Heights Homeowner

it's stories like this that make me wonder if it is even necessary for someone to be denied a permit (coa) before action is taken against this restrictive ordinance.

Without going into detail, it isn't a denial of a reasonable coa that folks are waiting for before taking action. Every thing has its time and it isn't time, but its coming unless some sanity surfaces. People are being harmed by the ordinance, that's true but it all has to fall in place. Patience is a virtue in this situation.

One Term Mayor

Anyone But Annise

Anyone But Ed

I was in the market for a 2-1 for almost two years. Combined with the experiences of several friends (all young couples) looking for the same thing, I can tell you that over the past four years, 2-1 bungalows that are in good condition in the Heights sell like hotcakes. I paid list, friends bid up by 10-15%, even after the market crashed. Most good ones are gone within a week if priced properly. I did not even get a chance to make an offer on three bungalows because they sold before listing. The realtor just listed for back up offers. I even tried bidding on two as-is foreclosure/bank owned bungalows that needed 50-60k in work (all 2-1's). I bid up by over 20% and lost each time. One time in Woodland Heights to a . . . wait for it . . . young couple who have done a lot of renovation to it. The market is huge for bungalows. People snap them up like hotcakes. Why? Because they are unlike anything else in the City. Anyone can get a townhome, 1970s tract home, McVic, and so on. But the bungalows are unique and historic. And there are plenty of people who appreciate this more than having extra rooms to decorate.

Just got off the phone with a dear friend who has had their BUNGALOW on the market since the moratorium. Several buyers have bailed or not been willing to make an offer because of the ordinance. Their bungalow is really cute. Definitely a candidate for some kind soul to come along and spend more money than it will be worth once renovated. They read your comments. They would like one of your friends to buy their bungalow for 10-15% over the list price. They would even settle for a buyer like you who offered 20% over the list price. Please make an offer. Since you obviously know that the "market is huge for bungalows" and your and your friends are so desparate for bungalows you are willing to pay any price, they need you to write an offer tomorrow. Please put them out of their misery of rejection by potential buyers who aren't clued in to the extreme value of their property. These buyers crazy realtors don't seem to be able to convince their clients that not only should they not pay less than the list price, they should pay significantly more than the seller is asking because after all, everyone can get a townhome or a new construction period looking home with all the modern ameneties but very few have the honor of buying such a desirable property, particularly at a price far more then the seller's dreamed they can get for it. My friends hotcake property is so cold you could use it as a freezer pack for your beer cooler. You and your friends can email your offer to: info@ResponsibleHistoricPreservation.org. I'm sure those three realtors would be more than happy to submit the offer on your behalf for any bungalow you want to buy, especially since they will make more 10-15% more in commission from you and your friends too. What a deal!

And while I have the soapbox, Heights Homeowner, I invite you to stop by Proctor Park in Norhill on a warm sunny afternoon after school and see all the kids and families there. You might be surprised how many families can and do raise kids in these small homes.

Yes, of course there are some families that can and do raise kids in these small homes. I am one of them. My child was 11 when we bought into the neighborhood, but we were the exception. The fact is that a 2/1 is not what the average family of today is seeking. I too have seen many bungalows. I can't tell you how many open houses I've been to where the couple has recently had a child and are now seeking larger housing. And it isn't limited to the 2/1. Even those who have had modest additions are put on the market when baby two arrives. It is rare that you walk through one of these homes that you see evidence of 2 or 3 or 4 kids past the age of 5 or 6 living in a nearly original footprint home. There is an obvious lack of older children or families larger than 2 kids. I grew up in a family of six. I know what a bedroom filled with bunkbeds and lots of kids looks like. These are starter homes, at best. Even my own family eventually upgraded from a 3/1 1/2 to a 5/4 1/2 as we grew up. Six kids in a three bedroom house was very crowded even in the 70's when people's expectations and volume of material goods was vastly different than today. When I start seeing bedrooms of families with multiple older children (plural) at an open house on a Sunday afternoon, then I'll buy the position that families want these homes. When I talk to the family on my block who live in bungalow with a child (less than 2), they say they are out of room and will probably buy new to get more space, then I will believe the expectation of families today is changing and people are willng to settle for less space to raise their family. The families with multiple small children ALL live in the new construction on my block. Bungalows are perfect for the new family. They just don't meet the needs of MOST families with multiple children who are school age. Its a generalization, not an absolute but we struggled with storage space for my childs entire middle and high school years and most people don't love these bungalows enough to put up with it for even one child, as I did, let alone more than one.

Can't believe you are still bragging about getting screwed on your purchase. Those of us who live here (much longer than you, btw) know what the market is and has been. You got had. I drive home every day past several houses that have been on the market for months, including several who have reduced the asking price. The combination of the recession and the uncertainty that this ordinance has introduced to potential buyers has crushed the market. I sure wish you were in the market 6 months ago when I was looking to put my house on the block.

By the way, I am not a builder. I am, however, a lawyer, as are several others who post on this topic. It should not surprise you why we do not discuss potential lawsuits with you.

He is fishing, not that it will do him any good. He is scared because he knows we have a plan that involves 4 different types of challenges and that all of his claims of victory are premature and vulnerable. He is hoping he can goad us into revealing something but he has no idea who he is dealing with. We are not like his little clan. We are smart and committed and won't go quietly into the night. He will embarrass himself with a big "Mission Accomplished" banner. There aready is one of those on Harvard. These folks have nothing on old Dubya Bush. But, here we are in 2011, still in the Middle East, still fighting, still haven't gotten Bin Laden. Premature Mission Accomplished claims seems to be the only answer for people who do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. But, smart people know what the right thing is and more smart people who can be bullied and bought with political favors will do the right thing, not matter who claims Mission Accomplished.

Finally, you are right. There is something emotional with preservation. There are actually people in this world who can see past short term profits for a few in favor of preserving something for everyone. You don't look to builders and realtors to make the decisions needed to preserve a historic neighborhood. It is so obvious that their interests conflict with preservation that it takes some serious gall for them to claim in public that there is no conflict. The bottom line is that you all had your chance to get rid of the ordinance and you failed. There will be no lawsuit because any lawyer will tell you that you will be throwing your money down the drain. Ed and MAP will sail through to relection. No one has stepped up to challenge either of them and no one with any ability to raise funds will. MAP isn't my favorite mayor, but she knows what she is doing and will have the support she needs to get relected, regardless of how much anti-preservationists cry.

Won't go into much detail on the rest of your post. Those with any knowledge and expertise know you are flat out wrong. No one said renovated houses weren't selling. No one said that no one will renovate and add on to one that needs work. But the buying pool is very small. But again, no point in arguing logic with someone whose emotions color logic and make them illogical.

Anyone who uses emotions when it comes to their largest investment is likely to do what you did and pay more than they had too. By all means, please call your investment broker and ask him to buy stocks for you at a price above the share price. We'll probably have to support you in your dodage due to your lack of investment skills because your investsments won't support you in retirement but that is what charity and the government does. They take care of those who can't take care of themselves, including those who couldn't manage their financial futures due to mental illness.

Yes, yes, you're right. City Council has decided and we lost. No one cares about the details and lack of demonstrable support. Attoneys have told us we don't have a case and would be throwing our money away. We can't raise the money even if they would take our case. There are no other options to challenge what has happened. Parker and Ed will win re-election easily with no challenges. You are all knowing, all seeing - omnipotent really. Thankfully we have you telling us the real truth and we will go away with our tail tucked between our legs. We give up and you win. Go Celebrate!

One Term Mayor

Anyone But Annise

Anyone But Ed

s3mh,

Where are you getting your information about Bingalow Revival and other builders making money rebuilding/remodeling these homes? I can tell you with ABSOLUTE certainty that 4 of 6 of my very close builder friends have lost significant amounts of money on remodels in the last few years, and the others were happy to sell close to break even. I have lost more than I really care to think about at this time, and I'm what one of the few remaining builders would call exceptionally lucky. You really know nothing about the economics of building, whether it's new or old. If you DO know someone who is making money doing spec remodels please be specific and give us some numbers: innitial investment, carry costs including financing and taxes, overages and percentage of asking price as well as days on market and and sellers incentives. Lots of people can say "that guy is making money" but I know most of those guys and very few of them are.

Like most of these hysterical preservationists, you cannot argue logic and facts with them. They have their fingers stuck in their ears and are screaming "lalalalalalalalala" so they can't hear what the real situation is. They don't beleive that the buying pool for a 2/1 bungalow is very small because even single people and young couples want more space and 21st century ameneties. They don't believe that it is a rare homebuyer who is willing to spend the money, let alone the time and carrying costs, to renovate them to make them comperable to what they could purchase for the same money for a new structure. They don't understand that families are no longer willing to raise their families in teeny tiny homes with virutally no storage or rooms large enough to accomodate their belongings and furnishings. I haven't owned a recent/new construction in 19 years or even lived in one since 1983. You have to really love old homes to live in them and put up with all of their bumps and warts. To own one is a labor of love and those bumps and warts often trump what ever charm and character they have, especially when they can get that charm and character in a newer home without the bumps and warts.

The space heater in my living-dining area reads 61 degrees this morning. The central heat is on and so is the space heater. You can practically hang meat in those rooms and they are essentially unuseable when the weather gets cold so I hang out in THE NEW PART of my home, which is insulated and has insulated windows. s3mh and his pals live in a world believing that problems like this don't affect the desirablity of a bungalow and can't understand why everyone isn't willing to deal with those issues with their homes. They see the rare individual who buys a bungalow and renovates as the norm, when they represent the exception. So, confusing them with the fact that renovator/builders also have learned that they have an economic issue on these projects is pointless. One renovator I spoke with said he will never buy another bungalow in an historic district because once he factors in the added carrying costs and expenses of dealing with the HAHC, he ends up losing money on every project he's done. He tried to work with them and didn't use the 90-day waiver option until he got sick of arguing about what he had to do to make them structurally sound and large enough with a sensible floor plan. With no waiver, he won't touch a project in a district now.

The hysterical preservations just can process those types of real life examples in their historic brains. They point to the exception and ignore the rule. They use examples like a home in my area where a buyer bought a 1 1/2 story bungalow with 3000 sq ft and spent a whopping $850k for a to the studs renovation and say "see, people love these bungalows and are willing to do the work." They don't understand that this labor of love of old homes is rare and even rarer still for people who have $850k to spend. They don't believe the truth, which is that homebuyer will likely never see much of a return on their investment, if any, because the project was so costly and has to compete with new construction which costs less. 3000 sq ft isn't worth $850k and while it might be some day in the murky future, the fact that it isn't worth that much upon completion will affect their investment forever. They don't understand economics and the industry and instead, they sceam that builders and realtors who point out the realities to them are greedy liars. Time will tell but most rational, reasonable people think builders and realtors actually know their trade and their positions come from experience, not an emotional, irrational longing for times gone by.

You can't make a logical argument about something illogical with those who have an emotional way of thinking which prevents their logical thought process. It's impossible!

One Term Mayor

Anyone But Annise

Anyone But Ed

As more my street, I did not say there were no abandoned buildings. I live next to one that would need significant work to restore. I also live next to a rental that would not be as big of a challenge to restore, but would need more than granite countertops to get up to the standards of the Heights. Without the ordinance, both houses would be prime targets for teardowns and McVic-ing. That would sandwich me between two story homes, and send the rest of my block on the fast track for complete busting. With the ordinance, the worst that can happen is that things stay the same. I will take that over being bookended between McVics any day.

And you are right that some builders will set up shop outside the historic districts. But, they do so at their own peril. There are plenty of builders who have learned how to work with the HAHC to build new and renovate old inside historic districts. They are making plenty of cash doing so and will just have more opportunities now that the historic ordinance has thinned out the heard.

Oh now we get it! You are afraid. Afraid that the homes next to you are not worthy of renovation and you will get new homes built next to you. So, it is all about you! You want to control your neighbors because you want to control what gets built next to you. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH PRESERVATION!! This is an ordinance to control development, period. Finally one of you admit it. Its all about your irrational fears.

BTW folks, s3mh continues to use a ridiculous term that has no basis in reality. Block busting is NOT something that is an agenda of any builders and had to do with racisim in its day. No builder in 2011 looks at a peice of property in the Heights and says "gee, if I can buy this property and build new, maybe I'll get the whole block." Doesn't happen. Isn't on their radar. Isn't possible. s3mh continues to use this term to instill fear but it no one with any sense or education on this issue thinks that it is an appropriate use of that term. And builders don't "set up shop" either. But they will build and renovate all around the perimiter of the districts and those areas, which frankly need the kinds of improvements they were responsible for 10-15 years ago in the current districts. Nearby areas will see greater improvement and the dilapadated structures in the districts will remain forever.

Time to buy south of 11th-west of Yale, north of 20th-east of Yale, west of Yale-north of 16th and in Sunset Heights. Those will be the up and coming neighborhoods and thanks to MAP, they will NEVER become historic districts. And the Heights East, West and South may go back to being a community of run-down rentals with a few renovated bunglaows interspersed with new homes which may lose value because they are never going to have the bad stuff go away.

One Term Mayor

Anyone But Annise

Anyone But Ed

Does any action have to be taken by the opposition for this ordinance to be thrown out by some judge? I think this is an easy case of the city going well outside its power and undertaking a very unfair process. If it ever falls to a judge I can't imagine them taking long to overturn it.

Someone is going to have to file lawsuits. Generally, there are some cases that allowed municipalities to preserve historic structures BUT the devil is in the details. However, with the way they conducted the Transition, they are in deep doo-doo. The Courts and other regulatory bodies will not be bullied by MAP with threats of withholding needed improvements in Council Districts or be swayed by dangling promises of favorable redistricting as SOME on Council are. For instance, anyone think that it is odd that Parker appointed Ed as Mayor Pro Tem? He doesn't have any experience. He is new on Council, just completing his first year. There were plenty of more qualified members but if Ed caves on the the HPO, the rest will follow so she had to step up the pressure on him. He has already demonstrated and stated that he represents the Mayor, not his constituents. When he met with Resposible Historic Preservation, in response to questions about him representing his constituents, he responded that it is a strong mayoral form of government. Essentially, MAP has his vote on whatever she wants and he represents her, not us.

Judges and the other folks that will be looking at this and making decisions could care less. In fact, Houston has a terrible reputation in this state so we will have lots of sympathy if Council does this wrong. We can still try to convince Council but our best chance of getting a fair deal has always been the plans for after the final Council decisions. Those solutions take longer however and people are being harmed in the interim. They screwed up the transition provisions and it will hurt them.

I actually asked about this at the meeting for Norhill on Saturday. I was told that if you own a tract of land, i.e. consecutive properties, you only get one vote. However, if you own multiple properties around the district, you get multiple votes. I'm pro-preservation, so I probably should keep this tidbit to myself. On the other hand, I am pretty discouraged with MAP and the City in general right now so I do desire to see truth and overall transparency that is brutally lacking right now. Anyway, double check the number of votes you may cast (unless you own consecutive lots, in which case your current evaluation is correct).

Yank, we are pro-preservation as well. We just are not pro-ordinance. Big difference! We know about the tract issue. It isn't a secret. We are for preservation and historic districts in an open and transparent process that includes clear understanding and overwhelming support. We haven't had anything that resembles that.

The vote turn-out was exactly what was expected because of the way it was conducted. If we take the random sampling of numbers of opposition, 75 to 80 percent of our neighbors are NOT in favor of this ordinance. The reason there was not a YES or NO vote is because they all knew their numbers would be terrible so they devised a plan to not demonstrate the support so there could be no argument that the NO's outweighed the YES's. That's wrong and it isn't going to acheive preservation. All it is going to do is result in the 4 phase plan to get justice for the majority who have had their rights usurped by a few. When you do it wrong, it never holds up. One of more of the 4 phases will force the City do it right and may unravel the whole thing. Then MAP and the City itself will have a big black eye for doing it so wrong, so undemocratically. It's a shame it has to happen that way but there is NO WAY WE ARE BACKING DOWN. Our group is determined to see the right thing done.

I'll say it again, we want clear understanding and overwhelming support and we will pursue it as long as necessary. People outside of Houston are looking at this process and waiting. Others are ready to come to our aid with the resources we need. As soon as the votes are cast to make these districts remain under the new ordinance without support of the community, it's a whole new ballgame. The Bart Truxillo's can claim they had support but that was for the OLD ordinance (which the Chronicle didn't bother to point out). The support of the new ordinance has never been measured and one way or the other, it will be. And when that happens, and the other things gear up, there won't be quite so much "we won, we won, we won." I suspect the threats and retribution will continue however.

If Parker were smart (I think overall she is but she gets bad advice and has let her emotions color her decisions) she would go back to the drawing board on the process before the Council votes on any of this. She will never get another historic district under the provisions for new districts (not what we wanted). She may lose many districts because she conducted the transition so poorly (again, not what we wanted). She may lose all districts if any of the other efforts after the votes prevail (definitely not what we wanted). Everything she fought for over 10 years time is now at risk. She would do better to take this effort from Lovell, who has thoroughly screwed it up, get together with all parties (separately) and try to work out a reasonable, fair process for historic designation district. She has options but, whether it is arrogance or ego or bad advice, she won't. She will continue down this path to what will certainly be a hicky on her time as Mayor, make her look bad (like her comment that she prefers back room deals) and if we are successful, all the districts will go away and have to come back again. Not what we want but it will be the outcome unless some comprimise is reached. Everything they have done, and continue to do undermines them and they just don't get it. Too bad! If it wasn't so serious, it would be comical...like the Keystone Cops of Preservation, right?

BTW, I read that the ONE TERM MAYOR, ANYONE BUT ANNISE and ANYONE BUT ED movement has started. If someone knows how to get in touch with those folks, can you post it here? A lot of the people on this forum seem to be anti-Parker.

They just set into motion the block busting that has been the main reason behind the historic ordinance in the first place.

Since you are so fond of using the term "block busting" inappropriately, perhaps you deserve the term "revitalization racist" or "bungalow bigot" since you, as those who were victims of real "block busting" because they were afraid of minorities moving into the neighborhood, seem to be afraid that undesirables will move into the neighborhood. Many neighborhoods had deed restrictions preventing blacks from buying into the neighborhood, your group wants to prevent those who want new, 21st century homes, you want city deed restrictions to keep them out only instead of doing it at the community level, you want the city to do your dirty work. Its the same kind of person with a mentality they should regulate who comes into their neighborhood and it is shameful.

And your inability to understand what the Heights is about is why you do not understand historic preservation. You see each house standing alone as either being aesthetically pleasing and yeilding the maximum return on investment. You see historic preservation as a contest where we identify the most worthy examples of architecture and lay waste to everything else. Historic preservation is not just about the house, it is about the neighborhood. My block is all bungalows (with only two exceptions) with mature trees up and down the street. The trees are probably taller and there are a few camelbacks and goofy porches. But the street looks like 1920. It looks like Houston's original planned community. It is that way because the historic homes have largely been preserved. The next street up has a number of huge new homes, some drawing upon craftsman themes, most giant McVics, a "creative" renovation that kept the frame and not much else, a small apartment complex and a few beautifully preserved and renovated original bungalows. That street looks like a mess. Yeah, there is a new build that did a decent job of adopting craftsment themes. But it towers over the real thing next door.

Camelbacks aren't my idea. They are the work of your builder friends and realtors. I will happily amend the ordinance to kill them off. But camelbacks do preserve the original structure's architecture and the historic character of the block when placed into context. McVics do nothing to preserve the historic character of the block. They just set into motion the block busting that has been the main reason behind the historic ordinance in the first place. Again, you can build the most beautiful McVic in the world, but this is not about realizing the current fashion of home archectiture. It is about preserving the historic architecture. Camelbacks do that in an imperfect way. Demolishing a viable bungalow and replacing it with new construction does not preserve history no matter how nice the new construction is.

NO ONE, except you and your builder/realtor friends, thinks that the diversity of construction in the Heights is what makes it great. The well preserved historic homes are what makes the Heights great. People go to war to get 1000 sq ft bungalows on a 5000 sq ft lot in the Heights for what it costs to get 2500 sq ft townhome or a 2000+ sq ft house on 8-10,000 sq ft lot in Garden Oaks/Oak Forrest/Timbergrove (much less 3000 sq ft home with excellent K-12 public schools in the burbs). I paid list for mine in the midst of the housing slump. Friends have had to bid up by 10-15% to get theirs in the midst of the great historic ordinance revision debate (so much for killing property values). We love these buildings because they are historic and are in a historic neighborhood.

Unfortunately, there have been incredibly selfish people in the Heights who care only about their return on investment and what building style of the day they think would look good in their lot. These people don't care about the rich history in the Heights and have demolished historic buildings in order to build the McVic of the day. When faced with the will of the community, these same selfish people pretended to be for preservation in order to try to dupe people into believing that there should be absolutely no historic preservation in the Heights, unless an individual homeowner decided they wanted to do so. This selfish individualism is what has torn our community apart. Fortunately, the will of the community prevailed over the short-sighted self interest of the selfish few that do not value this historic community. But this is always how it goes with historic preservation. Some people just don't get it.

You can try to paint the people who oppose the ordinance as anti-preservation all you want, it doesn't make it true. It is the only answer any of your ilk have had to the problems pointed out to the community. You did NOTHING about any alternatives and offered no critique of the ordiance - which would have had no prohibitions on anything being regulated if the opposition didn't object to the vague and all encompassing language. You just make up a bunch of crap about builders and realtors and use a term (block-busting) that was never ever about what was built to scare your neighbors. (Block-busting was a term used in regards to racial integration) You promoted a false fear about townhouses, condos and high-rises because you couldn't talk about what the ordinance said because that really would scare people. You have no shame about any of the under-handed dirty tricks used by the proponents and the city. All the Coalition of Whatever cares about it saving every dilapadated, termite infested, blighted victim of urban flight 40 or 50 years ago so you can prevent the improvement of the neighborhood through reasonable modifications to homes still worthy of it or sensible redevelopment of those structures that are not. Don't talk to us about being selfish. Selfish is a tiny group of people thinking they can take away the rights of others through dirty tricks and a mayor who has had to use political strong-arming to get their way. Selfish is people who think they know better what is right for their neighbors than their neighbor knows. Selfish is thinking that historic preservation can be acheived by force. It can't. There isn't a street or block in our neighborhood that looks like 1920. That horse has left the barn and the need for revitalization occured when the Heights was abandoned for larger, more family friendly homes which resulted in a community that comprised too many rental properties and neglected homes and a neighborhood with a reputation for high crime rates. Please be sure to give up your 20th-21st century vehicle and buy a horse and buggy, your air conditioning, and most importantly, your computer so you live in the 1920's which will spare all the rest of us this garbage you espouse on this board. No one here thinks you have anything relevant to add and you continue to prove you have nothing going for you by your constant references to how this is all about builders and realtors.

I will repeat, IT IS BETTER TO REMAIN SILENT AND APPEAR IGNORANT THAN TO OPEN YOUR MOUTH AND REMOVE ALL DOUBT!

The most hilarious comment by you today is that you brag that paid list for your property in the middle of a housing slump and your friends paid 10-15% over list to buy theirs. Guess you and your friends needed a BETTER REALTOR - hahahahahahahahahahaha! I always thought people paid LESS for property in a buyer's market but then again, it is more than evident that you and your friends are not rocket scientists. Like most people, when I buy a home, I negotiate to get the property for LESS than list. When I negotiate a car, I negotiate to pay less than sticker. When I buy something on Ebay, I never bid the maximum. I am smart enough to know that for things that are purchased through negotiations have an inflated price to accomodate the negotiation process. So, both you and your buddies paid more than market value. I am not sure it is something to brag about because of it proves what I say about remaining silent when you will embarrass yourself if you don't. You really must work on this skill.

And you actually buy the argument that the Heights is going to see slower growth? Have you stepped outside your door recently? Do you actually live in the Heights? The neighborhood is absolutely booming. Restaurants are coming in, new retail is going up all around (some good, some really bad) and plenty of people are putting money into rehabbing historic properties. One on Ashland is on the market for 695k. Outside of a historic district, it would have been a tear down. If single family renovations on the market for 695k are examples of slow growth, then bring it on! The fact of the matter is that well restored historic homes in the Heights absolutely fly off the shelf. My friends have recently purchased bungalows admist all the historic ordinance fight and had to bid up by 10% to land a sale.

And I don't fear rising property values. I am counting on them to help finance an addition. But, I bet you have never challenged your HCAD assessment and voted for Prop 1. As for the dig on my income (even though you don't even know me), it is exactly what I would expect from the anti-preservationists.

The fact is that to this date no one has had the balls to take the necessary steps to start a campaign to challenge Parker. I don't think she is god's gift to Mayors. But, she does get stuff done. Sometimes the Margaret Thatcher approach works. She got the drainage initiative passed and is doing some serious heavy lifting to get the budget balanced. She won't lose reelection if the challenger's platform is that Mayor Parker doesn't play nice with other council members and supports historic preservation. People can blog all they want. But someone will have to get the guts to run against her. So far, that person is no one.

Good luck with the legal challenge. Check out Penn Central v. NY. It is well settled law. And go back to grade school and learn what an ordinance is. It is a law of a municipality that can be changed by a vote of the governing body of the municipality, even if the reatlors and property rights nuts scream and yell about it. You all wanted a resurvey, got one that was on much better terms than originally proposed, failed to get the votes and now are blaiming everyone else but yourselves for your failed campaign. You lost. You only have yourselves to blame. The Heights is now fully protected.

All this wild speculation is hilarious. I do live in the Heights and in a bungalow and have a blue sign in my yard. My home has been renovated and expanded, and not with a ridiculous, ugly, poor design concept "camelback." And I protest my value every year and voted against Prop 1, as if that has anything to do with anything.

No one has stepped up to run because they had to wait UNTIL JANUARY but your clear lack of knowledge about the politcal process hasn't stopped you from making any other uninformed, absurd statements so feel free to make a few more. My dad always says it is better to remain silent and appear ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Your dad should have taught you the same practice.

Know all about Penn Central and a whole lot more cases. I'm not going to explain anything here for obvious reasons. It will be much more fun to watch you explode into a pile of dust when the time comes for the last laugh. But you are giong to have to do better than just the Penn Central case if you think that is all there is to it.

So, time will tell. The rest of the folks here just need know there are a number of remedies in the works. S3mh, you should simply keep repeating to yourself - they lost, we won, they lost, we won, they lost, we won. I've heard you can actually change brain chemistry if you tell yourself something long enough and often enough. You might actually convince yourself. While you all are telling yourself you won, they lost, we will be continuing our efforts. And enjoying your arrogant boasting for a good giggle. I had a very good one today as we found another "ooops" and it's a doozie! But you are right about one thing, the law of a municipality can be changed by that municipality. We are so glad you understand that part, at least.

As much as I've enjoyed this little banter with you, I must return to more productive activities related to the ordinance and the rigged process we were dealt. The rest of the readers/posters can be comforted in the old adage that good things come to those who wait. More to come kiddies, more to come so enjoy the ride!

I live in a 1925 bungalow, along a street which is 90+% original bungalows, not in a historic district. I am in woodland heights, but outside of what would be the historic district if they turn woodland heights into a historic district. I've been heavily involved with the neighborhood for 4 years (the same length of time I've lived in Texas) , lived here for close to 3, and been a homeowner for a year and a half ish. I bought my house because I'm obsessed with architecture and I love the style/quality of the craftsmen bungalows. I don't want to see bungalows destroyed, and I'd gladly support strengthening of historic districts if they were reasonable. The city should be working with us to help keep these houses standing, not against us (if you fail to see how this is working against us you are more rediculous than I previously thought). I believe having clear cut rules such as minimum lot size, minimum setback would prevent a majority of what is generally feared (mcmansions on small lots). The city should be making it EASIER to renovate your historic home by providing legitimate tax breaks for renovations. Imagine if the city provided incentives for builders to renovate bungalows, I would have no problem requiring the plans to be approved by the HAHC for legitmate tax breaks/incentives. Maybe waive some permit fees? I'm quite certain that a majority of people could support something along these lines. But this isn't want the preservationist wanted, they wanted it their way, they wanted it now, they didn't care who they pissed off to get it done. Congratulations on your victory. You got what you wanted, but you also caused a major turmoil in our neighborhood. Is saving a few more bungalows worth pissing off a lot of your neighbors? One of the greatest parts of the neighborhood is how ecclectic it is, and I believe that the passing of the Historic Ordinance has done a great blow to that part of the neighborhood. Is physical history more valuable to you than cultural? From reading your post before, i'm guessing so.

As far saying "you only had to get a simple majority"... I refuse to believe you really feel that way. The 2008 presidential election was a record setting vote, ~56% of voters voted. If non voting would have cast a vote for spaghetti monster, guess who'd be president. And this wasn't even a vote, you had to send in filled out forms and etc. within 15 days during the holidays. If your such a majority (as you claim) why not just put it to a straight vote?

Your internet tough guy threats are hilarious.

How can you support Mayor Parker???.... she is pro-Walmart!

These folks only care about the structure, not the people living in them. You should have read the blogs following the fire and death of a beloved neighbor. All they could talk about is her "inappropriate" home. It was sick, sick, sick!

It wasn't an election. It was a re-survey. The rules were clear. In fact, the resurvey process was modified a number of times by council to make it better for the anti-preservationists. It wasn't put up to an election because that would have made it easier to repeal a district than to create one. If you want to overrule what my elected official has done, you need to get organized and get a majority to do it. The anti-preservationists failed because residents in the Heights actually do support the revised ordinance and are tired of all the problems the anti-preservationists (many of whom do not live in the Heights) have caused in this process.

And you are right that there could have been a better ordinance with better tax breaks and a complete waiver of permit fees instead of just discounts on permit fees. But the debate was never about getting to the best possible ordinance. It was about killing it off so the realtors could maximize their commissions. Without this interfernce, we would have probably been able to get a much better ordinance. The fact of the matter is that Heights residents are so tired of the McMansion abuse that they would rather deal with a flawed ordinance and government bureacracy than see the Heights turned into Bellaire, substituting McVics for McMansions.

Parker wouldn't allow a straight vote or any expression of support because she knew there wasn't enough support to fill a bucket. That was the ONLY reason it wasn't put up for a real vote. Parker should have followed the laws of this state and her own ordinance and the fact that she didn't makes the whole thing vulnerable. But no one cares what you think or how much you strut around the Internet claiming this false victory. In the end, when the fat lady sings, you will have to shut up and listen to the sound of real democracy.

I am thoroughly enjoying reading about how all you anit-preservationists are going to do this that and the other thing. It is over. You had your remedy. You failed. Failed. All you had to do was get a simple majority to reject the new ordinance. That should have been like shooting fish in a barrel if this ordinance was such a radical violation of people's property rights. File all the lawsuits you want. It is well settled law that historic districts are not takings. And talk all you want about how you are going to get rid of Mayor Parker. According to off the cuff, it looks like she will run for reelection virtually unopposed. No one with any shot at beating her has taken any steps to run and time is running out. Good luck trying to get a candidate to run on an issue that affects a few hundred people in a City of three million (and don't even give me the argument that the Mayor intends on making every inch of the City a historic district, that is about as bad as the paint color argument).

It is over. You lost. You lost because you did not respect the intelligence of the homeowners in the Heights. All the mailings about how the historic ordinance would destroy property values, dictate HVAC systems, and lead to decay in the Heights made it clear that the blue sign crowd really wanted "no" to both historic districts and historic preservation and "yes" to higher realtor commissions, builder and architect profits.

Your clan couldn't have gotten even 5% support in 30 days and thanks to the Mayor's actions in ignoring the ordinance provisions, you got a free pass. That won't hold up however. She had to follow the law and she didn't. Good luck with that. As far as shoot fish in a barrel, it took you YEARS AND YEAR to cheat and lie and harrass your neighbors to get to 51% for a completely different ordinance that didn't have any consequences. The ordinance opposition wasn't willing to stoop to your tactics. They sent 1/4 of the number of flyers your group sent and still managed to get 35 + percent in 30 days. No way you could have acheived those kinds of numbers and everyone knows it so your claims give us all a good chuckle.

As far as no opposition for Parker, you keep right on thinking that way. We love that you think those interested in her job don't smell blood in the water. Opposition to Parker is not just here and not just about this issue. Every article in the newspaper has people blogging and posting about how much they regret voting for her. She didn't win by much and her image is suffering because of her arrogance and the bad advice she gets. So, keep up the arrogance about that too. We need a good laugh every day.

The realtors have said over and over that they aren't affected by whether a property is not in a historic district although those nice restrictions you want affect the sellers of old homes that need work. No one cares but you so keep on thinking they do. They've expressed concern that the areas surrounding the districts will continue to see improvements while the properties in the district will see much slower growth, which is of course, what you want because you don't have two sticks to rub together so you fear rising property values - essentially what is at issue here for your group, not preservation. So your claims just prove your total lack of understanding of anything related to this ordinance. Again, a good laugh though.

Yes yes, we know you think you won, we lost, blah, blah, blah. It will continue to amuse everyone while we move on to the next efforts to get real due process from people who can't be bullied or bought by promises of political favors by Parker or scared off by your little band of hysterical preservationists. We LOVE LOVE LOVE it. Remember, he who laughs last, laughs best.

http://swamplot.com/houstons-historic-districts-will-remain-as-they-are/2011-01-04/

It is over. All districts surveyed failed to muster the 51% needed to opt out.

Yes, I know. You all are going to crow on and on about the survey process. Do yourselves a favor and move on. Anyone in the Heights who was against the ordinance had to have been living under a rock to not know what was going on. The opposition sent out piles of mailers. And if there was such overwhelming opposition, as Bill Baldwin and others claimed, it should have been no problem to hit 51%.

It is over. Opponents had their chance to make their case and failed. The Heights wants to preserve its historic buildings and get rid of the block busting builders and their realtor friends (who had no problem advertising the historic districts as a benefit in property listings). Lastly, don't think that people are going to foregive and forget. We know who was funding the fight against our community. We will remember who you are when it is time to do an addition. We will remember when we sell our homes and buy another. We will remember when we renovate. The Heights is a small town in a big city. We have fought for years to protect our historic neighborhoods and have won. We will remember who was with us and who was against us.

I forgot to mention that I am sure Council will appreciate the threats you made here. Apparently you think you can prevent people who opposed the ordinance from renovating or adding on to their homes. Council should love that! They also will love that you imply that you are keeping a list of those who opposed to make their lives miserable. I'll be sure to send this to Responsible Historic Presevation so they can let the City Council know about your vendetta mentality.

http://swamplot.com/houstons-historic-districts-will-remain-as-they-are/2011-01-04/

It is over. All districts surveyed failed to muster the 51% needed to opt out.

Yes, I know. You all are going to crow on and on about the survey process. Do yourselves a favor and move on. Anyone in the Heights who was against the ordinance had to have been living under a rock to not know what was going on. The opposition sent out piles of mailers. And if there was such overwhelming opposition, as Bill Baldwin and others claimed, it should have been no problem to hit 51%.

It is over. Opponents had their chance to make their case and failed. The Heights wants to preserve its historic buildings and get rid of the block busting builders and their realtor friends (who had no problem advertising the historic districts as a benefit in property listings). Lastly, don't think that people are going to foregive and forget. We know who was funding the fight against our community. We will remember who you are when it is time to do an addition. We will remember when we sell our homes and buy another. We will remember when we renovate. The Heights is a small town in a big city. We have fought for years to protect our historic neighborhoods and have won. We will remember who was with us and who was against us.

s3mh - Move on? Didn't you realize the second we saw the flawed, designed to fail transition process, this was Phase 1? No one ever expected that the process which was designed to acheive the results you and your merry band of preservation kooks wanted would be successful. No one! So, we started working on Phase 2. And we acheived far more oppostion that you could support, so your claim that there wasn't overwhelming opposition is laughable. 800 signatures in 30 days was a HUGE success. It was never believable that we could get 51% in 15 days but you never counted on ~35% in 30 days, did you? You had to lie and deceive people just to get 51% to agree to a meaningless restriction. So, take care when you boast about a lack of opposition. You have no idea how much oppostion there really is.

As far as it being over, for your involvement, it is. You will no longer be able to rig the process. You will no longer be able to scare people into thinking that this terrible ordinance is their only option. You have no idea who funded the opposition, although we know who funded yours. You have no idea what resources we bring to bear. You have no idea what strength in numbers can accomplish. Our remedies for the Mayor taking our property rights in a rigged process designed to fail are far from over. She has screwed up so much of this that it is vulnerable on many fronts. And she is now vulnerable politically on many issues and so is the ordinance because of her arrogance. She wanted to put all her eggs in one basket when she could have had a win and it would have been over. Now she will have to defend this on so many fronts that she is bound to fail on one of them, and to her detriment. As one Council Member said recently, when you do something the wrong way, it usually doesn't hold up. A large number of Council are disgusted with this whole thing and while the Mayor might have a few of them over a barrel with political strong-arming, she is only good for those promises while she is in office and she has the money to deliver on them, and she doesn't have any money to deliver on them now.

No one cares what your little tiny band of hysterical preservationst think or do. Its you who should be worried about what our community will not forgive. And we benefit from your thinking that the opposition was just a few realtors. Keep on thinking that way. We thrive on your understimation of us. You might have won a battle but the war, well that is a different story entirely so we don't care what you remember. You don't have support, never have and in the end, right and the truth will prevail. So keep on boasting and bragging and claiming victory for something that is far from settled. George Dubya was very eager to claim "Mission Accomplished" to his embarrassment and utter failure - so too will be the fate of trying to inflict this on a community that doesn't want it. Mission NOT Accomplished!

SC, you are absolutely dead on about this ordinance and what it means as well as about the city. It was clear on Tuesday night that their intention is to chip away at our property rights. Marlene Gafrick, the Planning Director said that their plan was to "incrementally make the ordinance more restrictive" and that has been the plan all along. Sharie Beale said so in a HAHC meeting two years ago. She also said in an email to keep it quiet because they were still collecting signatures. This is local government over stepping and not caring how they do it.

Heights residents have a lot to be worried about.

From the "explanation"....

Let me respond to their response. You have NO data whatsoever to support your contention that "almost all" who signed wanted to stop demolitions. Further, your claim that "NOBODY" signed to allow 90 day waiting periods is an outright fabrication. In fact, many of your petition gatherers TOUTED the 90 day rule as proof that the historic district was not too onerous. They pushed the belief that the designation was what they wanted, and not to tell people what to do with their homes. How do I know this? I was approached by at least 3 different petitioners before signing the petition...a signature that I am now pulling from the petition.

No agreement was made? The agreement is implicit! You present the historic district ordinance...including the 90 day provision...and ask people to sign the petition to the City to create the district PER THE CITY ORDINANCE, and then claim that this isn't what you meant? That is known as BAIT AND SWITCH! It is a fraud perpetrated on those who signed the petition.

It is abundantly clear that those pushing this change have no interest in integrity or honesty. They are only concerned with their own agenda, even if it is not the wishes of the majority. If "almost all" petition signers wanted the changes, and "noone" wants the 90 day rule, why the need to bait and switch? Why not have a ratification of the new ordinance? If the historic district was all that is claimed, wouldn't your neighbors rush to ratify the changes? I think we all know why this is not being proposed.

Good luck pushing "no means no" onto your unsuspecting neighbors. I pledge to educate my neighbors on the meaning of "bait and switch".

There is a group of people who are organizing to protest the changes. I will post the information about how to get in touch with this group in a few days. We need help getting the word out to the community, knocking on doors, getting signatures, etc. There is a lot of misinformation coming from a very vocal few people. We intend to get the word out and get out the FACTS, as opposed to hyperbole and scare tactic propoganda and will have the documentation we need. If you want to help, stay tuned and get involved!

There is a group of people who are organizing to protest the changes. I will post the information about how to get in touch with this group in a few days. We need help getting the word out to the community, knocking on doors, getting signatures, etc. There is a lot of misinformation coming from a very vocal few people. We intend to get the word out and get out the FACTS, as opposed to hyperbole and scare tactic propoganda and will have the documentation we need. If you want to help, stay tuned and get involved!

Below is an email that is currently circulating regarding this topic, including City Council dates, email addresses, etc. This email does not reflect my opinion on this topic, and I'm only posting it to keep interested parties educated. I will try to post the attachments which have more details abotu what is being proposed. I, for one, did sign up for the historic district, and did so specifically with the knowledge of the 90-day wait period. Any changes should be voted on again in my opinion...this would not be a minor change.

Personally, I like the 90-day rule, as it allows for suggestions from the preservationists, and my guess is that some/most people would take constructive suggestions and apply them if possible. The only way I would support removing it would be if the residents of the district were allowed vote on proposed demos/construction and not just a small handful of people.

Here is the email that I received:Explantemporary ord 2010.pdfCITY OF HOUSTON E-MAIL.docAGENDA 60210.doc

TO HISTORIC PRESERVATIONISTS THROUGHOUT HOUSTON:

The ordinance which will "temporarily discontinue" demolitions and incompatible new construction in historic districts is on the Agenda for the City Council meeting Wednesday, June 2. We need to show support for this proposed ordinance! The Agenda item is attached to this email. Please note that the ordinance will also discontinue temporarily applications for additional historic districts, a last minute change which was apparently made to get the Greater Houston Builders Association not to oppose the temporary ordinance.

That shows that our opponents have been busy lobbying City Council and the Mayor's office. Mis-information about what the temporary ordinance will do, as well as what the new permanent ordinance which will hopefully follow will do, has also been circulating. Attached is "Explanation of Proposed Changes in Historic Preservation Ordinance," which accurately describes the content of the temporary ordinance (except the temporary discontinuance of accepting applications for new historic districts), and the status of possible changes in the permanent ordinance. The paper also describes what opponents of "no means no" are saying and some answers to their claims.

"No means no" will not happen without strong support from the historic preservation community. It is very important to show up and/or speak in support of the temporary ordinance at 9 a.m. Wednesday, June 2 at City Hall Chambers and follow that up with an even bigger show in the coming weeks. Since the deal with the builders was made, this temporary ordinance will probably pass, but we need to give the Mayor and City Council the comfort of knowing there is widespread support for it, which will also show them we support the permanent change to "no means no." Therefore, let's

• Call the city secretary Tuesday, June 1 (832-393-1100) and sign up to speak for one or two or three minutes at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, June 2 (you get reached faster if you request a shorter time to speak).
• Every historic district should send at least one speaker, in order to show that there is support for "no means no" throughout the City.
• Come to the City Council meeting Wednesday, June 2, at 9 a.m. to speak or support those who do speak.
• Our message is that we are for the ordinance which temporarily discontinues the "90 day waivers," and we are for a "no means no" permanent ordinance.
• Email or telephone the Mayor and City Council that you support the temporary ordinance and a "no means no" permanent ordinance without having to repetition. A list of the email addresses and telephone numbers for the Mayor and all councilmembers is attached to this email.

For future action, I suggest that every district send a representative and every interested individual attend the Mayor's Task Force meetings which are to consider amendments to the permanent ordinance. These meetings have been taking place on the 6th Floor at 611 Walker on Mondays from noon to 1:30 and are open to the public. Councilmember Sue Lovell is chairperson, and Councilmember Ed Gonzalez is vice-chair.

What they are trying to do is prevent any future demolitions of homes considered historically "Contributing" or "Potentially Contributing". If you own a property on the attached list and if it falls in the "C" or "PC" category, your only option will be a remodel, no new construction. It is not clear what the new guidelines will be for remodeling. The current guidelines have some silly limitations such as no Hardi siding etc.

Now that the districts are created, the HAHC is pulling the old "bait and switch" and attempting to roll the Historic Districts into Protected Historic Districts meaning no demolitions. Property values will ultimately go down, which is what some residents want. Lower lot values mean lower property taxes.

Isn't it nice to be told how you can use your own property?

Chester, there will be a lot more to come on this subject. This is NOT what property owners agreed to. In fact, there is public information out there that they were pushing changes before the designation was approved. There will be opportunity for the public to speak up about it and I will post it here. They will not be able to sneak these changes in as they did with the last ones.