s3mh

If you are going to call people an idiot, you might want to make sure you know what you are talking about to avoid sounding like an . . . . First, doctors are not liable for accidents. A plaintiff must show a departure from the professional standard of care. If a doctor's hand slips during surgery, he is not liable. If a doctor fails to keep a sponge count and leaves one inside of you, he has departed from the professional standard of care and is liable. Accidents are not malpractice. And if your claim is against an emergency room worker, you have to show that the negligence was "wilful and wanton", or, essentially that they knew they were screwing up while they were screwing up (here is a nice story about how tort reform has made emergency room drs virtually imune from liability: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/19tttort.html) Second, every medmal plaintiff's lawyer in the state works on a contingency fee. They will typically get 40% of the patients recovery whether by settlement or by judgment if a lawsuit is filed AFTER the plaintiff reimburses the attorney for all the costs incurred (experts, transcipts, copies, faxes, etc.). The only time the court gets involved is if the plaintiff is awarded future damages. The court will reduce those to present value in order to assess attorney's fees. Of course, the party that is entitled to full recovery is the hospital/insurance company or any one who has a medical lien for any treatment needed as a result of the malpractice. The plaintiff's lawyer has to negotiate down the lien in order to have enough for his client to have something left after attorney's fees and expense are taken out of what is left after the liens are paid out of the recovery. There is no "bifurcation" of attorney's fees. The fees and expenses come out of the plaintiff/client's recovery. The defendant does not pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees or expenses. Those are always taken out of the plaintiff's recovery. Third, the statutory max is on soft damages: pain and suffering. There is no max on future earnings, past present meds, and so on. Thus, if you are old and retired, good luck finding a medmal attorney. Fourth, Drs are insured and are rarely bankrupted, muchless financially inconvenienced by lawsuits. The insurance covers attorney's fees, expenses and indemnity. Unless a doctor is underinsured, they will usually only be out the deductible. And, finally, some doctors do hurt people intentionally. There are cases of OBGYNs raping women, drs operating while they were drunk or on cocaine and drs ignoring patients' problems in order to keep their social schedule. Doctors are people. Most are good, but some are bad. Malpractice lawsuits are the only way to keep the bad ones out of practice. Licensing boards are made up of doctors and never pull licenses.

This is spot on. Med mal lawsuit filings dropped by over 90% in Texas after tort reform passed. In order to file a med mal case in Texas, you need an affidavit from a doctor who has reviewed the case and concludes that the doctor breached the applicable standard of care. It usually costs anywhere from $25k to $100k to get that affidavit, depending on the volume of the records, complexity of the case and need for different specialists to opine in a single case, and the total bill for medical experts, economists, etc. through trial will usually get up to $250k on average. All that cash is fronted by the plaintiff's attorney and charged back to the plaintiff as an expense upon recovery. Thus, it is no coincidence that the cap on soft damages is $250k. It prices the typical med mal case out of existence. Unless there will be significant damages in terms of lost wages, consotrium, etc. beyond medical bills (which just go back to the insurance company or hospital), people who are harmed by a bad doctor can't find a lawyer in Texas unless they are willing to front tens of thousands of dollars in expert witness fees. So, if you are left in horrible pain and discomfort as a result of a bad doctor, but can still do your job and care for your family, you are basically SOL in Texas. And in return, health insurance premiums for a family in Texas have gone from @6,000 a year to @12,000 a year from 2000 to present. Tort reform went into effect in 2003 and had no discernable impact on premiums. And it is no coincidence that health care premiums keep going up as people keep getting fatter and fatter and need more and more treatment for chronic conditions associated with obesity. And it is no coincidence that Walmart has greatly expanded its market share in the grocery industry in Texas since 2000.

The straw man arguments are really getting very old. I have been very clear and candid, unlike all the BS from anti-preservationists about house paint, HVAC rules, director having the power to unilaterally declare a less than 67% survey to be greater than 67% and so on and so forth. If you own a bungalow that has not been updated in decades and needs tens of thousands in renovation, you will no longer be able to get the same lot value selling price. I never said everyone wins with the ordinance. People who have not kept up their homes over the years will lose. But, they won't lose much because they will still make out like a bandit with all the appreciation that has taken place in the Heights over the last decade and beyond. But between allowing builders to kill of this historic neighborhood and keeping someone who did nothing to improve their home from making $175k of the sale v. $125k, the latter will have to take one for the team. But that does not mean that bungalows will never again be renovated. That is the strawman argument you have constructed because all the other arguments against the ordinance are all junk (thus a meager 20% returned surveys against in in the Height WD). What I am saying is that prices for bungalows that need significant renovation will need to adjust to the new market. And they eventually will once the realtors get a clue. Once they do, bungalows that need significant work will be priced in a range that will give people enough room to use HUD products that allow construction to bundle with a first lien. And there are still plenty of investors/builders out their who will renovate bungalows. Two teardowns were recently saved and complety renovated near my house. So, the builder fueled bonanza is over. But that doesn't mean that the bungalows in the Heights will all become dilapidated shacks and rentals. That is just another BS scare tactic claim from those who profited mightly from tearing down bungalows and ruining the Heights. Also, I have NEVER said that bungalows in need of significant renovation sold like hotcakes. Only when they are in foreclosure or bank owned will they attract a fast bid-up sale. Otherwise, it takes a while to find someone who is prepared to do the work. But, it does happen, sooner if the house is priced right, later if the owner holds out for top dollar. The Heights has enough momentum that the good, smart, quality builders and renovators will do plenty of work in the districts. In fact, the value of bungalows will appreciate even more now that they are protected. If you don't like bungalows and prefer new construction, then you made a big mistake moving into the Heights. But that is your fault, not mine.

I am not deciding what you can eat, but the government sure is. Grain subsidies make fatty, salty processed foods very cheap and inflate the price of produce by pushing farmers out of the business of growing vegatables in favor of grain and meat production (meat production is indirectly subsidized by grain subsidies as most farms use grain to feed animals even though it makes cattle very sick and requires piles antibiotics to keep them from dying). And the fact of the matter is that people in this country are getting fatter and fatter. It is increasing our health care costs and is actually putting our national security at risk because so many showing up for military service are too fat and out of shape. You can blame people for their own bad choices all day long, but they are still going to make them, especially when so many aspects of their life that are beyond their control (work hours, lack of walkable space/recreation, subsidized junk food, etc.) require a herculian effort to maintain minimal fitness and health. Walmart makes big bucks off of the garbage food they pedal. The can out discount other grocers on junk in order to get people in the door. And it is no coincidence that Walmart has put health clinics in their stores and heavily markets their pharmacy. They make money off of people when the get sick and make money getting people sick. If nothing changes, the obesity epidemic will bankrupt this country. Diabetes is one of the most expensive chronic conditions in terms of yearly medical care. This problem is not going away and it will affect people who make the right choices just as much as those who make the bad choices. So, you are left with a decision to make, you can get rid of grain subsidies, go in the complete opposite direction of supporting local producers of fresh vegatables and stop subsidizing Walmart with tax deals and government benefits for their underpaid employees, or you can watch the country bankrupt itself with obesity related disease. Individual responsibility comes up short when individual decisions have impacts beyond the individual. Slogans like "you just want to tell me what to do" are just a cover for preservation of the status quo on behalf of those who profit from the misery of obesity and the garbage food that Walmart peddles at low prices.

It is directly Walmart's fault. But it is much more the fault of big Ag and big grocers. The reason grocery stores are packed with highly processed foods is because they have a very long shelf life. Grocers can pack their shelves to the rim with junky cereals, snacks, sodas and other garbage because they will always sell before they go bad. Add in the corn subsidies, and you get aisle after aisle of cheap garbage. Families on a budget with parents that work multiple jobs or late shifts will buy the processed crap because it won't go bad, it will fill them up for a fraction of the cost of fresh produce and lean meats and doesn't require any preparation time beyond opening the box or popping it in the microwave. Walmart exacerbates this problem by using its buying power to get the best discounts on things like chips, pop tarts and other highly processed junk. Thus, when a family shops at Walmart, they can get junk like chips, soda, pop tarts and frozen crud (hot pockets, pizzas, etc.) for a fraction of the cost as eggs, milk, fresh produce and lean meats. And the junk never has to be thrown out because it went bad, and there is no prep time for junk when the parents are working late and the kids have to make their own food or when parents come home late and don't have time to cook. You can wag your finger at people all day for not exercising and making bad decisions, but that won't do anything to solve the problem.

I made myself clear. If you have a bungalow that has not been updated ("well maintained" is realtor BS for a house that has not been updated in decades), you will no longer be rewarded for your failure to care for your home by having a builder pay you for an inflated lot value. And, due to lending restraints, you will not get 275k because no one will be able to finance in any needed renovation with a mortgage. Yes, you will lose money compared to no ordinance. But, if you bought the house in the 1990s or 80s, you will still, at least, double your investment. Like I said, I would be happy to have such bad fortune. If the bungalow has been updated and is in good condition, it will sell fast and may get bid up depending on where the price starts. Not only did my realtor tell me that, but so did one of the realtors that lead the anti-preservation fight. And this was not because people were bidding against builders. Builders had almost completely stopped buying lots with existing liveable bungalows in the Heights for new construction when the market crashed. It was homeowner v. homeowner. People actually do want a yard for their kids and dogs and are willing to give up on sq ft to get that in the Heights. There are millions of acres of land in Houston where you can build a big fat stupid house to fill with big fat puffy couches, enourmous TVs and giant appliances. If people want that, they have got it just about anywhere in Houston. Only in the Heights do we have such a large stock of historic homes. We are going to keep it that way not to control development but to preserve something that exists nowhere else in Houston and can never be replicated.

No, it's not paranoid. It is just nuts. The word "determines" obviously refers to the process of the director counting and verifying the returned ballots, not some super secret special way the director can say that an unreturned ballot means a ballot in support. I mean come on people. This provision is one the realtors and builders wanted. They made it very difficult for further expansion of the districts, if not impossible. But even in the pro-builder/realtor provisions, you all see some secret plot. This is about as bad as the paint/HVAC/political yard sign arguments. Just because you think that it is possible to read an ordinance a certain doesn't mean that it is read that way. Move on. Go get in on the hot property market surrounding the Historic districts. Property prices are going to shoot through the roof as every builder, resident and renovator flees the historic districs and rushes to west of Ashland to build monsterous McVics. But watch out! The decay in the historic districts will be so fast and devastating that the old bungalows will become crack houses and meth labs (granite countertops are a plus for cutting drugs). People moving into the non-historic areas will probably see their property values plummet as soon as they move in due to the crumbling historic districts. Eventually the entire Heights will become a post-apocalyptic war zone where gasoline is currency and gangs of out of work contractors fight for control of the Citgo on W 11th and the Valero on Shepherd. Or, actually, life will go on. Gas will eventually go to $4.00+ a gallon when the economy rebounds and people will pay piles for a bungalow in a Heights Historic District to avoid paying hundreds a month to drive in from The Woodlands.

Excuses, excuses, excusses. This thing has been going on for months. Unless you are willing to call your neighbors idiots (which I think you are), then you would have to admit that every homeowner in the Heights knew about this and knew the survey vote was coming. After all the huffing and puffing, and a lot of realtor and builder cash spent on mailers, websites and meeting, the anti-preservationists didn't come close. You can spin all kinds of fantasy scenarios about the majority of Heights residents leaving for their winter homes on Thanksgiving, or thinking that the survey form was junk mail, or that there is some guy that owns 346 consecutive lots who would have thrown the vote the other way but for the rules, and so on. But the hard facts are that you couldn't get it done. Wake up and smell the coffee. People in the Heights didn't send in their surveys because they are intelligent, understood the issues and made a conscious decision to keep their historic districts with the revised ordinance. And have you heard who announced they are running for Mayor? So far, no one. In fact, no one is even being talked up as a potential threat to MAP. Whether that is because MAP is popular outside the anti-preservationist and the few whinny council members who don't like a mayor who is more Margaret Thatcher than Bill White, well, that is for you all to worry about.

Both the bungalows I live next to have been renovated. One has subsequently been abandonded and will need to start all over again. The other was renovated to make it suitable as a rental and will need to be renovated to be brought up to the typical standard for bungalows. And I completely stand by the original statement. Few bungalows in the Heights haven't been renovated. Almost all of them have been renovated at some point over the past 90 years. A scant few have all original everything still left in them. The one on Ashland that got renovated and is still on the market was one of those. Original plumbing, plaster walls, etc. I know it takes a little bit of thinking, but it is possible to have a 90 year old bungalow need to be renovated more than once.

You get an F for reading comprehension. I said bungalows that are in good condition sell like hotcakes. I also said that bungalows in need of significant repair that are put out to bid in bank owned/foreclosure sales generate lots of interest. Bungalows that need significant renovation that are not put out for bids in as-is/foreclosure/bankowned sales have never sold like hotcakes, even back when builders were out buying them. If your friend is having trouble selling, it is more than likely because they have a realtor that has given them an unrealistic expectation of what their house is worth in order to get hired. I have said that people will not get as much money for neglected bungalows as they did when builders were buying them. But, most people will still make out like a bandit if they bought 10-20 years ago. And the lending environment has much more to do with slow moving renovations than the historic ordinance. It has become very difficult, if not impossible, to do a construction loan with a first lien mortgage. The only way you can do it is with some of the FHA products. But, those have maximums that are @270. So, the cost of renovation plus the sale price have to equal @270 (plus any cash the buyer can bring to the table). If you are trying to sell a bungalow that needs extensive renovation and have it listed for $275k, you are going to have a hard time finding a buyer, even if builders were still allowed to knock it down. But if you listed the same house for $225k, you would get a lot of interest. Of course people who are listing neglected bungalows for $275k probably bought 10-15 years ago for 90-120k and will only see their investment double. If only I could be so lucky to have such a burden like that. According to the Leader, Heights West only got 20% in favor of repealing the district. There is absolutely no way to rationalize that other than the fact that the anit-preservationist message failed.

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. The good news is now people won't have to bid against the wrecking ball and can put money into their homes knowing that they won't end up being reduced to lot value if the neighbors all go to new monster McVics. So, the realtor predicted doom of all the houses rotting away is bull. Now that historic homes are protected, people can put their money into significant renovations without fear of the McVics turning their house into lot value. Bungalow renovations are not rare, they are the norm. I looked at over thirty bungalows when I was looking to buy. Everyone had been renovated. In fact it is rare to find a bungalow in the Heights that hasn't been renovated. And most of the time a bungalow has trouble selling is because of crappy renovations that have killed off the original architecture or make the interior look more like the Wooldands than the 1920s. As for your cold living room, mine was toasty and warm this morning. Looks like you need to spring for a new furnance. Or maybe your are just wanting to let your house rot away and then cash out to a builder. Well, sorry the ordinance ruined your plan, but if the ordinance hurts people who do not care for their homes, that is ok with me. And, as I mentioned previously, the fact is that anyone who has owned in the Heights for over 10 years has seen a massive amount of appreciation even with an ordinance. Sure, historic homes have lots of problems. But, new homes can be much worse. I completely re-wired by bungalow for less than the cost of foundation repair on a 2500 sq ft house in the burbs. And I know people in the Woodlands who were left to spend tens of thousands getting rid of crappy stucco after the bad builders went belly up. And I understand the economics of the industry very well. The make a fast buck builders will not be able to build in the Heights any more. But that is fine. The Heights is better off without them. Let the smart and skilled builders and renovators take over. 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.

Dinner is good, breakfast is very good. Prices are a bit high, but you can skimp on the tip if you get counter service. If you want true Cajun food, go to New Orleans. People in Houston have grown tired of the endless debate over whether this or that Cajun restaurant is authentic. I office with a guy who was lived in the 9th ward all his life, until the storm and another guy who grew up in Metarie in the 1950s. Both claim to know true Cajun. Yet the guy from Metarie likes the gumbo at Joe's crab shack and the guy from the 9th ward spends every lunch hour looking for good Chinese sweet and sour chicken. Big Mamou is a nice addition to the Heights. Give it a try.

Did you see who was in the news today saying that they were going to run against MAP because of the historic district fight? Did you see who announced they were going to challenge Ed? No one. Dream on. Unless something happens very soon, MAP will have a Bill White-esque walk through, which is pretty incredible considering that no one wanted to touch Bill White because he could out spend anyone with what he found in his couch cushions. It has everything to do with preservation of an entire neighborhood AND respect for those who have dedicated themselves to preserving their historic home. Anti-preservationists have crowed on and on about the right to do whatever you want with your property, including smashing historic bungalows and replacing them with 3500 sq ft monsters. But, there is another property right that exists in our country. The right to petition the government for historic preservation and protection. This is not something Houston made up. In fact, our ordinance is incredibly weak compared to most others. But it is a well recognized and well settled right. It is an individual right, as well as a right that belongs to the entire community. And for the anti-preservationists, it has always been about individual property owners/builders/realtors and never about what the historic Heights means to the Heights and the rest of Houston. Anti-preservationists just see dollar signs in the Heights, and not one of Houston's most important, and rare, historic neighborhoods. So, pot calling the kettle black on self-interest. "Dilapidated structure in the districts will remain forever". Right. I guess Bungalow Revival will just go out of business. And the builders that made a nice buck taking two teardowns down to the studs in my district won't ever make that mistake again. Don't believe everything realtors tell you. They are good at one thing and one thing only--getting their commission. I never said block busting happened by pre-planned design. And if you think there was a racial implication in using the term, you don't understand what the term used to mean and how it is being implicated now. Builders know that when the go big, the houses in their shadows lose value, especially the ones that have not been updated. Builders can always out bid an individual on a historic house that needs updating. Thus, while it is not planned, the effect of putting up a giant house next to a historic bungalow is well understood by builders and very much welcome when that bungalow goes on the market. They may not be planning it, but they are well aware of it. A certain realtor in the Heights told me that bungalows are only worth what a builder is willing to pay to tear it down. And your prediction about the districts becoming run down is just silly. I guess you do believe everything realtors tell you. The Heights historic districts will become run down the same day you can average driving 65 mph from Cypress or The Woodlands or Sugar Land or Clear Lake to downtown during rush hour. Houston is supposed to add 2 million residents in 10-20 years. People will gladly pay a massive premium for a tiny bungalow and happily submit their plans to HAHC in order to be able to commute to work without spending three hours a day sitting on the highway. Looks like the irrational fears have gotten to you. In fact, in 10-20 years, preservationists will be celebrated for standing up to the developers and realtors. I have actually seen this happen in other parts of the country. When the historic rules are adopted, everyone cries foul. But after years of practice, the neighborhood becomes an attraction and property values rise beyond imagination (especially when in close proximity to a major urban area).

My point was to rebut the Craftsman bungalow dissing. And I was speaking of bungalows that are generally liveable to move in ready, not ones in need of complete renovation. Without the ordinance, the ones in need of renovation are always scooped up by builders and bulldozed in favor of the McVic. With the ordinance, people seeking to renovate no longer have to bid against the superior resources of the developers. Yes, if you own a run down home, you will get less for it under the ordinance than without. But, compared to the radical appreciation the Heights has seen over the past 10 years, that is not a burden that justifies allowing the continuation of the destruction of the historic Heights. And, if you let a home go into disrepair, you really should not be greedy and just be thankful for the free ride you have received from your neighbor's investments. 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.

The Heights were not suburbs in the same sense that Cinco Ranch and ____ Creek or ____wood are suburbs that I am not fond of (especially when certain people try to develop large parcels of land in the Heights like FM 1960). The Heights were originally a planned community that put housing, commerce and industry in the same area, connected by a trolley line. The Heights were walkable (corner stores, sidewalks and tree lined boulevards) and integrated work, play, education and shopping all within a few miles. The current suburbs are housing developments that are literally walled off from everything else and only connected by a single gateway street to strip malls and big box stores, with an odd smattering of offices and businesses and schools frequently stuck on busy streets so that kids that actually live close enough have no chance to actually walk home. So, you are absolutely wrong in saying that I should be against the Heights because it is a suburb. It was way ahead of its time in terms of a liveable community. 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.

My block is 100% original structures and we never got min lot size done, but the majority of the block signed the historic district petition. Life isn't as easy as you think it is. Camelbacks are a compromise struck with the builders and realtors back when the ordinance first went into place. If you don't like them, you can only blame the same people who put up the McVics and are your friends in the anti-preservation movement. Of course, I would happily sign off on a more restrictive ordinance that would forbid 2 story additions to single story bungalows now that there is so much support for it from the anti-preservatin crowd. And it is not about what a single house looks like on a single lot. It is about the continuity of a historic neighborhood. Stick a McVic in the middle of bungalows and you bust the block. Put in a camelback, you still have the continuity. Not perfect, but a far cry from dropping in a McVic.

And you are probably also the guy who goes to a Rothko exhibit and says "I could've done that." You are a little late to the dance if you want to make the case that there is no merit to Crafstmen style architecture. You will just have to again say to yourself "I could've done that".

And the greater population of Houston can own a McVic. They will just need to build it on one of the millions of acres of land in the City that are not protected by a historic ordinance. Or on one of the hundreds and hundreds of lots in the Heights that are not protected by the ordinance (yeah, I know, save your typing with the "entire city will be historic district because only 10% can trigger . . . "). Did you really just now figure out that the term "McVic" is derogatory? Sorry about that. It was easier to type than having to hammer out "gaudy, out of place, oversized, selfish, block busting, tree razing, character killing, phony, lazy, suburban wannabe, new construction" every time. You may think historic houses are just shacks. That is your problem. Those well maintained shacks sell like hotcakes and people pour tens of thousands into restoring them every day. And now their investment is protected because they won't find themselve sandwiched between gaudy, out of place, oversized, selfish, block busting, tree razing, character killing, phony, lazy, suburban wannabe, new construction.

So you would support a more restrictive ordinance, right? You can't have it both ways. You can't claim the ordinance is a gross violation of private property rights and then criticize it for not going far enough. You are just proving the point that the ordinance is a reasonable middle ground that allows people to update bungalows to suit their needs while preserving the original structure. And a you can feel all proud of your McCamelback term, but the Heights will take the camelback over the giant McVics any day.

Yes, and here is the last laugh: HA! It is over. You lost. Your scare tactics did not work. Your lies about paint color and HVAC systems did not fool anyone. Realtors aren't affected by whether a property is in a district or not? Haaaa haa haa haa ha ha ha ha!!!!!! Right. And it is just a freak accident that the one realtor that told me personally that all bungalows are only worth what a builder would pay for them just happens to be the leader of the anti-preservation movement. If you think realtors would rather sell bungalows for 300-500k than 3500 sq ft Mc Vics for 800-1mil, you are completely bonkers. 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.

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.

I live in a 1920 bungalow in a protected (fully!!!) district. How about you? Do you even live in the Heights? In a historic house? In a historic district? And when I say "we", I am speaking on behalf of the silent majority in the Heights that are routinely shouted down by anti-preservationists on message boards and in public forums. The fight for historic districts has gone on for years. This process has never been about the best way to preserve the Heights. It has always been a second bite at the apple for the builders, realtors and architects who originally fought the historic districts to try to undo what had already been done. 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.

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.

The meeting is just to discuss the ballot process. What info do you have that the City will send the ballot out immediately following the meeting over the holidays? According to your leader, Bill Baldwin, the City hasn't even come up with a ballot yet. But the facts have never mattered. Any claim you all can make is fair game, like claiming that the City will have the power to determine what political signs you can put in your yard under the ordinance, regardless of whether the claim is actually true. Why don't you grow up and call Marlene Gafrick and ask her when the City plans to put the ballots out before you accuse the City of some great corrupt conspiracy?

How is Heights Blvd going to help traffic flow out of Walmart? Who cares whether a portion of the development fronts both Heights and Yale. We are talking about Walmart in this thread, not some yet to be named "chef driven restaurant" that will lease on of the other pads. Nice try, but Heights Blvd is not the issuse. Yale is. Yale is inadequate for the traffic needed. Yale will connect to the feeder via Bass. But that won't get you anwhere as you will have to worm through exiting I-10 traffic just to get to sit at the light at Yale. Just take a look at the siting of virtually every other Walmart in Houston. They put them either right on a feeder road that is not in close proximity to a major intersection or numerous signalized intersections (as will be the case with Yale) or with access to two thorough fares with at least four lanes of traffic on one of the two, many times more. This walmart is going to only have a single main driveway to Yale, a street with five signalized intersections in just over a half mile. The freeway access will do nothing to alleviate the traffic because there is no direct access to the feeder. It is will be a complete mess. You also need to actually drive around the area and take a look at Yale St. Yale is grade separeated at one end and goes over a bridge at the other. Adding a lane at the grade separation and over the bridge would be fantastically expensive if not prohibitively so. And the northwest end of Yale at I-10 is San Jacinto Stone, not a demolished building. They are also virtually grade separated as their property is on a slight hill above Yale. The developer is not going to be donating ROW because 1) the developer will make you and me (i.e. taxpayers) buy it from him (see 380 agreement where developer gets $50+ per sq ft for $22.5 HCAD value land for Koehler extension ROW) and 2) the developer doesn't own all the land on both sides of Yale. Bobby Orr's company owns about half of the land on the east side of Yale south of the Dirt bar. I don't see Orr being willing to donate land to Ainbinder. And that is probably the portion of land that would be needed to alleviate the north bound congestion on Yale. Sorry, but life isn't as simple as you think it is. Developers can't donate land they don't own and streets can't be widened at the snap of a finger when there is grade separation and bridges in the way. The facts are clear: this is not where you can put a Walmart Supercenter. The infrastructure will not support it, absent a massive investment above and beyond what is in the 380 agreement and, more than likely, above and beyond profitability for the developer.