RedScare

This statement is a big deal. Organized thieves are such a problem that the Texas legislature changed the law a few years back to deal with this. Normally, a defendant must be prosecuted in the county in which the crime occurred. Organized thieves stealing at numerous JC Penney stores, for example, could only be prosecuted for the thefts in that one county, even though they would hit stores in Harris, Fort Bend and Montgomery. Now, one prosecutor can prosecute for the total amount of theft from all the stores if they prove that it was part of one scheme or plan. But, I digress.

That was a typo. I corrected it to $275, apparently right after you read it.

Not really. The developer owns land all the way up the street. They would simply donate a few feet of ROW to the City so that the improvements can be made.

Please allow me to call you a liar. You have no idea what the percentages or numbers or even types of crime committed at Walmart is, but you made this statement up to further your goal of opposing this store. How do I know that you made it up? Well, I am in the crime business, as those who began posting more than a couple of months ago are well aware. I know more about Walmart crime (and Target, JC Penney, Kroger, HEB and Valero crime) than likely anyone on this forum. I know that your statement is an outright fabrication. This is also largely incorrect, but I don't think this poster made it up on purpose, he's just listening to non-experts. I can't speak to corporate policy, but virtually every Houston area Walmart has both inside and parking lot security. Theft is a big expense for Walmart, and they spend a lot of money to combat it. They have very high tech surveillance systems and personnel manning it and apprehending shoplifters. I know several of them personally, since I deal with the aftermath (the criminal charges that are filed). This brings us to why Walmart is considered "high crime". It is because they catch so many shoplifters it skews the numbers. Crime statistics are based on actual incidents and arrests. If a store catches more shoplifters, the stats reflect more theft. By comparison, those stores that do not have good security will show less theft in the stats. And, while there is some crime in any parking lot, it is dwarfed by the shoplifting occurring inside the stores. All one needs to do for proof is look at the percentages of crimes committed citywide. Property crimes account for 83% of all crime, and Theft accounts for 60% of all property crime.

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'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.

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 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

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?

Clearly.

Thanks. I won't.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Never pass up a chance to insult the Florida Gators.

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