s3mh

It is really a high end seafood restaurant much more than a traditional Mexican restaurant. More like if Hugo's and Reef merged than El Tiempo or the Original Ninfas on Navigation. I have been and had lobster tail over red beet risotto. Wife had snapper Veracruz. You can get similar snapper dishes at Mexican restaurants, but no where near the quality. You certainly cannot get the lobster dish. The restaurant is very good. There are definitely better places in Houston, but it is worth a try and is something unique.

La Fisheria. http://houston.culturemap.com/news/food/08-06-13-bring-kids-no-service-houston-restaurant-bans-children-at-night/ They do not seat people with children under 8 after 7 pm. The chef is a celebrity in Mexico. I think the restaurant became popular for big family gatherings/celebrations as it is fairly high end, has a celebrity chef, but is still has relatively accessible food that will please most tastes. Whenever you do a big dinner like that with kids, the service gets slow and the kids get squirmy. I think they will do fine with the people who want to have a night out on the town. But, they may seriously alienate people who would have otherwise brought the family and dined before 7 pm. This sort of thing really sets off the Heights mommy mafia.

There is no such thing as binding precedent from a municipal committee. A municipal committee that is given discretion to implement an ordinance cannot be challenged in court based on the fact that the committee exercised its discretion in a different way on another occasion. Of course, that argument can be relevant and persuasive in the appeal process. But it is not the same kind of legal precedent that occurs when a court of appeals publishes an opinion. In fact, it is about as far from that as imaginable. At the last HAHC meeting two additions were denied and one deferred. 11 proposed additions were approved. All three of the applications for new construction were approved. Your claim that families will stop coming to the Heights because of the historic ordinance are the kind of claims opponents were making to try to scare people into opposing the ordinance. The reality is that, if you have the $, there is more than enough housing in the HDs for families and plenty of additions are being approved.

Fixtures International built a driveway across their property that connects Allston and 5th. But, you are correct. There is a roadblock on the actual street. There is still ROW that connects Allston and 5th. All that would need to be done to reconnect those streets is to add about 10-20 yards of roadway. The intersection of 6th and Yale is going to bear the brunt of the traffic from the new apartments. There are no plans to put in a turn signal. That means that NB traffic on Yale would wait for people to turn left into the development and EB traffic on 6th would wait for people turning north on Yale St. (but not as long because traffic WB on 6th would mostly be residents). 5th street should be improved to provide additional access to Yale St. to mitigate potential backups, especially on Yale. Trammell Crowe can live with having a slightly smaller complex.

You do not have to spend anywhere close to 1.5 mil to get into decent public schools inside beltway 8. There are lots of houses in the 400-500k range down around Braeswood that are either zoned to Bellaire or Lamar. And Sugar Land is only a few miles further out than the Memorial Area. The time saved living in the Memorial area v. Sugar Land is nominal considering the huge difference in pricing for homes. Sure, it is a world of difference between Cypress and Memorial. But, Sugar Land might add 10-15 min on your commute v. Memorial. Hardly worth 1 mil in housing costs. Housing isn't a bad place to put your money, especially if you have liabilities in your work (homestead provides 100% exemption from judgment creditors). But, housing is illiquid and you cannot reduce the amount you invest each month. You are stuck with your mortgage no matter what happens. That may be a problem if things get tough or if you have a big investment opportunity but are stuck putting too much of your money in your house. Which goes back to my original point. If you are buying a house for 1.5 mil in Houston, you should not even feel the expense of private school. If you do, you are buying too much house.

cm Cohen announced that she will vote against the sale of Allston to Trammell Crowe for the apartment complex.

My point is that if you are spending such a huge premium on your residence, you should hardly feel $600k for schools. If public schools do impact your budget that much, you shouldn't be spending 1 mil plus on a house. Sure, you save lots of money when you get your kids into good public schools over private. Duh. But, there is absolutely no reason to have to spend 1.5 mil to get your kids into good public schools in the Houston area. For 400-500k, you can get a huge house in Sugar Land zoned to Clements. Same for the Woodlands. The extra mil spent to get into Spring Branch/Memorial is a terrible excess if you do not have enough income to pay out 600k for private schools without feeling it.

The first confirmed lease is for Guitar Center. They will take up @12,000 sq ft. Kind of interesting to see Guitar Center expanding after internet sales have taken such a big chunk out of musical instrument retail (they killed off Mars Music and H&H with ease). I have also heard rumors that LA Fitness, not lifetime, is looking at another location at the Yale St. Market.

I am not saying that the skyline is ugly or that a skyline view in Houston is a bad thing. I am just saying that it isn't desirable enough to be worth the view of the cruddy condo complex. It is a wash. For 1.6 mil, you can do much better if you want a skyline view. Skyline views just do not move expensive properties in Houston. Look at this view: http://search.har.com/engine/dispSearch.cfm?mlnum=71469752&v=s Way better view than on Ridge. But this has been sitting on the market since January. If Houston had such a spectacular skyline, people would be lining up for this. But, they are not. Really, the moral of the story is that ultra modern custom homes at this price point are hard to sell because most people in that market segment can afford to build their own. The whole fun of these moderns is to work with an architect to put in your own special little touches so you can show them off to your friends. I know someone who is renting one inside the loop because the owner/architect couldn't sell it (energy housing stipends can be a lot of fun).

Houston has a bland skyline. It is true. It isn't ugly. But the west facing skyline is mostly modern/post modern stuff. Go anywhere else in the US and show someone a picture of our skyline. 9-10 people wouldn't be able to name the city. And why would you want to block me? Because I am not in line with the anti-community/pro-developer meme that permeates this message board? Are people on HAIF so thin skinned that they cannot handle opposing viewpoints? What are you afraid of?

I think I am going to now call posts like this "HAIFing". I support the very limited historic districts that take up a fraction of the land mass in the City of Houston. I have even said in the past that I thought the Glennbrook HD was too big and was just a way to try to keep people from doing low quality DIY improvements that would reduce property values. The wonderful mods in Glennbrook are in a much smaller area than the 1200 home HD. But when the argument actually gets down to the real issue, it becomes necessary for some HAIFing. It is well settled law in the US that historic preservation is part of the government police powers. It is also beyond dispute that raftsman and Victorian residential architecture is prized and appreciated. So, instead of arguing those points and sounding foolish (like Ross), you have to make absurd extrapolations of my position to try to make a point. I would never want an HD in Rice Military. There are a few small pockets in the Heights that might work as a new HD. But, generally, I think the city has all the HDs it needs to preserve historic architecture. Eastwood has some excellent craftsmen homes, but too much damage has been done to the neighborhood from demos and bad renovations. But the only way to mount a compelling attack on historic preservation is to inflate it into something it isn't. That has been the MO from the beginning for opponents with their flyers warning about crumbling houses and paint color.

There is very little if any premium for houses on White Oak with city views. Those city views come with a front seat to I-10 road noise and nightly softball games at Stude park. It is a wash if anything. The condos aren't a ghetto, but they are pretty ugly and will probably just crumble given the low ass'n fees. And the multifamily next door is another big risk given recent developments in the neighborhood. I think the Ridge house will get a smidge more just because the architecture is a bit more mainstream modern. But, the crappiness of the location is going to make it very close. Houston's skyline is pretty bland and not worth it when you also have to look out onto a parking lot and junky condos.

2219 Harvard sold for 299,900 in 2012. It is on a 4675 sq ft lot. That's $64 a sq ft. 308 E. 23rd sold for 231,000 on a 4100 sq ft lot. That's $57 a sq ft. Both of those were lot value sales. But that metric is wholly irrelevant to the very subjective issue of which street is nicer to someone who is looking to plunk down 1 mil + on a custom modern home. Price per sq ft on raw land is a metric that is only relevant to a builder and their margins. It can vary significantly depending on what kind of product builders are doing in the area. Look at it this way: Take the exact same house on Ridge. Keep all things constant (city view, Travis schools, etc.), but build one on a street that is all single family residential and one that looks in on the butt end of a large condo complex. Which property will get more on the market? If you think that the one that is across the street from a large condo complex will have no effect on its value compared to one that is not, you are just being silly.

You have jumped into the middle of an argument with TGM. TGM resents any interference on the rights of real property owners for the greater good of the community and equates such efforts with all things evil. I was pointing out that from the beginning of the English system of real property law up to today, the bundle of real property rights has always been subject to what the judiciary and legislature has considered necessary for the greater good. I picked implied easements because they are one of the oldest concepts of real property law. I was not intended to equate them with historic preservation rules. I was merely demonstrating that there has never a time when the community had no right to interfere with the quiet use and enjoyment of land (that is the legal concept) for the greater good of the community. Thus, TGM's argument of "what right do you have to tell me what to do with my propity" flies in the face of 500+ years of real property law. It is a legitimate question to ask whether the interference goes too far or is not necessary for the greater good of the community. And that question was certainly put to the political process and debated many times. But, TGM wants a world were that question never even gets debated because landowner's rights are superior to any interference for the greater good of the community. That is an ultra-libertarian view that is so far out there that it has never been adopted anywhere aside from places where any form of government authority has completely broken down (Somalia?).

We are talking about a specific address, not an entire neighborhood. Woodlands Heights has always been more expensive than Sunset Heights. Bayland, Woodland and Highland are some of the best streets in the area. But that is because they are tree lined streets full of beautiful homes. If all those streets were looking at the butt end of a condo complex, they would not go for $45 per sq ft.

I would call it a draw, at best. Advantage to Harvard. The entire south side of Ridge is the condo complex. While you do get a view of downtown (I never said you did not), you get an equal view of the parking lot at the condo complex: http://search.har.com/engine/dispSearch.cfm?mlnum=31762194&v=s Red Scare conveniently leaves out the second floor photos and falls for the well positioned camera work of the realtor's photographer that minimizes the view of the condos. That is a pretty lousy view for 1.6 mil. The block on Harvard is single family with a nice park right behind the house. It is a half mile walk to 19th street, close to the jogging path and bike path. I think the Harvard house will sell for less because the design is just too far out there, not because of the location. Also, 1 mil+ will get you into a lot of choice neighborhoods inside the loop. Most people would prefer a typical brick/stucco thing in RO, West U over a crazy modern in the Heights or would want to design their own modern. So, I would imagine that the property on Ridge will come down a bit before it sells.

Actually it is a blatant effort at intimidation and harassment. I have seen you do it to others. There is no substance to your childish nitpicking other that to discourage people who do not share your views from posting on your little message board. And it is my goal to make sure that people who do not share your extremist libertarian ideas are not shut out by your intimidation and harassment.

I am responding to TGM. Blame him for having crazed libertarian views. But, it is interesting to apply commonly held arguments against historic district to the right of access easement. For example, a popular one is "if you want to save a house, buy it with your own money". Same argument could go for implied easements. If you wanted to have access to the road, you should have also bought the property that is in the way. Why should government be able to force me to allow someone to put a road across my property when they knew there was no access when they bought the property? And the idea that the ordinance does not allow for "fair use" (that is not a legal concept) of your property is silly. If the ordinance was really such an imposition, you would see property values plummet. The exact opposite has happened. That is because the restrictions are minimal and manageable. And there are real benefits that come with the restrictions that many people desire (just ask the folks who live near Morrison Heights if they would pay more to be in a HD).

I never said that 57s were the most collectible cars on the road. That is you just trying to change the subject after you looked foolish claiming that everyone rips out the engine and turns 57s into hot rods. That may be what you thought when you read hot rod magazines when you were a kid, but 57s are valued for being restored to as close to original condition as possible. Put anything aftermarket in them and the value plummets. That info comes from someone who has restored over a hundred t-birds, goes to t-bird shows, is in t-bird clubs and bores their relatives with talk about t-birds at every family function.

Common law access easements have existed for hundreds of years and are not voluntary. They are imposed by law to prevent a property owner from unreasonably blocking access to another property by refusing to allow the adjoining property owner to cross their land. The entire bundle of property rights is summed up as the right to exclude. My point is that the ultra libertarian idea that all government regulation of land use is nothing more than an illegitimate "committee" foisting their ideas onto a landowner is completely foreign to the most basic and fundamental concepts of property rights. From the very beginning of English property law, landowners were required to concede sticks from the bundle for the greater good of the community.

Pretty sure another old multifamily is getting flipped by the same people who did the one up the street on W 16th. This is the run down multifamily complex on the corner of Ashland and 16th, across the street from where they are finishing up building the last of the Sullivan houses. People must have been on month to month leases because the building cleared out in a hurry.

No one needed a Walmart in the Heights. There were already two within a short drive of the Heights. Kelo is interesting because it shows how constitutional democracy can work so much better than fictional libertarian utopias. I agree with the supreme court that the constitution does not restrict the eminent domain rights of government to only public use. That has actually been the rule long before Kelo. Eminent domain has been a hugely valuable tool in breaking down barriers to development due to land owners who refuse to sell in blighted areas. The issue in Kelo was to what extent the government has to show public benefit. The court basically left that to the political process, but J. Kennedy's concurrence leaves open the possibility of an analysis of whether the benefit is primarily to the private entity with only a marginal benefit to the public. But, here is the part that smashes your paranoid "committee" ramblings. We have a system of government that has a messy, but ultimately effective system to deal with these issues. Many states enacted legislation in response to Kelo. Most states have limited takings to instances where eminent domain is needed to clear blighted property. Texas is pretty strict about the public use requirement, so much so that pipe line companies are going nuts trying to figure out how to get past the courts on the common carrier public use exception (the biggest irony is that Koch Industries has been a party to lawsuits seeking to make use of the common carrier exception--serious hypocrisy from the poster children of libertarianism). So, adults can deal with these issues and work them out in a free democratic country without having to put on a tin foil hat and rant about how gubment gonna git yuh propity. Of course, I would oppose takings for purely private use. But I would not want to take away all eminent domain rights and make landowners micro-monarchs in society.

You will need to leave the United States if you want to find a place where your extremist libertarian views are shared by others. It has long been decided in this country that the police powers of the state to preserve the welfare, safety, health and morals of the public. We have long since rejected Locke's flawed theory of property rights. Locke believed that property rights were obtained not by taking a bag of money earned from other endeavors and buying land, but by combining one's labor with the land to take the land from a state of nature to a state to be used for a dwelling, crops and other purposes. What Locke did not recognize was that ownership of land intrinsically affected the rights of the community. Thus, in the earliest recognition of real property law in England that is the basis for our system, you immediately see the recognition of a superior right of the community to an easement across a freehold estate in order to access another parcel of land or to be able to travel on established roads. Thus from the very beginnings of real property law it was recognized that the right to exclude was subject to a greater right of the welfare of the community. Your hyperbole about people the tyrrany of the majority knowing better than the poor little land owner is always the rhetorical tool used to try to make a very reasonable and beneficial restriction on property rights seem more ownerous than it really is. Historic preservation laws are ubiquitous in the United States. Just about every municipality from New York to Waxahachie has laws protecting historic architecture that restrict property rights. These laws recognize the value that has been created by the community by preserving historic buildings and protects that value from the momentary whims of the guy with a big bag of money. That is because it has never been the case in our real property jurisprudence that real property ownership granted an exemption from the democratically established rights of the community. Your claim of the tyrrany of the majority is really a call for a society where rights are a commodity reserved to the highest bidder. You believe that your rights are superior to over 200 years of constitutional democracy and 500 years of common law just because you had one dollar more to bid for a piece of land. That is truly arbitrary and a concept that has never existed in civilized society outside the musings of message boards and Ron Paul newsletters.

I would not expect you to understand my comments as your goal on this message board is not to engage in an adult conversation but to have a childish battle with those who disagree with you. It is actually more and more a very sad thing to see.

Worse that before what? Were you around in 1912? Was it better when Phineas Mulligan was able to sell moonshine at the weekly hootenanny in the back of the seed and feed? Or are you actually saying that the Heights is getting worse because of the dry restriction? Seems like you would be alone in having that opinion. Saying that the Heights could be better is certainly an arguable point, but saying it is worse than before is just silly. Also, in a democracy, the majority's opinion is what is important, not yours or mine. In 1937, the Texas Supreme Court held that the Heights could remain dry even though prohibition had ended. The court noted that even though the municipality of the City of Houston Heights had been annexed and ceased to exist, a majority vote by the residents of the same area could make the area wet again. It has been over 75 years since that opinion and the dry restrictions stand. But you are free to get up at a Heights Ass'n or Superneighborhood meeting and make a proposal. I am sure that everyone will love the idea of having their own White Oak Blvd in their back yard.