represent none of that, but in fact, represent the exact opposite. While some of these "preservationists" may support national progressive political ideals, their local ideals contradict that progressive belief. They are more akin to East Coast elitists than Austin liberals.

Please do not identify the "preservationists" as progressive, trendy or anti-establishment. They are nothing of the sort. They exhibit the very same proclivities of the HOA loving, excessive deed restricting suburban master planned community residents that they claim to abhor. Worse, they have just enabled the passage of an ordinance that requires bad architectural modifications to our heretofore beautiful old homes.

This thread is intended to be the source for all information related to the petition process during the "transition period" to the new, more restrictive historic districts, as well as the procedures for the re-votes in those districts that are successful in their petitions.

The first is Tuesday, October 19th, at 6 pm. The second is Saturday, October 23rd at 1 pm. Both meetings will be held at First Baptist Church Heights, at 201 E 9th St. in the Heights.

THOUGH THE MEETINGS ARE BEING HELD IN THE HEIGHTS, ALL RESIDENTS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE ORDINANCE ARE INVITED.

The new ordinance, as well as the process for opting out of the district will be explained, the petition campaign will be organized, and questions answered. As explained in the Historic Districts thread, it only takes 10% of property owners to force a re-vote, but it takes 51% of property owners to disband the district. Keep in mind that this is a more stringent standard than was required to create the historic districts in the first place. Non-participation will be counted as a 'YES' vote for continued historic district status under the new ordinance.

The new ordinance includes the now-famous non-demolition rule. You will not be able to move or demo your property without the permission of the HAHC. But, even worse for those of us who appreciate good architecture, the new ordinance REQUIRES that any new additions be distinguishable from the original structure. That means that any addition approved by the HAHC MUST look different than your historic home, and FURTHER, be designed in a way that it may be removed in the future without harming the original structure. Think about that for a moment. The City has just legislated that all new additions to historic district homes MUST be incompatible with the existing home, in direct contradiction to standing architectural principles and our own sense of good taste, which dictate that additions should transition seamlessly from the existing structure to the new. This includes those in Norhill. Any additions must comply with both the Norhill deed restrictions AND the new historic district ordinance.

Hope to see many of you there!

NOTE to moderators: This thread is distinct from the 'Historic Districts' thread in that it is NOT specific to the Heights, and relates to the petition process and re-vote, whereas the other thread debates the merits of the historic district ordinances, and is generally specific to the Heights. For this reason, it is posted under 'City Hall'. While it is well known that several moderators are staunch supporters of the historic preservation ordinance, I ask that this thread be left intact, as it is specific to the petition for a re-vote. If 'City Hall' is deemed an inappropriate forum, please move it to another suitable city-wide forum, not the 'Heights' forum. Thank you.

While I agree with you, there is a whole lot of NIMBY in this area - I think you will find that it does not matter where you go everyone will have something to complain about. Though there is more complaining here, but I have come to expect that from an area that has a reputation for being progressive, trendy, and anti-establishment. I've come to despise all three of those words and the stereotypes of people who go with them.

Unfortunately for me, there is not another area that is reasonably safe, inside the loop, and also reasonably affordable. So I'll be here for a while longer..

I wouldn't worry too much, at least as it relates to this Walmart. Despite the contradictory claims of s3mh, the 380 agreement DID pass, the mayor continues to state that the Walmart WILL be built, and the permits WILL be issued. s3mh and the other opponents are not fighting a losing battle. The battle has already been lost. But, the more time spent by these people on fighting Walmart means less time spent trying to gain control of my property via "historic districts".

...so it looks like I may have a point.

Actually, you do not, but you have never had a point to your posts on this subject, other than the point that because you do not like Walmart, the City should illegally refuse them the right to build there. Luckily, the City elected officals are intelligent enough not to create unwinnable lawsuits for taxpayers.

On the subject of taxpayers,Walmart is a city taxpayer. In fact, their taxes dwarf the pittance that you pay to the City. Since you believe that the city should provide infrastructure for their taxpayers, it is only fair that they should also build infrastructure for their biggest taxpayers.

Oh, and did I forget to mention that the 10,000 vehicles per day that you claim will visit this Walmart are ALSO taxpayers? We deserve infrastructure, too. You selfishly believe that only you are entitled to new infrastructure. The rest of us pay taxes, too, and I'll bet my taxes are higher than yours.

Thanks to the City for improving my streets.

...and the residents and small business owners get infrastructure improvements when hell freezes over.

In the future, before you call someone a liar, make sure you actually know what you are talking about.

Hell must have frozen over, because the City is repaving 11st Street (including new drainage) for me as we speak. They were also kind enough to repave N. Main, Studewood, Courtlandt, and other streets in my neighborhood. They also put in new water mains a few years back, giving me fantastic water pressure at the tap.

You should have moved into my hood. They take care of us.

Perhaps not 100%... but you cannot ignore the POSSIBILITY that rapes and kidnappings would decrease could you? Isn't one saved life (from kidnap or rape) be well worth the cost of building a border wall? What would you say if your daughter were a victim of either of these heinous crimes? Would you not give anything... ANYTHING to spare her from this fate?

If you could prove that the wall would prevent it, perhaps. But, the overwhelming majority of crimes in the US are committed by US citizens. So your claim is faulty.

There are 3 times as many fatalities from auto accidents as homicides. Wouldn't you do ANYTHING to prevent this fate befalling your wife? Why do you still let her drive?

resolution is getting close, got called this morning from the city, we reviewed the notes that the officers at the scene collected. He mentioned that this guy had quite a history with the law (not a good one), and that he will likely be going away for quite a while.

I asked them to contact me back with a resolution, as I wanted to know. My hope is that this guy is the same guy who's been burglarizing the area, and that he gets tossed away for a long time, and of course is rehabilitated to become a contributing member of society (fat chance of that, but a boy can dream, right?) when he is released.

I'll keep you guys posted.

The resolution will not come from the police. It is the District Attorney that prosecutes the criminals and puts them in prison. If the guy has been arrested, you'll want to call the DA's office and talk to the prosecutor handling the case. If he has not been arrested yet, you'll deal with the police until the arrest.

The percentage to demand a revote was dropped to 10% and the transition period was extended to 30 days. This is an easily achievable goal, so any district that wants a re-vote can get one.

Sorry for the nuance. I will be explicit:

The City dismisses the concerns of people in the Heights in deference to a developer. Developers are not infallible. Just look at the Alabama/Kirby parking lot. Many of the parking spaces are too close together. Developers are people. They screw things up all the time. The City needs to listen to the public and not blindly jump on the developer's bandwagon. There. That wasn't so hard to understand.

Actually, the City IS listening to the citizens. The citizens demand that the City not waste money, so the City is not going to illegally block a development just because a few people who do not read city ordinances before complaining don't like it. By doing so, the City saved millions in legal fees and judgments.

I imagine that if you measured the parking spaces at this development, you'd find they comply with city code, but I am curious why you are demanding suburban width parking spaces. I thought you supported responsible URBAN development.

Have discovered Harris Cnty had 2 operational court houses during 1945-46. (source: CD {City Directory}) Fannin (curently undergoing restoration) had some 15 court rooms and damned near every Cnty function immaginable. Capitol had 5 court rooms, jail etc.

Fannin did not have a jail but both list SO's offices. Still researching when Capitol was built/torn down & was Fannin vacated. Cnty site doesen't have much courthouse history on it so gonna have to relie on CD's for data.

Check around the year 1953. That was the year that the new Harris County Courthouse was opened at 301 San Jacinto. In later years, this became the Criminal Courthouse, and several years ago was renovated to become the Juvenile Justice Center. Fannin never really vacated. It was remodeled in 1954 (badly), and continued in service until its current restoration to its original glory.

http://wiki.worldflicks.org/harris_county_1910_courthouse.html#coords=%2829.76105485,-95.3597349%29&z=20

A fond memory: one of his neighbors built a MacMansion and had the gall to erect a brick wall which extended beyond the property line (across the sidewalk; clear to the curb.)

He had the gumption to take on City Hall and win. Mr. MacJerk had to remove his wall from public property. Pretty good legacy.

That was a great thread.

Nmainguy's 'Great Wall' thread

It shows a city government that doesn't care what the community thinks. It shows a city government that knew Walmart would be controversial with the community and wanted to do everything they could to help the developer weather the storm rather then represent the concerns of the community (almost to the point of misrepresenting the anchor of the development after the news leak about Walmart). It shows a city government that is bought by the developers.

And if you think the city has been proactive, you are nuts. Even to this day, no one has said a word about how traffic will work. The developer claims that he can magically add a left turn lane to Yale St. for Koehler while putting in extra wide side walks, not moving the City's right of way a single inch and not backing up traffic onto the new feeder road. All of the noise, light pollution, crime issue were supposed to be addressed in an operating agreement with Walmart. Seen any sign of that agreement?

But what do we, the silly people of the Heights, know. We are not a brilliant developer like Ainbinder. Just look at his amazing development on Kirby and W Alabama. You know, the one with the Borders and Pesce. You know, the one with the parking spaces that are so tight you can't open your door to get out of your car (much less to get back in if you manage the former). But we should just trust a guy that can't put parking spaces far enough apart to cram a Walmart Supercenter in the middle of a residential neighborhood with only a four lane road for access because developers are special human beings with magical powers. And we shouldn't expect our government to look out for us. Our taxes don't pay their salaries, developer's campaign contributions do. We should all just go back to the Heights and wait and see what marvelous faux victorian townhome cluster the developers try to cram into our neighborhood.

Interesting that you are so offended when the City "sneaks" a Walmart into the neighborhood, but wholeheartedly support the same mayor's attempt to "sneak" a severely restrictive historic district ordinance into the very same neighborhood. Pardon me for not sharing your outrage, as I am too busy fighting other battles to worry about your Walmart.

I met nmainguy once. Based on photos and descriptions, I was driving up North Main one day and saw a guy sitting on the stoop of the house I figured was his. It was him on the stoop. Good guy. It was sad to read his posts toward the end, knowing that his illness was frustrating him. I hope he is at peace now.

Here are the email addresses of Council.

districta@houstontx.gov; districtb@houstontx.gov; districtc@houstontx.gov; districtd@houstontx.gov; districte@houstontx.gov; districtf@houstontx.gov; districtg@houstontx.gov; districth@houstontx.gov; districti@houstontx.gov; atlarge1@houstontx.gov; atlarge2@houstontx.gov; atlarge3@houstontx.gov; atlarge4@houstontx.gov; atlarge5@houstontx.gov; historicpreservation@houstontx.gov

Simply copy and paste the entire 3 lines into your email address bar.

Here is a quick rundown of the options being suggested by certain Council Members:

1. The amendments offered by Oliver Pennington will require that all districts be re-considered by the city. We think this is a great option. We will still have to work towards educating the community about what a "yes" vote will mean to them. This is real due process, the most straight forward, and will mean that if there isn't a super majority response to become a district, we will have a year break from this to see how this works in the districts that do get this protection.

2. The amendments from Ann Clutterbuck will keep all existing historic districts under the rules we had before the moratorium. If a district wanted to become a protected district, they would have to petition under the new rules. We would still have the 90 day waiver and still have to get a certificate of appropriateness for renovations or new construction. The downside is that we still will have to deal with the HAHC who has been a difficult group to deal with for some homeowners but we would have protection that worked 85% of the time. We also will likely have a push by the same group that got us into an historic district to get signatures to be an historic district with the new protection. They will only need to get 10% to start the process again. This option offers every district due process.

Either of these options mean the battle over this issue will be significantly less contentious and require less work on the part of our group. We won't have to jump through hoops and spend the next month, and into the holiday season, and into next year actively working on this. It means there is an end in sight, which we all welcome!! both of these options eliminate the transition process and give us either a straight-forward vote or the proponents have to petition everyone again and we can say no by not signing.

3. This is the worst of the three. The number of days in the transition will likely change from 15 to at least 30, and perhaps 60. The 25% threshold may or may not be lowered to 10% but we aren't counting on it as we have heard that the mayor is not willing to yield on that. In this option, we have to go get the signatures on their petition. The city will then allow us to reconsider being a district by sending out cards for us to vote. Then they record that vote and decide whether we remain a district or if our district boundary shrinks. It means we really have to step up and will be very busy for an undetermined length of time.

I stole this from an email I received, but I don't think she'll mind.

VERY IMPORTANT: Please email ALL members of Council, telling them which option you support! Those not in a current historic district may be satisfied with CW Clutterbuck's amendment, but I recommend that you support your neighbors in historic districts by supporting CM Pennington's amendment. Make sure you say specifically that you do not support the current amendment. The members of council are likely counting 'yes' and 'no' emails, so your email is VERY important. Ask your friends to write in also.

Scroll up a few posts for every council member's email address.

Chronicle article on the Council meeting.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7235336.html

Thanks to all who were able to show up and voice their opposition. And a big thanks to Councilwoman Clutterbuck. Sounds like she may be offering a proposal to let the homeowners decide what is best for their neighborhoods, as opposed to the mayor, who seems to know better than we do what is good for us.

Chronicle endorsement of revised ordinance

This editorial was not written by the Chronicle editors. It has the antagonistic tone that only the preservationists and their leader Sue Lovell can mimic. If the Chronicle is going to lend its considerable clout toward an issue, the least its editors can do is educate themselves on the issue, and form their own opinions and write their own editorial.

This is political patronage. And, it will not work. The tactics of Lovell and the preservationists have galvanized opposition to them and the ordinance. They've made our job much easier. Those who can appear at City Hall tomorrow, please do. Those who cannot, please contact me. We are organizing to defeat the historic districts.

There are more pedestrian-friendly designs than dodging cars in acres of blacktop. Maybe if more people talked about it, we'd see more of them here.

Looking at an aerial view of the site, I am having a hard time imagining just who might have to dodge cars in acres of blacktop. There are no residences north of this lot. Those who have successfully dodged 7 lanes of traffic crossing pedestrian friendly Waugh Drive will enter the store through the Waugh entrance. Those coming from the south will cross Dallas at the Waugh intersection and likewise enter on Waugh. Those coming from the east will walk up beside the store and down the front.,,no parking lot dodging involved. I suppose crunchtastic and a few of her AIG friends might choose to traverse the parking lot, though they could just as easily walk down the sidewalk.