Heights Homeowner

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.

Gonzo thinks that Parker is his boss. He doesn't work for her and she is not his boss but that is exactly how he acts. At least she had enough sense to set the record straight. The term Parker's Puppet fits him well! I just am surprised at his stupidity at calling her his boss. It's very telling.

How long ago was this?

Anyone interested in giving him a piece of your mind, email him at: districth@houstontx.gov. Email his cheif of staff too: Carlos.Doroteo@houstontx.gov

Historic districts see few changes

Chronicle article in todays Saturday paper.

I hope Gonzalez' comments end up on this website!

http://www.anyonebutedgonzalez.com/

He is unbeleivable! He completely ignores the overwhelming opposition in the historic districts in District H. They gave him the evidence last week but then the next day he went on the record and said "we had a process, whether it was flawed or not" and its fine since some of the people want it. The rumor on the street is that there will be direct action against Gonzalez for ignoring the majority of his constituents. He sold out Longoria on the Port Authority appointment and admitted it to a LULAC rep - for the Mayor Pro Tem job. He worked behind the scenes on Walmart until MAP let him off the hook since she had enough other votes. Otherwise, he always votes the way the mayor wants him to. But where is the media on this? How can they let this guy off the hook? Time for Wayne Dolcefino! And its time to get Gonzo out of District H and get someone whose vote can't be bought!

I agree that the democratic process, and home owners' rights cannot (or should not) be stampeded by an idealistic government. I find the Supreme Court's Kelo vs City of New London decision especially egregious.

To be consistent, how do businesses which sell liquor or 'adult' related materials not deserve the same protection? Children are already prohibited from frequenting such places, and church goers have no right to demand that whole neighborhoods respect their particular moral values.

Well, I can't say I would ever get involved in a fight against adult businesses being near churches. And I don't see much "for the public good" for prohibiting liquor sales near them either. As a reformed Catholic, I have zero problems with where ever they sell liquor including next door to a church. But, we come from a fairly puritan sociaety and so I get it. If the majority of people don't want liquor sold near a church or a strip club across the street, okay. Schools on the other hand, I am all for limiting the proximity of both and not because they would attract children but liquor and schools zones don't mix...and depending on the adult establishment, some of those don't belong near schools. It's too hard to distinguish between what would be okay and what wouldnt' so a ban on all is fine with me. I can make the case for the public good...safety, health and welfare. Neither one of them have anything to do with morals for me.

There is nothing really the same about those types of businesses being restricted in their location and what has happened with these historic districts. The law already exists. If a church or a school decides to open their doors near one of those business, they don't have to close. The property owner who buys property within the restricted areas around churches and schools should do their due diligence if they want to operate one of those types of businesses and not buy. In our case, we already owned our property. We did not have these restrictions. Then, because a handful of people want to dictate taste, my property is now restricted on how I can improve it to make sense for my lifestyle of 2011 (like putting a closet in a bedroom). Nothing I would do would hurt my neighbor. Nothing I would do would pose a threat to children. It's just not apples to apples. I am willing to live with some reasonable restrictions for some types of things but not to regulate taste.

You hit the nail on the head. The original ordinance with the 90 day wait, that required the HAHC to make suggestions, was palatable, because you could still do what you liked to your own property in due time. The city & your neighbors had an opportunity to offer alternatives, and suggestions, and you had the legal right to say nope...and do what you want. That is community driven.

That is how it SHOULD work....and that is where the actual support was! Once the no means no was added and the HAHC has to approve everything, the support became less than 35% of homeowners, and the city knew it. That is precisely why they wont allow a real vote. The change to the ordinance was material, that is why they offered the "unprecedented" option to withdraw.....they just offered the option in a way and a time that they knew with near 100% certainty they would prevail.

Our elected officials have failed us, because they have their pretentious head so far up their anus they cant see anything at all, just like most of the ordinance supporters.

And you have hit it too. People were skeptical of even the 90-day waiver, which is why it took so long. They had good cause to be skeptical. In general though, people wanted some attention paid to what was going on in the neighborhood so they thought this sounded like a good idea. Plenty of people refused to sign either knowing intuitively or from experience that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. They knew as soon as Parker was elected, they had the muscle to get it done the way they wanted, with or without the support of the community. Parker said as much when she pushed for the moratorium. She was still in her honeymoon on council but if she had to get their support for it today, she would lose. However much you dislike her, she isn't stupid. She knew she had to strong arm council members to get her way and the would only take it so long.

One year into her term, she has eroded the goodwill on council and divided neighbors in once happy, congenial communities. That is all her doing. Folks like s3 have the same "win at all costs" mentality and don't care who they hurt to get their way. They just didn't count on the oppositon in the neighborhoods having enough tenacity to take them on and didn't realize that the mayor would overplay her hand on council. There is a reason 4 council members spoke on condition of anonymity about her adminstration. Former allies and friends think she has gone off the rail and her hold on the few she has left is quickly being broken. She will go down as one of the most reviled and ineffective mayors we've had. Like the HHA and the nutjobs that used to be in power, she will eventually be replaced with a more rationale leader who will straighten out all this crap. With any luck, that will happen November 2011.

Stick and stones. For every arrow I have shot, twenty have been shot back at me. I can take it. But if you think that you have made a point by calling me out for my tone, then you obviously are not reading all the posts, particularly your own where you rudely referred to me as "chicky". But, I don't mind. It just reminds me that I am right and you are wrong.

As for your venture into constitutional law, it is well settled law that historic preservation is a valid exercise of government's police powers. The only issue is whether the ordinance defeats the reasonable investment backed expectations of property owners. And the government is not the insurer of every property owner's investment. Just because you won't be able to make as much selling to someone who will demolish your bungalow than to someone who will remodel does not mean you have suffered a constitutional taking. Anyone who bought while the ordinance was in effect assumed the risk that the ordinance could be revised to become more restrictive. They will have a very, very difficult time trying to show a taking. And anyone who bought before the ordinance will have seen such an appreciation in their property value that they will still make plenty of money selling.

And as much as you want to deny it, the reality is that the changes to the historic ordinance were 100% driven by the neighborhood. Long before the realtors put up their website, the preservationist had been organizing and meeting with city officials about the failure of the 90 day waiver. Our elected officials agreed with them and revised the ordinance by a vote of 11-3, even after the realtors papered the neighborhood with fliers and dropped blue signs on every vacant lot they could find.

It's okay Chicken Little. The sky isn't falling. You can feel safe and secure that no lawsuit about Constitutional law will overturn your historic restrictions on development. And you can feel confident that no one cares if the ordinance decresed the value of granny's house which was always intended to take care of her elder care and she won't miss the $100k she will lose in value. She's just an old lady who won't know the difference anyway, right?

And Chicky, it isn't your tone anyone objects too. Well okay, some people object to it but it was your threats that got me actively posting and pointing out your lies and your hedonist comments. No one has ever said the changes to the ordinance were not 100% driven by the neighborhood. They were 100% driven by a handful of folks who work at the city or are pals with the ones who work at the city. They teamed up with Parker, which we got from day one. Don't think we haven't figured out why one of them is a volunteer in our council member's office. They made the rounds with council and lied to them just like they lied to the public when they got our designation. However, those lies are now being exposed. Once council certifies the results from the flawed process that Parker fooled them with (which they now admit) then phase 2 starts.

For now though, just keep telling yourself it will all be okay. You can still enjoy your sunrise.

It is a question of critical mass. There is a certain point where the number of club patrons (aka douchebags) becomes too large. There is a sense that you can get away with anything because there are so many people out partying that you won't get caught. Things always go downhill once you have a bunch of bars together on a strip. People bar hop like in college and cruise up and down the strip. Once you have that, it is just a matter of time before people in the area get the police to crack down and the club patrons go elsewhere. And the clubs themselves eventually jump the shark with people as the area gets a reputation for being too crazy.

Washington is pretty bad, but not at critical mass. Washington does have good non-dbag restaurants (Catalan, Broken Spoke, Candalari's, Cova, Les Givrales, Branch Water etc.) that help break things up and some very non-dbag businesses like Wabash, Catalina Coffee and a few furniture stores (Amish to mid-century to designer). Hopefully, once the dbag clubs burn out, there will be plenty of good businesses left behind to keep Washington Ave from turning into Richmond Ave or Main St.

Geez dude, you really are creepy! Seriously, kids going to clubs are douchebags? And the business on Washington are either douchebag clubs or non-douchebag restaurant and retail establishments? LOL, and the douchebag clubs are going to jump the shark one day because they are too crazy or will burn out? Have you ever been to the French Quarter on Bourbon Street in New Orleans or Rush Street in Chicago? Phuleeeease! If you don't like the clubs on Washington, stay home in your historic bungalow, order a pizza from a non-douchebag pizza parlor and leave the kids alone to do what kids do. And be sure to get to bed early so you can watch the sunrise before it is obstructed by a McVictorian or an Ashby Tower of Terror!

I appreciate that you took the time to point out aspects of the ordinance to which you object. No, I have not read the ordinance, and it seems likely that I'd misunderstand it even if I did. I do see your point that the language used in the ordinance grants powers which may be abused. This, among other posts, leads me to believe that it is overreaching and poorly written.

Yes, I'd like to know the truth - truth being a relative term. Not everyone agrees as to what this ordinance truly means, or should mean. If someone's arguments are inconsistent, pointing out these inconsistencies weakens their stance. While I understand your frustration when you believe the truth has been misrepresented, please understand that calling someone a liar isn't a persuasive rebuttal.

I thank you for your thoughtful reply to my post.

Yes, it is both over-reaching and poorly written. And not supported by a majority. Roughly, (depending on how you count the tracts and which district you are referring to) about 40-45% signed directly in opposition. Another 20-25% or more have never signed in favor or against. The remaining third have not been heard from regarding the new ordinance so there can be no real assumption that they still support it. Of course, some do but that number is, from what we can tell from canvassing the neighborhood, is about 20-25%. It is unconscionable to restrict the property rights of everyone else with so little actual support. And unfortunately, the administration thinks that preservation does not require support of the community. We disagree strongly. Good preservation MUST have the support of the community to succeed.

I do think that our neighborhoods would support some reasonable restrictions as long as they were driven by the neighborhood. But for the city to step in, without the support of the community, and decide what those restrictions are, is unacceptable and certainly not democratic. And where people's property rights are concerned, it certainly should be democratic. Look up where property rights are mentioned in both the US and Texas Constitutions. We take them very seriously in our country and in this state. If this were for health, safety or true welfare, as is the case for restrictions about liquor being sold near schools and churches, or adult-related businesses, then those would be understandably dealt with by the city. However, this is an ordinance unequally applied to just some of use. And that is not okay.

I get your point about calling s3 a liar. I truly do. And honestly he/she would not get those kinds of comments had he/she not threatened the other posters on this forum. He doesn't get the respect others do because of his threats, and for that I won't apologize. Reasonable people can agree to reasonably disagree but when you start making threats against your neighbors, you get what you give.

Just curious - have you made any posts which do not include the words 'lie' 'liar' 'lying' 'lies', etc?

Your point could better be made by quoting chapter and verse of the ordinance, and citing specific examples (quotes) of the inconsistencies - or lies, if you must - of those you accuse.

I really want to believe you.

{edit - double post]

I've made plenty of postings that don't address this dude's lies. But when he makes them, I point out what they are and why. In this one specifically, he claims we made no effort to make the ordinance better. This is patently false. If you read the first draft of the ordinance posted July 19th, you will find there is no exclusion for minor exterior changes (paint, light fixtures, HVAC). I can't provide you the specific section of the ordinance that it pertains to because it wasn't in it. However, the language of the ordinance has not changed which allowed regulation of everything. So, if you read the first you won't find it, if you read the final, you will. The language of the ordinance, Sec. 33-236. Prohibited activities; offense says: "No person shal alter, rehabilitate, restore or construct ANY exgterior feature of any building, structure or object within an historic district without a certificate of appropriateness." In legal terms, ANY means ANY.

That all encompassing language is one of the many things we fought to change. The solution was to exclude the things we specifically mentioned. I am not going to retype the entire ordinace to prove it to you nor am I going to go through each section. One place this exlusion is mentioned is Sec. 33-201. Sec. 33-237. Exemptions (relates SPECIFICALLY the the issues we brought up). Section a) itemizes the exempted maintenance and repairs, and addresses the issue of the reconstruction of a non-contributing structure if destroyed by a natural disaster.

Both of those things we fought for - any many more, including the requirement that these restrictions be consented to by a 67% majority. The good news is that 67% SUPPORT is what was included in the final draft for new districts. That was a huge fight we won. The bad news is that in a last ditch switcheroo, the mayor changed 67% support for the existing districts to 51% opposition, thereby allowing a minority to prevail by the flawed process. That is too long to go into but if you want to see city council in action on that and see that they only had 5 minutes to consider it, go to http://houstontx.city.swagit.com/ and view the fight over it. It's on October 13th.

I can't normally take this much time to find this stuff for you on every post. Read the ordinance. Then ask specific questions, if you really want to know. Quoting ordinance sections won't be high on my posting priorities though as it is time consuming. Those of us involved from the beginning know the truth, are very well educated on the issue, and regularly call that guy on the lies he tells. But the best thing you can do if you "really want to believe" me is read the ordinance. Read the memos by council members. Watch the council meetings where this issue is discussed. You don't need me to inform you. It is all out there in the public domain if you want more information.

And just curious, do you really want to know truth or are you simply complaining that I regularly point out the lies of this poster who threatened those who oppose his point of view?

I call them anti-preservationists--it was clear to everyone in the Heights that their goal was NOT preservation.

A little like the pot calling the kettle black, n'est pas? No one from the hysterical preservationist coalition cares a hoot about preservation. There is NO effort to raise funds to preserve anything. The GHPA, a joke of a preservation organization, TURNS DOWN donated buildings, truly historic ones, because it costs too much to maintain and renovate them. Historic preservation groups all over the country actually SAVE historic structures and raise money to do it. This group is about one thing and one thing only - controlling development. It has NOTHING to do with preserving anything. 99% of them have never lifted a finger beyond regulation and restriction of their neighbors. If you want to restrict development, them work towards that end but to do it under the guise of preservation is hypocritcal and demeans true preservation efforts.

As far as working to get a better ordinance, if it weren't for the efforts of those opposed to the ordinance, the ordinance would have been absolutely dreadful. Even the mayor has said it is better due to some of the problems WE pointed out in the original draft. So, stop lying about that issue. We worked hard to get changes. Just because you weren't privy to the changes we were asking for or that they didn't make it into the final draft doesn't mean that we didn't try. Some of our most important changes were not even considered. Why? Because there was ZERO cooperation on the part of Lovell. Gafrick wasn't much better. Those at city hall have had a certain mindset for years and years and there was no talking to them about any of the details. Clearly, as evidenced by your postings, you again have no expertise about what the reality of the process was. Always the uninformed expert on the forum...

Thus, the anti-preservationists are forced to make outlandish claims about due process and constitutional law, and find themselves in the company of CM Jones and her extremely ignorant Gestappo comment.

I hate to sound like a broken record but remember my admonition that it is better to remain silent and appear ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt? But you can't remember it so I will once have to point out another fine example. Here goes...

When you call someone "extremely ignorant" it is best not to follow it with a word you misspell. Gestapo has one "p" not two. Perhaps you have confused the word Gestapo with Geppetto? After all, they both start with a "G" and mostly have the same letters, right?

Definition of IGNORANT

1a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>

2: unaware, uninformed

— ig·no·rant·ly adverb

— ig·no·rant·ness noun

See ignorant defined for English-language learners »

No, anti-preservation is accurate. This thread alone is full of posts bashing on bungalows as not being deserving of preservation because they are too small for modern families and have no architectural value because they are out of a Sears catalog. Then there are the arguments about diversity of housing being something that is better for the Heights than preserving historic structures. And tons of talk about how new construction in the Heights is the reason the Heights has been successful instead of the work of preservationists. The argument that people who are anti-ordinance are actually pro-preservation is based on the fake argument that deed restrictions are all you need to preserve the historic character of the Heights. That is like saying that regulating emmissions from the ship channel is a bad way to control air pollution in Houston because people who want clean air should just drive less and use fewer petroleum products. And as I have said numerous times, if the people who were against the ordinance were really for preservation, they would have come forward with ways to make a better revised ordinance rather than sending fliers out trying to kill off the historic districts altogether. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing extreme about the ordinance. There is no great imposition on property rights. People are still building in the Heights. People are still selling their homes for a nice profit in the Heights (although there is a bit of a glut of high-end overbuilt houses). People are still rennovating their housing in the Heights. Thus, the anti-preservationists are forced to make outlandish claims about due process and constitutional law, and find themselves in the company of CM Jones and her extremely ignorant Gestappo comment.

As is so typical of your posts, you are full of inaccuracies and lies.

First, there are very few Sears catalog houses. Mine wasn’t. Get informed. And they are too small for most modern families. One of my good friends just put their house on the market for that reason – it’s even a 3 bedroom, 2 baths but the rooms are small and there is no storage. They have toddler and want another soon. They are busting at the seams…their words, not mine.

Second, the reason people are now willing to sink big bucks into renovations is because the builders got rid of so many of the structures that would never get renovated and the property values went up enough to warrant the extra costs in renovation vs. new build. But again, you know nothing about that industry. And clearly you know nothing about the Heights. I was around when very few wanted to live here – you weren’t. You are clueless and just believe the nonsense the extremists spew constantly.

Third, plenty of people involved advocated for many changes to the ordinance that made it better and were called anti-preservation. And it is a bold faced lie that we didn’t want the changes to the ordinance. We want it where there is support for it. Broad Acres loves it and we are happy for them. They also have huge houses which makes it easy to love. And not a single person has made the argument that deed restrictions preserve the historic character but they do prevent townhouses and condos and high rises that were the proponent’s lies about why we needed the city to control our property.

And lastly, every single lawyer we talk to, involved in this or not, thinks this won’t hold up for a second in a courtroom, particularly in Texas and most especially in Houston. And Parker is risking your precious ordinance over some bungalows – not all – that should be demolished. The process that she used is going to get overturned in court and it will open the door to killing the whole thing. If she had any sense, she would let these contested districts go and not run the risk of losing it all – but clearly she doesn’t. And council is so furious with her that she might just lose a lot more over this.

Its the Mayor's report, not item 18.

Wong at 15:00 makes a great argument...that gifford, or whatever her name is makes it crystal clear....quoting roughhand, not exact...Gifford: "we do not need any of the property owners support to start a historic district"

That is truly a sad statement, and reflects the true arrogance of this administration.

I was refering to the redistricting issue, where the knives were really out. That is item 18. The preservation issue was in the Mayor's Report and was tame compared to the redistricting issue.

And it's Gafrick...LOL!

I think you mean *anti-ordinance*

nice use of hysterical language while attempting to call out... hysterical language.

now for my hysterical language rant...

I suppose CM Jones is one of your right wing conservative teabaggers you constantly imply are the only ones against the ordinance?

He always uses "anit-preservation" instead of anti-ordinance" which is yet another fine example of why we use the term hysterical preservationist. Everything is the extreme. We can't be for preservation and against the ordinance because he can only conceive of preservation in terms of giving the city control. Extremism earns you extreme description hence the reference by Jones (not that I advocate use of that term).

Looks like you found another place to post your sob story about lot value and having your view ruined. It also appears there are quite a few people who would rather suffer Jolanda Jones' antics than than your social engineering agenda masquerading as preservation.

Did anyone watch the council battle yesterday over not just preservation but redistricting. The knives were out for Parker. She is very unpopular with her own council. Several of them, Clutterbuck and Adams in particular went for the jugular yesterday.

I think its item 18:

http://houstontx.city.swagit.com/player.php?refid=03022011-3

Here is some hysterical language:

http://blogs.chron.com/houstonpolitics/2011/03/the_gestapo_at_city_hall.html

Maybe CM Jones will be the anti-preservationist candidate for mayor.

Anyone know how much historic preservation costs the city? How much to run the commission? How much for the historic preservation staff? Did MAP cut anyone there? I'm sure we could save hundreds of thousands of dollars by eliminating this department entirely. Randy Pace, Thomas McWhorter, Courtney Spillane, Diana DuCroz, probably others, would save us plenty. Without having the cost of managing the commission, we could save a bit more.

Were there any cuts to that department? Then there is the big salaries of the directors. Without preservation to manage, maybe we would only need one, not two. Or maybe they could focus on the real job of planning instead of this nonsense. My guess is there will be no cuts to the historic staff. The Governor saw fit to slice the budget for the Texas Historic Commission. Why can't our mayor?

Maybe our next mayor will? What do you think?

Not too long ago, Harvard and Travis weren't so far off where Helms, Love and Field are now. Harvard and Travis got turned around by a lot of neighborhood involvement in the schools. That same kind of involvement has not found its way to Helms, Love and Field because parents are either going with magnet/vangaurd or private school for their kids rather than take the time and trouble to get involved with the schools.

The real question is what do you do with the kids at Helms, Love or Field if any are closed down. Harvard and Travis have little room to grow. Love actually has a decent sized lot and could expand significantly with a major addition. But, that doesn't look to be in the cards as the school has been listed on the chopping block. Hopefully, they will be spared. It is a crappy thing to pull a kid from elementary school and throw them in with a bunch of strangers. Not sure how that is in the best interest of educating our kids.

My child was at Travis in the early days. Travis got turned around because of the Vanguard program and Harvard because of their magnet program. A fairly large number of the Travis students did not reside in the Heights so it wasn't exactly neighborhood involvement aside from their role in getting those programs, which was minimal. HISD was looking for schools to implement Vanguard/Magnet programs. It was not a hard fight to get it at Travis. So, it was the program that drew the students to the school and it evolved to what it is today over 25 years. I do agree that the other three do not get the neighborhood kids because of their lack of a program to attract the parents so they find other options. The new/young families in the neighborhood would put their kids in those schools if they would lobby HISD for stronger programs. There is never going to be enough advanced programs to satisfy all of the parents so many will still go to private but the boot-strap effect would make all the difference in the world.

Vanguard was created as an alternative to busing. When we were involved at Travis, it was a quota system which changed while my child was a Lanier in the Vanguard program. Travis initially did not attract enough minority students like other Vanguard programs so they back-filled with non-minority students who qualified "academicallly." However, in each grade, the two non-Vanguard classes in each grade were literally 98% Hispanic kids. I know they want cuts to these programs but that is probably the only thing that will save those schools in the long term. The educational programs in those three schools has to change first and all the neighborhood involvement in the world won't change things enough to draw students unless HISD will install programs to bring the kids in.

They had no good argument for allowing builders to run wild in the Heights and had to resort to scare tactics to try to fool people into believing that the ordinance would do all kinds of things it would not do.

I don't have time to address the rest of the nonsense from this post at the moment but this is a perfect example of the appropriate use of the term "hysterical" preservationist. Really - allowing builders to run wild?? The builder boogey man running wild through the Heights is deserving of the term hysterical. This is the typical language of these people.

I understand that you're opposed to this ordinance. If lies have been told or misrepresentations made, the specifics would do a lot towards persuading people to your point of view.

My comment regarded your repeated substitution of the word 'hysterical' for 'historical'; it puts me in mind of people who use terms like "Femi-Nazis".

Surely there are wittier and more convincing ways to make a point.

My use of that term also stems from emails I have recieved from people I know and know I am opposed to this ordinance. They have made comments like they "nearly lost their mind" regarding a house was torn down in a neighborhood they don't even live in. Or have sent me hate mail telling me we are trying to destroy the neighborhood. I have pointed out the vague language of the first draft of the ordinance which allowed for city control of everything and for that I was called a liar, and continue to be called a liar. But I can read and the complaints made about that vague language were solved by some exclusions in the final ordinance. I've watched this group operate for years but wouldn't have called them hysterical until the last nine months when they have demonstrated they are completely irrational about this issue and appear to be quite hysterical.

Instead of picking at my words however, perhaps you might ask why someone would use those words.

I understand that you're opposed to this ordinance. If lies have been told or misrepresentations made, the specifics would do a lot towards persuading people to your point of view.

My comment regarded your repeated substitution of the word 'hysterical' for 'historical'; it puts me in mind of people who use terms like "Femi-Nazis".

Surely there are wittier and more convincing ways to make a point.

My use of the term "hysterical" rather than historical comes from seeing flyer after flyer full of scare tactics about townhouses, condos and high rises. The ordinance even states that this was an emergency. They have grossly exaggerated the number of demolitions. So, when you see a group that repeatedly talks as if the sky is falling when it's not, sometimes a more descriptive term is required. If the term fits, wear it. It is anything but funny. This is an issue about individual rights and they are being usurped by the city in an illegitimate and undemocratic process. I use the term appropriately as a descriptor for the types of claims these groups are making and are unchallenged.

As far as the lies and misrepresentations go, the list is long. All you have to do is listen to last weeks council comments. And all of these lies and deceptions are going to hit the proverbial fan soon.

(emphasis added)

It wasn't especially funny the first time. Repetition doesn't help.

It wasn't meant to be funny the first time. And it isn't funny that city council is being lied to about whether they have to vote on this crap or not. The mayor and planning director out and out LIED to council on Wednesday on numerous issues. Some of them called them on it. They couldn't "win" fair and square so they had to cheat and lie and deceive everyone, including city council.

Something barracuda said earlier has been bugging me all day. Would I really have to apply for permission just to replace my front door? Really?? I have to replace my own 100 year old door that's been warped, shimmed and planed to death. As it is, I'll need to have a new one custom milled to fit. It's just unconscionable to me I'd have to ask permission from a committee.

Whole parts of the Heights still have open ditches for drainage, and you have to permit a door? Sorry, but Onion Creek, a mac n cheese place and a couple of antiques stores ain't all that. Boy am I glad I chose the east end instead.

Sad to say but you would have to get permission fromt the HAHC to change EVERY architectural feature except light fixtures and paint. Front doors, windows, trim work, railings, siding, facia board, soffits, all have to have a permit and a Certificate of Appropriateness. Now you see why we fought so hard.

This is why we opposed the ordinance. Adding ugly additions in order to "protect" the original simply ruins the entire house. Unfortunately, we will have to watch our neighborhood decline under the weight of this ordinance, with our only recourse being that we can say, "I told you so." Not the way I wanted to see all of my hard work rewarded.

I can't add on to mine in a way that makes sense to fix the objections a homebuyer would have. The ordinance prohibits it. So it will remain historic and I'll quit improving it, live with it the way it is and NOT make it better. It had an ugly remodel in the 80's. I have been working to make it look more period. That stops. I need dormers for my attic master. I need more closets. I need more storage. I need a half bath and a larger kitchen. All were in the plans and now won't happen because the most important things that need to be done won't be permitted.

BTW, this is being circulated today. It would be funny if it were not so tragic.

I attended the HAHC meeting last week, and I have to admit, the approval process is not as bad as I had feared. The bulk of the certificate of appropriate items on the agenda were approved as part of a consent agenda, and the HAHC board was sympathetic towards the remaining projects that were flagged for various reasons. Even projects that had questionable design elements were approved when the owner or architect explained the reasoning and the board discussed the ramifications and benefits to the value and appearance of the property. And looking back through previous meeting minutes, it appears that nearly all submitted COAs are approved. It seems that unless a project is particularly egregious in violating the ordinance, they are willing to consider approval. To be honest, I wish someone had proposed something overtly in violation of the ordinance just to see what would happen.

I do think the process could be sped up for simple COA requests. It requires being added to the schedule, and HAHC only meets once a month. This combined with the permitting process can easily add more than a month to getting a project started. It seems reasonable for larger projects like new home construction, but I think routine projects (like a COA for replacing a front door) could be done quicker. But I suppose it forces the property owner to think long and hard about their project, which is usually not a bad thing.

P.S. - I'm not suggesting that the design restrictions of the ordinance are preferable to everyone, just that the commission is easy to work with and the approval process is probably not worth getting worked up about - they seem willing to work with you and not fight you.

They've been very agreeable lately. They weren't before the spotlight was on them. They were a major pain. Now that the Mayor fired Sharie Beale, maybe they will be better. I wouldn't be surprised of all of their willingness to work with people right now won't be short lived once they get a few months down the road...although this issue won't be going anywhere any time soon so they will be under lots of scrutiny for a long time. Get your remodel requests in now if you want a reasonable process.

I wonder if this construction is related to the big gas leak reported at 11:06 am at 11 1/2 and Studewood. I can smell the gas from my house.

It was on the news and they showed the construction site but didn't know at that time if it was related.

BTW, the planning director will present her (the mayor's) recommendations on Wednesday but there won't be a vote so no need to go speak at council on Tuesday.

Get Ready Folks! I got an email saying that the Planning Director is going to present her info to Council next week on Wednesday. Now the fun begins.