Heights Homeowner

Another astounding HAHC meeting today. Won't get into details but honestly, these folks are making an easy case for overturning/overhauling the ordinance. They have no idea what they are doing. They have no idea what the ordinance says. They have no idea about what design is all about. Clueless. Even funnier is they look like buffoons because they can’t even keep track of the things they have already voted on as a part of the consent agenda.  They are a kangaroo court of bumbling idiots whose day is coming in the not too distant future.

Best decision – to deny a two story house a two story addition – and said if the house was new, they would allow it?!?!?!?! 

Most comical – requiring a non-contributing house to use contributing materials and design on work that was done without a C of A or permits. 

I’m not sure they understand that the law takes a dim view of things that are administered as arbitrary and capricious as the rulings they make.  I think any judge watching any HAHC meeting would be shaking his head in absolute amazement that this is going on in the 4^th largest city in the US.  It’s a total joke without the laugh.

Perhaps the most amusing part of that threat was the use of the term "we" and the statement that "we" have fought for years to protect the neighborhood. The poster writing that has only lived in the Heights a couple of years, and has had no part of the years of protecting the Heights. He is what is known in the South as a carpetbagger. He came in late and supported changing the rules on those of us who really have been here for years. I cannot hide my disgust for people who have no respect for those who came here before him. He probably actually thinks his Heights neighbors like him.

I implore the editor not to remove that post. It is a reminder to others what this poster is all about.

Honestly, I had forgotten why I started going after s3 in the first place. I appreciate the reminder that he/she threatened those of us who post on this board who oppose the ordinance. It wasn't that the poster grossly distorted the truth all the time. It wasn't that I disagree with their position. It was the threat. The mentality of these folks and the "we will go to any length to get our way and we will punish those who disagree with us" attitude is beyond the pale and much worse than any name calling. Those folks have an extremist position and like any extremist position, there is no hold barred. I'm actually pretty tolerant of differing opinions but when you go too far, I'm like a grizzly. That whole group conducted themselves very badly throughout the whole ordeal and when they got their way, they gloated like spoiled children.

As you said, the days of this ordinance are numbered, whether it is in the courts or the hands of the next mayor. If the current political climate remains, we will likely see a much more conservative legitimate mayoral candidate and if we do, the ordinance is toast. But we won't threaten them as s3 threatened us on this board. We are much too civil for that.

The city had no obligation to provide any special process to decertify a district as part of the amendment process. The opponents demanded the process and got it. The timing of the vote was based on when petitions were submitted. Opponents controlled that process. Opponents were well funded and sent out multiple fliers to every house in the Heights telling people about the ballots and spreading lies about the future real estate apocalypse if the ordinance was amended. Despite a long campaign full of lies (house paint color and HVAC placement controlled by the ordinance), there was not enough opposition to decertify the districts.

What you are talking about above is just another example of opponents taking every word from the city and twisting it into some evil conspiracy. The city tried to work with opponents by offering to carve out portions of districts if there were clusters of opposition. The city did that in the Heights SD. Of course, opponents jump all over this and think shows an intent to skew the vote by getting rid of opponents.

Having come up short on organizing opposition and on the political front, now opponents are filing what appear to be untimely claims and claims that call for a constitutional intervention on the political process of a municipality, which is a nearly impossible standard to meet. And all of this in the face of the reality that the ordinance is actually working well. Builders are building. Real estate prices keep rising. People are renovating. The guy in the lawsuit could not even allege a constitutional takings, which is what I always thought would be the basis for a legal challenge. Instead, it is a throw anything against the wall to see what sticks lawsuit.

Let's examine the facts:

1. The mayor agreed to a special process because she didn't have the votes on council to pass the ordinance otherwise. She didn't care what the opponents wanted.

2. The timing of the votes was very calculated and some districts voted AFTER the holidays. It had NOTHING to do with when the petitions came in. They all had the same deadline.

3. The opposition never sent a single flier after Nov 1st.

4. The opposition never claimed that paint and hvac were part of the ordinance. They claimed that an ordinance with zero exclusions meant they COULD regulate everything, which was the case with the first draft. That complaint turned out to be 100% true, which is why exclusions ended up in the final draft because with no exclusions, there would be very little support by anyone in the community because it was going too far.

5. Your constant claims that there was a fair process isn't born out by the facts. No one (except the hysterical preservationists) including most of the council, thought the process was fair. Noriega, Stardig, Huang, etc., all said that the mayor screwed up the process and that it was an absolute disaster. Even Gonzo admitted it was a flawed process. Watch the meeting where Pennington takes him to task for making that comment!

6. No one I know ever thought that carving out a block or two of the south district was to get rid of opponents. The FACT is that the actual opposition left the district full of holes and key people, like Janice, Jonathan and even Bart would have been out and no way would they have let that happen. There was never any intention to carve out parts with opposition. That was lip service to council members, something they also acknowledge.

7. When you say the ordinance is working, you ignore the fact that the properties that the opponents said would be most affected have suffered a significant drop in value. No one in the opposition ever said the overall value of property would decline. No one ever said that new construction would cease. What the opposition said was property that previously would and should have been demolished would lose value and that has happened.

You are going to have to face FACTS someday. The fact is that the hysteria to keep all districts in tact led the mayor and company to make big mistakes and those mistakes have put the whole thing at risk. Had they done things the right way by getting support in the community, having the vote they promised and not used dirty, underhanded tactics, we wouldn't be discussing a lawsuit. Your accusal that we twist the facts is unfounded and you never address any of the facts that people present. It didn't escape my notice that you didn't comment on Janice's indiscretion at the civic association meeting. You didn't address the mayor doing everything possible to get her way. As long as you want to distort the facts, we will be out here telling it like it is. You cannot make this stuff up and not get called out for it. And like the true support for the ordinance, we outnumber you.

Never said anything about breach of contract.

The majority of the gripes from opponents about the amendment process arise from the City trying its best to bend over backwards and please opponents. Opponents wanted a decertification process. They got it. But when they could not come anywhere close to getting the support needed to decertify, they suddenly were against the very process they asked for.

Your buddy Janice (the Mayor’s comm director) announced at a civic association meeting for one of the Montrose area districts, when she thought she was among only the like-minded hysterical preservationists, that the vote and the ballot were going to be skewed in a way that would assure that the opposition would never get enough votes to overturn the district. She was trying to calm them down because they were all in a tizzie about the Transition Ordinance and the sky was falling (you were probably there.) The problem was that she wasn’t only among the like-minded. And one of the attendees was HORRIFIED at her comments and called the opposition the next day to relate the previous evening’s events. Furthermore, the Mayor stated publicly that she was going to do everything possible to prevent losing any districts. She sent out a postcard saying people shouldn’t vote. Then she IGNORED the vote of her own council. In the same vein as Jeff Daniels on The Newroom…when you say the city bent over backwards, I don’t know what the “ef” you are talking about!

The city bent over backwards to assure the outcome they wanted.

Actually, not only did the opponents come close, they actually WON DECERTIFICATION in two Heights Districts. Coincidentally, one of those districts is the one s3mh lives in. In spite of the fact that City Council voted out two districts, Mayor Parker instructed the Planning and Development Department to continue treating these two districts as if nothing had changed. The plaintiff's house is also in one of the decertified districts.

The third Heights district, Heights South, was a sure thing until the day of the council vote, when two councilmembers succumbed to Parker's arm twisting and changed their vote. Interestingly, South Heights has the most opposition to the districts.

So, s3mh is somewhat correct. It was not anywhere close. Two of the districts were outright repealed. But, the City ignored the vote of its own council. Hence, the lawsuit. I wonder why s3mh never acknowledges that his own historic district does not even legally exist?

Red, we must remember that s3, like Parker, ignores the fact that there was never a vote of support for the districts. There is a whole lot more in the suit than the election code violations, which he also ignores. Like all trolls, he is on this board to exercise his moral superiority and his egocentric opinions in hopes that someone who isn't as familiar with the case might buy his nonsense. After 14 years of involvement on varior Internet discussion boards, I can say that every one of them has a troll and s3 is ours. The only thing to do with a troll is to beat them with a thorned club while yelling "back troll, back" although this never does much good. Trolls are very stupid creatures who disguise themselves as a human informed on every subject.

The City's response reminds me of the memo Feldman sent in response to Bradford's scathing commentary on the process were were served up (you know, the one s3 says we asked for). It got a big chuckle from a number of council members and staff. It essentially said it was all legal and on the up and up because he said it was. The response to the suit is more of the "we can do whatever we want because we say we can" type of mentality. Maybe that works...but maybe it doesn't. It will be interesting to see whose court this finally lands in. It isn't going to be dismissed as easily as s3 thinks (or Feldman for that matter) so once the depositions start and the details come out, there will be a whole lot more to talk about.

Check back in about four to five years, assuming that the plaintiff can afford to fight that long (City gets to use the plaintiff's taxes to fund the fight against them).

The City did file an answer setting forth a number of the defenses I discussed above and a few others. The City will probably move to abate or for summary judgment soon. The issue of Kirkland being the judge has not come up yet. It will probably take at least 3-4 months to get through the first few motions from the City, maybe longer. If it actually goes to trial, it won't be for at least a year before they get a trial setting. More likely two. Then, an appeal could take another 2-3 years. If the City moves for summary judgment on sovereing immunity and the motion is denied, the City can appeal that interlocutory order. That could add another year or two if upheld on appeal. I saw another case where an interlocutory appeal took almost two years. The issue was the interpretation of a statute with two or three cases for the court to read. Should have taken two months.

I really do enjoy your posts s3. I always appreciate a good laugh in the morning...sort of starts the day right. Do you imagine that the plaintiffs didn't understand that this case will take years? Did you think the lawyers didn't know that too? It most certainly will go to trial but everyone knows it will take a long time. It isn't just this suit but all of them take forever due to our system. This case is no different. But I know that you think these lawyers, plaintiffs and those opposed to the city's actions are all bunch of idiots and have no basis for their objections and the suit has no merit so your opinion isn't relevant but it is quite amusing that you continue to post the nonsense that you do. In actuality, I think you are scared because you know the city screwed up in their implementation of the changes to the ordinance and it put the whole thing at risk. Readers of your posts need to know that soveriegn immunity doesn't allow the city to do whatever they want and violate their own laws or that of other levels of the government. Even your pal Parker has to follow the law!

Hey Red, is there a way for you to post the city's response?

You are making the false assumption that without the 380 agreements both developments wouldn't happen or, if they did happen, would provide no infrastructure improvements. Both are going to happen. The land was purchased long before the 380 agreement came about. The infrastructure improvements are mostly needed just for the development as noted above.

And you are also wrongly assuming that these properties are some sort of high risk gentrification project in some sketchy, newly emerging inner city neighborhood. They are not. Kroger, HEB and Walmart have been fighting it out to get into the Heights because Target has been making piles at their location and the Shep Kroger has been printing money. These projects are slam dunk profit makers. Forget Bellaire, Rice Village, West U, the Heights is the place to be now. We don't need to spend millions to get developers to do what they are already committed to doing. It is nothing more than a wealth transfer.

First...are there any development or improvements that you would be pleased to see in the Heights? Every single time there is something new coming to the area you complain and it is doom and gloom. The sky is not falling Chicken Little.

Second, if you knew anything about the development world (which you don't as you have long established) you would know that grocers have been trying to find land to build in the Heights for at least 10 YEARS!! Maybe more. My source, who has 40 plus years in urban planning in Houston, and I have discussed the lack of retail in the Heights, particularly when it comes to grocery stores. Kroger, HEB, Whole Foods, Albertson and others have known about the lack of adequate supply for the demand. And their plans to come to the Heights were in the works long before Target was even in the works (and my source worked on the the Target project). In fact, there have been MANY potential plans for grocers to move into the Heights since I moved here 12 years ago. It has been a matter of finding the right space. So when you say they are coming here because of Target, you are wildly speculating. You actually have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

The one thing you are correct about is that they are coming here because they can make money here but so f'ing what. That is what businesses do. They open to make money. The truth is that we have needed more grocery stores for at least as long as I've been here. When I moved here there was a crappy HEB on 11th, the old Fiesta (which is closing at the end of the year by the way), the Fiesta on Shepherd and the Kroger on 20th. Since then, we did get a Kroger that was absolutely dreadful until the recent remodel. But we also lost the small HEB, which despite is poor condition, was convenient to run in to grab a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk. We need more grocery stores and that end of the Heights area was the perfect spot. If the city gives a developer a 380 to help improve the surrounding area and improve traffic flow, great. It is a way that the city can get street and traffic improvements without having to do it or to pay for it up front but rather with tax money they wouldn't have had without the development in the first place.

As far as traffic, I just got back from my home town, Chicago. We don't have traffic in Houston. Except on rare occassions in a very few spots, we don't have traffic backed up from stop light to stop light all day long, 7 days a week. It is absurd how much you complain about traffic because you have no idea what heavy traffic really is. And while I hate Walmart and never shop there and never will, they won't make that much difference either. All that b'tching about the "Tower of Traffic" Ashby Highrise was much ado about nothing. They did a traffic study and the change was insignificant as is true to 99% of those studies. That will be true for Walmart as well. A small, insignificant increase in traffic. So what!

If you are so miserable living in an inner city, move out to the burbs, or a small town. If you live in the city, you are going to have development. You are going to have cars on the street. I suggest that you change your life style and your locale so that you can live the kind of life you appear to need because you can't handle the "stress" of what city life is. You need a slower pace where nothing changes very fast, or at all. Small town America is designed for people like you and you would be doing yourself a big favor if you changed your life and embraced a place that has your similar mentality.

That was in Federal court. Big difference in what a Federal judge will do compared to what an elected state court judge will do against a municipality. And J. Hughes would have probably been reversed on appeal by the 5th Circuit because he simply substituted his notion of what was a referendum v. charter amendment for the municipality's. Courts do not have de novo review over the judgments of municipalities. J. Hughes applied the wrong standard of review. Of course, the City settled the case. So, it never went any further.

Whether the historic ordinance meets the definition of "zoning" under the City's charter is a matter of discretion for the City to decide. A court cannot interfere with the City's interpretation of its own charter unless it can be show that the City abused its discretion and acted arbitrarily. That is the highest standard of review available in the law. All the City has to do is show that they had any reason, good or bad, smart or dumb, for their interpretation and the Court cannot interfere with the City's judgment. This is municipal law 101. So, all the City has to do is say that the historic ordinance is a performance standard and is not zoning and the City will win.

All this lawsuit is about is what some people think the City should have done. People think that the City should have had a process to let them withdraw their votes for the Height South district and other districts. But the City did not and the Court has no authority to tell the City that it should have. People wanted a different process for property owners to vote on disbanding districts. The City estabished a process that was approved by council. The Court does not have the authority to tell the City that there was a better way.

Like I said, it is going to be very entertaining to sit back and read (laughing the whole time) your crack legal analysis of the case. The funniest in this post was that the city can't be challenged in the way the interpret their own charter. Too bad that the red light camera lawyers and Feldman didn't have your legal advice to guide them. Maybe the city wouldn't have gotten their behinds handed to them. Clearly the flood zone case could have been won by the city if you had been on their legal team but since you weren't, they lost, badly. Given all your vast legal experience, it is amazing that you aren't a 5 million dollar a year lawyer with clients beating down your door for help but then again, if you were, you wouldn't be wasting time on this board, would you?

Thanks for explaining municipal law 101 to all of us. We aren't worthy!

All of those changes should be doable under the current ordinance. I've done many of them myself to my restricted 1920's bungalow, albeit mine is listed as non-contributing (I guess because it's too well maintained and too up-to-date). If the HAHC disapproves the use of Hardi siding, I'd like to know where in the ordinance this is stated. I also wonder how many HAHC commission members could tell the difference between painted Hardi and wood siding if they had to. Well, they might notice that the Hardi siding it isn't rotting or infested with termites.

I agree that some of these rules only encourage bad design. I cringe every time I see a gigantic humpback, especially if it's on a corner lot where it can't be hidden. I don't see anything wrong with building up or out in a manner that maintains the consistency and flushness with the original structure and allows a modicum of backyard. Humpbacks look like someone just played Tetris with their house, and the pieces don't quite match up.

Those changes are allowed under the ordinance but it doesn't meet the needs of today's homebuyer nor it is profitable for the investor/renovator. Consequently we see the result of the ordinance. As you said, humbacks that look like someone just played Tetris. And that is on purpose, by the commission, so that someone someday can come along and tear of the improvements and the original structure will remain. It is by far the stupidest thing that comes out of their mouths.

Oh, she's just trying to burnish her Heights bungalow owner street cred. If you sneer that the 'developers' and 'realtors' and 'suburbanites' just don't understand that these homes live and breath and have a soul, and that they had to shove that ordinance down our throats for our own good, then the other snobby bungalow preservationists nod their heads and snap their fingers in that hip, all knowing manner that they have. Then they finish their cappuccino, collect all of their Apple products, and leave Antidote to drive their Prii over to the Boom Boom Room for a glass of wine, and complain about the Heights Walmart and a stupid tree.

I stand corrected Red, it wouldn't be a Starbucks coffee. That whole group HATES anything that isn't a mom and pop shop. While I do tend to patron the local businesses, I don't try to prevent other businesses from moving into the Heights as they historically (and hysterically) have done in the past. What really irks me is how they try to tar and feather anyone who doesn't agree with them and label us anti-preservation when in fact, we are the true preservationists because we actually do things that will preserve our homes and keep them from the wrecking ball as opposed to the dilapidated structures they occupy. I don't have an ugly humpback and never will. I have tried to undo the ugly that was done as upgrades to my house in the 80's. I want a cute little bungalow but it does need maintenance and updating to make it livable for the 21st century. If you have driven by some of the homes owned by this group, you would see that they are in terrible shape and appear to be owned by people who think that keeping a home historically original also means they don’t have to maintain it. They are the eyesores of the neighborhood, not the new development.

The best way to preserve a Heights bungalow is to update the kitchen and baths, add some closets, a master suite, make it a bit more energy efficient, and replace the old rotting siding with Hardi. Instead of recognizing what truly saves these homes, they have decided the best way to preserve them is to prevent homeowners from making any changes that make sense through governmental regulation. Consequently, the bungalows get sold to developers and wa-la, you get the gigantic humpback. We were doing just dandy without their help. Now all this makes me want to do is sell my house and tear down one not in the district and NEVER have another historic anything. They turned me from a preservationist, who spent their weekends soaking door hinges in paint stripper, into someone who doesn’t give a flip about preserving a thing. I would rather live in a cardboard box than buy another house that has the potential to be limited by this type of small minded mentality particularly when they are the type of folks you so eloquently described. I guess I'm just not a "Golden Age" thinker...

The courts just threw out a vote on the redlight cameras because the City violated its own charter by holding the referendum more than 30 days after the ordinance was enacted. Clearly, the courts can, and do, tell municipalities what to do.

Red, I've always had the impression that s3 writes the stuff he does to calm the fears of the hysterical preservationists. He never quite gets it right. It tries to talk a good game but the rest of us actually have the ability to form logical arguments based on facts and the fact is that the courts have no problem telling municipalities that they haven't followed the law. In this case, the City (Feldman and Parker) provided a plethora of reasons to challenge their actions in a court of law. We always knew that the deck was stacked against us and that Phase 2 of this fight would be in the courts where Parker and her little minions wouldn't get to manipulate the outcome. Wishing something is so and $4.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks but it won't make something true just because you hope it is. s3 just has a hard time with that concept.

It is completely up to the discretion of the municipality on how a historic disctrict should be created/disbanded. Courts cannot tell a municipality that what they did wasn't fair or that the municipality's interpretation of its own ordinances and rules was incorrect. The only "proper process" is the one the City decides is proper. The court cannot tell the City what that process should be. It is a purely political question.

When it was clear that Parker and Company were going to do whatever it takes, despite whatever laws there are regarding these types of actions, we asked the question "Who enforces the laws when municipalities don't follow their own laws?" The answer, in a word, is the courts. So, to say that the courts can't tell the City what to do is just plain ignorant. The courts are the ones who make any governmental body follow the law. What is at issue is whether the city followed the law and no matter how hard you try to convince yourself, I think you know that they didn't. But then again, given the crack lawyer that you are and your keen legal mind, no doubt you know more than every other lawyer who has looked at this case.

I may have a couple other causes of action that I could think of...I wonder if they need more properties to join the suit to have additional COA's? Ive still got a house that would fit nicely into this timeline...

Yup, join the party. I heard this was just opening the door and plenty more will be getting in on the fun. Sit back and enjoy the ride!

I am surprised that there is no constitutional takings allegation. I can only assume that is because the plaintiffs ended up with a profit when they sold, just not as good a profit as they thought they would get with a tear down. Any claim that they lost money as a result of the ordinance will be very difficult to support as they bought at the height of the real estate bubble and sold at the bottom of the bust. At best, the plaintiffs were damaged more by market timing than the ordinance.

There is no substantive due process issue here. There is no right to be heard prior to the enactment of a municipal ordinance regulating residential construction.

The election code allegation is also totally off base. There was no election. The City set up a process to allow homeowners the opportunity to create and disband historic districts. The City has absolute discretion to carry out its business and cannot be challenged just because someone thinks that they have a better idea.

There is also the issue of standing. There are a lot of complaints about Heights South and other HDs, but the plaintiffs lived in the Heights East. They have no standing to complain about what happened in other districts.

Then, there is sovereign immunity. No attorney's fees or damages outside of the weak constitutional claim. Sovereign immunity is not waived.

As for the remainder, it will essentially be the City saying that their actions (notices, meetings, etc.) were sufficient, and the plaintiffs will have the burden of showing that the City's actions were completely arbitrary and a clear abuse of municipal discretion. That means that the City just has to come forward with any reason for what they did and they will win. The court can only rule against a municipality if the municipality is unable to come up with any basis for their actions. Even the City of Houston can meet that burden. Arguments that the City's reasoning was bad, unfair, etc. do not cut it. You cannot just air your greivances against the municipality in a lawsuit. And that is all this lawsuit is doing. They would do better by picking one or two issues and narrowing the lawsuit instead of throwing everything up a against the wall to see what sticks.

At the end of the day, the judge will boot this case on summary judgment because it is the easy thing to do. The court of appeals defer heavily to the judgment of municipalities and rarely interfere with municipal decision making. Thus, a trial court plays it safe by standing by the muncipality.

As usual r2d2, you are a crack lawyer! I hope the city's lawyers are as good at this as you are at all this legal stuff. While it would be fun and entertaining to slap you up side your inflated head with the real facts and a bit of instruction on a few legal points, instead I will just sit back and read your nonsense, gafawing and snorting while choking back my laughter.

To post the pdf, go to the bottom right corner and click on more post options. It lets you upload a document.

Cause #2012-36113

http://www.hcdistrictclerk.com/edocs/Public/Search.aspx

Sostak v. City of Houston

Cause #2012-36113

215th District Court

The lawsuit has been filed. Check it out here:

http://www.hcdistric...lic/Search.aspx

The first lawsuit has been filed against the City of Houston. The fili hng can be seen online here:

http://www.hcdistrictclerk.com/edocs/Public/Search.aspx

Perhaps this lawsuit will get things done the way they should have been done. Time to hold our government accountable.

What then is the current status of the Heights South?

On an empty piece of land that I own currently, am I able to get a permit for construction without getting any type of historical commission approval? same with repairs to existing homes?

Nope! You have to get permission from the HAHC for everything. Once the application is filed, the city says you are in a pending districts and all rules apply. The city council needs to vote on the South district and the mayor doesn't want to put it on the agenda because she knows that there aren't the votes for them to pass. She may think she can hold out until she has a new city council in January of 2012.

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.

Gonzalez has known for months that he likely will not have the Heights in his district. It was even brought up at a council meeting. They know he isn't representing his constituents which contributed to why they were willing to vote against the report. They normally try to support one another. If you watched the vote, sevearl went after him for his defense of the process. They are more than aware of the deals he cut with MAP and they don't like it.

Between Wal-mart and the HPO issue, he knew he would't have to face any political consequences, or so he thought. He can run, but he can't hide. He will face a serious challenger. A Hispanic will step up to run against him and if they court the Hispanic groups, he won't get re-elected. People in the Heights will support his opposition whether he has the Heights in his district or not. People think he is a nice guy with no backbone and just a pawn of Parker.

The map comes out today.

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

The 8 to 7 vote was:

In Favor:

Parker

Lovell

Noriega

Huang

Rodriguez

Costello and of course

Gonzalez

Opposed:

Jones

Bradford

Sullivan

Johnson

Adams

Clutterbuck

Pennington

Stardig

Everyone needs to write our 8 supporters and THANK THEM for some sanity and reason. They vote for this where the community seems to support it and didn't where they KNOW the community does not! We need to let them know how much we appreciate their support and will remember them in November and with our campaign contributions. We also need to tell the seven who voted against PROPERTY RIGHTS that we won't forget in November!! We especially need to go after Costell and Noriega who are At-Large and everyone of us gets to vote against them. And of course, there is Gonzalez, who is toast!

I will make a list of council member addresses and post a little later so you can all email them to let them know you will have their back because they had ours!

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 wonder how many other politicians think the "commander in cheif" in their political structure is their boss? Does Ed Gonzalez think that Rick Perry is the boss of the legislators? Does Ed think that Obama is the boss of the House Representatives and Senators? He needs a government class!!

I sent a message to www.anyonebutedgonzalez.com website asking they put this info on their site. It has to go down as one of the all time stupid things a politician has said publicly.

Hey Ed, ever heard of democracy, or a system of checks and balances? We might have a strong mayoral form of government but you were still elected to represent District H, not the mayor! She isn't your boss!

Unbelievable!

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.

Dan, did you do this video? Its hysterical!