s3mh

You have notice that the rules could change because the historic distric is governed by an ORDINANCE. Ordinances are created, revised and repealed all the time by City Council. It is a ridiculous argument to claim that the ordinance could never be revised just because the ordinance affects real property or because people petitioned to create a historic distric. There is no bait and switch. The petition created a historic district that would be governed by an ordinance, not by an unchangeable restriction that is recorded in the real property records. When someone signed the petition, they were agreeing to be in a historic district governed by an ordinance. They were not singing a contract. They were not creating a deed restriction. It is like voting for annexation by a municipality but then complaining when the municipality changes an ordinance. Ordinances are ordinances.

Houston has never approved a 200,000 sq ft (according to Ch. 2 last night) Wal-Mart supercenter in an urban area. If you think a Wal-Mart at West Rd and 45 is precedent for a Wal-Mart on Yale, then there is no point arguing with you. And the approval of one Wal-Mart does not bind the City to approve all Wal-Marts. There is no stare decisis in permitting. If the City has discretion to deny a permit, variance or tax abatement, that decision cannot be reviewed by a court. Only the failure to perform a ministerial act can be reviewed on mandamus. The only thing a developer can do is to file a BS constitutional claim like the Ashby developers did. The standard of review under the constitutional due process claims is so low (rational basis) that no one ever wins. The Ashby developers probably lost their financing in the market crash and are now trying to get tax payers to fund their stupid tower. The standard on an inverse condemnation claim is just as easy for the city (the Ashby developers abandonned their takings claim altogether). And there is a big difference between widening a road and adding lanes. There is absolutely no way to add lanes on Yale. Same issue on Westheimer, which is also identified as a road that will be widened. Also, the widening of Yale was planned because of the feeder road expansion (which was planned with the rest of the I-10 expansion project 10 years ago), not because of Wal-Mart. Councilman Gonzalez announced last night that he is against the current proposed Wal-Mart supercenter development. Word is that others are poised to follow as there is major discontent that 380 agreements are being used to support developments in areas of the City where there is already plenty of development (Mixed use project on Allen Pkwy, gated community on TC Jester, condos on White Oak) while TIRZs in districts that desparately need retail, commercial and residential development have not done anything in years.

Spring Valley successfully resisted Wal-Mart. I have also heard that residents beat back a Wal-Mart proposed for Beltway 8 and West Road. Wal-Mart has also been defeated in Helotes, TX. Houston doesn't have zoning, but that doesn't mean the City is required to grant every variance, approve every permit and give the developer a 380 agreement. There is real political opposition to this development. City leaders are concerned about the increased burden on police at the time there is a hiring freeze. City leaders are also concerned about the traffic issues. The application for a variance for a reverse curve to extend Koehler from Yale to Heights may be put off again because the developer has yet to provide a traffic impact study and has not provided plans for the proposed development. The rubber stamp is going to be kept in the desk on this one. And you are nuts if you think Wal-Mart is going to negotiate with anyone. They have already put a contract on the land and will not give up a single sq ft unless they have no choice. Wal-Mart won't even tell anyone how many sq ft the store will be.

You signed up for a historic district that is governed by an ORDINANCE. You don't sign ordinances. You sign up to be in a historic district. That is done. A majority of the east and west districts signed up. City Council creates, revises and repeals ordinances. Once you are in the district, you are subject to whatever City Council does. You should have known that when you signed up for a historict district. No one is asking you to sign an ordinance and no one has to ask you to sign an ordinance because it is an ORDINANCE. Rutland shows exactly why deed restrictions are a pipe dream. You can never get the investor/builder or owner of the rental or empty lot to sign up. You will never get a majority in the Heights to agree to restrictions. The best you can do is go block by block. And that will never work to prevent the Rutland problem because the bad apple will never agree to the restriction. And deed restrictions are bought out every day. Deed restrictions can be terminated if you own all the lots (or a majority if the language in termination in the restrictions allow it or under other circumstances). If you go about deed restricting the Heights block by block, all you need is to have one person buy out a block and the restrictions can be terminated. The deed restriction argument is just a red herring thrown out by the realtors to keep everyone from working together to craft a sensible, fair and enforceable ordinance.

Yes, they paid their money and have the right to build what they want if they are able to get all the needed permits and variances. But they have no right to shake down tax payers for a tax abatement to make the infrastructure improvements needed to cram a suburban style supercenter into an urban neighborhood. And, if they are going to need tax abatements, they damn well need to start talking to the community about what their plans are going to be. If you think the pro-Wal-Mart arguments are better than anti-Wal-Mart, fine. Enjoy watching the few distinct Houston neighborhoods fall to the big box developments. Keep Houston Ugly! But, do not insult the community with the elitist crap. If you really want to talk about elitism, the idea that the guy with the big wallet gets to decide whether to cram vital thorough fares with traffic, flood residential neighborhoods with run-off, take police away from serving the community to pick up shoplifters three times over the objections of the community is the ultimate in elitism.

I guess you have never been to the Heights and certainly have not taken note of who all is putting up yard signs. The Heights is about as diverse a neighborhood as you will find in Houston. There are trailer parks, low rent apartments, all kinds of garage apartments, houses from 800 sq ft to 4500 sq ft and everything in between. The shopping and restaurants are equally as diverse. People who are adverse to being around people who are in lower income brackets do not move to the Heights. The elitist charge would be fair if it was Bellaire, River Oaks, Tanglewood or West U. But it is just completely out of touch to claim that people who live in the Heights don't want to be around Wal-Mart's main demographic. We already are. Target went in to a completely different area. Target also came to the community and actively sought out input on how to mitigate the burdens imposed by the project. That won over a lot of people. Wal-Mart did not and has yet to even reveal what it is actually planning to do on the site. People lobbing the "elitist" bomb just realize that putting a Wal-Mart on Yale is absurd (especially when using tax payer dollars to do infrastructure improvements and with two other locations going up in a 8 mile radius), but do not want to dare go against conservative no-zoning made Houston great dogma.

95% of Field and Browning students are in the free/reduced lunch program. At risk is 77%/79%, respectively (Love is 92/76). Harvard and Travis are the chosen schools. The improvement has been made at those schools, and they are now the "safe" schools. The other schools (field, browning and love) have seen some improvement, but not because of an influx of children who live in 3500 sq ft new construction in the Heights.

Just look at 15th and Rutland. Four houses on a lot meant for two. If minimum setback and minimum lot size restrictions were so wonderful, how did this happen? Deed restrictions can be bought out. Historic ordinances cannot. They don't tell you how to hang your toilet paper now, but it is just a matter of time before they do. Nothing in the ordinance says they can't, and some lady said HAHC was going to get more strict every year. By 2015, they will mandate mowing lawns in a north/south fashion. East/west mowing will be subject to a fine. Nothing in the ordinance says that can't.

Right. The Heights is going to become a ghetto. Thanks for proving my point that the opposition has no interest in historic preservation and only sees dollar signs. The Heights will become a ghetto the same day Manhattan, the Back Bay in Boston, Telegraph Hill in San Fran, and so on, become ghettos. People already fight like hell to buy 1000-1500 sq ft bungalows for 275-300 per sq ft. And these people are going to let their houses decay because they will have to submit plans to HAHC for approval? Right. To the contrary, if the empty lot next door is going to be a giant monster mansion, there is no reason to maintain a historic bungalow because you are just throwing money at a property that won't get anything more than lot value. Just another example of the opposition using scare tactics to try to defeat historic preservation rather than constructively participate in the process to revise the historic ordinances.

I attended the meeting last week and have seen the flyers and website set up by the self-appointed opposition. The op-ed is a pretty tame treatment of the opposition. http://www.responsiblehistoricpreservation.org/ is a website set up by a "group" (it isn't a non-profit) led by three prominent Heights area realtors. The op-ed was very kind not to point out the glaring conflict of interest. What is most telling about this "group" is that they actually claim that self-imposed deed restrictions and landmarking are better than even the existing historic district ordinance. Thus, this group doesn't just oppose the changes, they oppose any government initiated historic district ordinance. The "scare tactics" are needed because many legitimate complaints with the ordinance could be easily remedied by better language. The ordinance needs to be more specific on the perameters for expansion, restoration and demolition. Too much discretion is placed in the hands of HAHC. But the realtors do not ask for this. Instead, they argue based on a 2002 op-ed addressing a different version of the ordinance and a single statement by a HAHC official that the ordinance is just the tip of the iceberg, and HAHC will dictate whether you can hang your toilet paper in the overhand or underhand fashion. If the extent of the authority of HAHC is a concern, work to better define and limit it. Do not tell tales about the HAHC governing paint color and AC placement in a dark post-apocalyptic future where HAHC robots monitor our every move. Many other arguments are plainly deficient, but the "group" trumpets them knowing full well the invalidity. The "bait and switch" argument is fundamentally flawed. People voted to create a historic district to be governed by ordinances. There was never anything in the ordinances that stated that they could not be revised. That is because they are ORDINANCES. The 90 day waiver could have been revised to become 14 days or have been revised to be eliminated altogether. If people did not understand that an ordinance is an ordinance when they voted to form a historic district, that is their own fault for not paying attention in civics class. It is not the City's fault or the preservationist's fault. It is time for a little candor and a little personal responsibility on the part of those making this claim. Furthermore, it is completely disingenuous to say that you wanted to be in a historic district but now do not want to be in one because they are going to change the law to actually make the ordinance more effective. I am all about hearing how to craft a better ordinance, but don't tell me you were for historic preservation before you were against it. While it is admittedly an anecdote, an anti-ordinance letter on the realtor-backed website is very instructive. A concerned resident (who just happens to be a realtor) complains about how the revised ordinance will ruin property values and drive away all investment in the Heights (paraphrasing, but not far off). That same person owns a house in one of the historic districts. The house is 4500 sq ft and was built in 2008. There used to be a historic 1920 bungalow on the property that was in need of complete updating, but otherwise a doable restoration project on a large lot with plenty of room for an addition. First, this person, and many others with new construction, has no reason to complain about the ordinance. Are they planning on doing an addition? Are they planning on changing anything? The answer is no; it is new construction. The revised ordinance will have virtually no effect on them, unless their house burned down to the ground. But if that is the only concern, address it in the revisions. Don't kill of historic preservation for everyone else because you want to be able to rebuild your block busting mansion in case of a fire. Second, this anecdote shows what is really at stake here. The bungalow listed for 250k. A complete renovation of a bungalow is expensive. Someone wanting to live in the house would have to have cash in hand to get it done as lenders are not rolling construction loans into mortgages anymore. otherwise, an investor would have to purchase the property and flip it after renovating/adding on. There is good money to be made doing that (one down the street for me just sold for mid 400s on a property that sold for low 200s). But, compared with the 250k lot with a 1000+ sq ft bungalow turned into the 4500 sq ft monster mansion (HCAD has property valued at 780k, meaning market value could push 1 mil), it is easy to see why realtors want to knock down every bungalow in the Heights. It is a difference of 15-35k per commission. Over the course of a few years, it could be seven figure difference for realtors alone. Also, the number of true teardown properties in the Heights is quickly diminishing. That means that investors will start looking at properties that are in good condition for demolition and will be looking to build as many sq ft as possible to cover the higher lot price for a bungalow that has been updated. If the Houston economy got rolling again, it could mean the end of most of the historic bungalows in the Heights and the rise of a faux historic River Oaks/Bellaire neighborhood. And then there are lots of arguments that are just self-serving and silly. People claim that the bungalows must go in order to attract families to the Heights to support the public schools. If you build a 4500 sq ft house on a lot and sell it for 800-1mi, do you really think that family will be sending their kids to Field or Browning? Smaller and more affordable housing will bring in the kind of families who are willing to put the time into bringing the schools up to snuff, not monster mansions. Finally, the claim that this ordinance works a "constructive [sic] condemnation", as one poorly informed opposition questioner asked at the meeting, is not credible. The government is not the virtual insurer of property values. Anyone purchasing in the Heights over the past decade has been on notice that the neighborhood is full of historic homes and has been actively seeking historic preservation ordinances. The Heights neighborhood is one of the most sought after real estate markets in the entire city. As the City grows and gas prices go back through the roof, property values in the Heights will continue to climb through the roof. In California, bungalows go for 500-700k compared to 300-500k in Houston. There is still plenty of appreciation left and no reasonable investment back expectation has been harmed. The Heights historic districts are a scant 1.2 square miles. The 90 day waiver did very little to keep builders from demolishing historic buildings and replacing them with monster mansions and overbuilt clusters of townhomes. Deed restrictions and landmarking did nothing to prevent the destruction of historic homes. The realtor group and their builder/architect allies are trying to do one thing: they are trying to get rid of all historic preservation laws to make the Heights their personal atm machines. This city has given away too many historic buildings to the momentary needs of a few well monied interests. A well written historic preservation ordinance is the only thing that will keep the Heights a historic neighborhood and not another Bellaire with faux victorian accents.

Here is what will happen if Wal-Mart is stopped: HEB will step in Wal-Mart's place and open a store that is similar to the Buffalo Speedway location (HEB was on the verge of a deal for the property and is still willing to do it). The immediate neighborhood that abuts the site will see their property values increase as they will be within walking distance from a new HEB. Empty lots in that neighborhood will be developed, meaning economic benefits for everyone from construction workers to developers. The HEB will solidify the residential aspect of the Heights, West End and Rice Military neighborhoods and prevent the domino effect of big box development that always follows a Wal-Mart. Traffic in the area will be kept at manageable levels. The police department will not be put in a position where it cannot respond to residents because it has to go out to Wal-Mart a couple times a day to respond to calls (they are under a hiring freeze for the foreseeable future). The poor downtrodden folks who must shop at Wal-Mart will have to drive an extra few miles to get to either Silber/I10 or Crosstimbers/45. Or they could go to Ross on Shepherd and get better deals on clothes or got to Fiesta/Kroger/HEB and get competitive prices for groceries. This is about one neighborhood and not about the whole world. But, don't underestimate the power of one. If this effort is successful, others will here about it and follow the example. HOAs in Meyerland are organizing to pressure the landlord to refuse to renew Wal-Mart's lease because of the crime problem at that location. And as for the "selfish" comment, why is it that Wal-Mart can pursue its own selfish goals and your poor downtrodden friends have an absolute right to be 4-7 minutes closer to a Wal-Mart, but the residents who live in the neighborhood and have to deal with all the adverse effects of a Wal-Mart are selfish yuppie, hipster, wasp, crybabbies?

Wal-Mart can be defeated. Spring Valley stopped them. Helotes stopped them. And those efforts were nothing compared to what Wal-Mart is up against in the Heights. Two weeks won't stop Wal-Mart. But the councilman that requested the deferral may be a start. The developers are counting on a 380 agreement with the City to make this development happen. To date, no such agreement has been reached. Political support for such an agreement is erroding very quickly. That is what happens in a democracy, even without zoning.

Maybe the more relevant inquiry should be what are the true motivations for people who support cramming a suburban style big box retailer that has a proven track record of having a negative impact on the surrounding area in terms of crime, traffic and small business opportunity into one of the few neighborhoods left in the City of Houston that has not been consumed by big box retail and PUD hyperconformity? Is it class envy? Is it a bizarre schadenfreude to hope that unique character of the Heights and West End are crushed by the big box retailers and cookie-cutter residential developers? Is it a belief that democracy should simply bow down before deep pocketed developers and retailers and give them anything they want, regardless of what the community may think? Is it a hatred of all that has resulted from popular resistance movements in the US (racial integration, labor laws, abortion rights, gay rights, environmental protection, etc.)? Or is it that the evidence against a big box supercent smashed into the West End/Heights area is so overwhelming that the only tactic left is to personally insult people in the community who dare to speak out, dare to organize, dare to participate in their democracy, dare to stand in the way of corporate profits in order to protect their community? I will tell you that the Wal-Mart opposition is nothing like the caricatue you have invented. The Wal-Mart opposition is made up of people of all ages and from all walks of life. Some have spent a lifetime working for the Heights and West End communities, and some are participating in their community for the very first time. You can put them down all you want, but that will not change a thing. While you think you have made a differene by bullying a few people who are against Wal-Mart on a message board with your insults, the thousands who are joining together are making a difference. It is no coincidence that the application for the reverse curve variance on Koehler was tabled for two weeks to require further study.

No. The owner abadonned the house for personal reasons (it is not a pleasant story and not a story to be shared on a public message board), but apparently still pays the taxes and has someone mow the grass from time to time. As far as I know, there has never been an attempt to rehabilitate the house. Looking at the condition it is in, the difference between HAHC compliant rehabilitation and non-HAHC compliant rehabilitation would hardly be a factor, assuming that there would even be such an additional cost. If the HAHC imposed conditions that raised the cost of rehabilitation, the cost would more than be offset by the tax abatement that could be earned restoring the building.

My block in the west historic district is all 1920s bungalows except for one 1970 shack and one new construction. All of the bungalows with additions have added on in the back and have preserved the front 1/2 of the building. I am next to a small bungalow that has been left to decay. Without historic preservation ordinances, a builder could buy the lot and put in a 2 story monster that goes from the sidewalk to the alley (everyone else has retained the original setback). If that happened, my bungalow would then be next on the chopping block (even more so as I have a full sized lot). There would be no point in making improvements to my house as I would only see lot value in a sale. The real threat to the Height's hodge podge is not the historic preservation ordinance; it is the builders and real estate agents that want to make a quick buck off of the high demand for decent inner loop housing. They want to wipe the Height clean of single story bungalows and fill in every block with two story houses that have as many sq ft as can be crammed into a 6600 lot. Just look at the new construction on the south end of Nicholson and the planned high density condos where the Ashland Tea House and old Assembly of God church on Ashland. The historic homes in the Heights deserve protection. If that means that builders won't make as much money as they want to, then fine. If that means that someone has to compromise on the design for their addition, then fine. This city has no shortage of land. But, without real protection, this city will lose its scant few historic neighborhoods.

It is not the plain language that supports your arguments. It is your own personal opinion that if the ordinance can be interpreted in an unreasonable manner, it will be interpreted in an unreasonable manner because you believe that government is by its very nature unreasonable. Here are a few examples of your arguments that are completely misleading and wrong: The ordinance also requires your addition to use materials that are historic. Hardi Plank is expressly forbidden by the ordinance. Whats next? The ordinance has no limit whatsoever. They could potentially prohibit political yard signs that dont support their particular party! There is no perceivable end to the control. You have claimed to be an attorney. But if you were an attorney, you would know that the last argument is a violation of the First Amendment. As for hardi plank, there is nothing in the ordinance that says hardi plank is forbidden. You just make that representation because the ordinance gives the HAHC the power to require homeowners to use siding materials that are consistent with the historic siding. So, someone with 117 siding would probably not be able to replace it with hardi plank. That is a far cry from claiming that hardi plank is expressly forbidden. And the first comment makes it sound like people will have to go combing through historic salvage yards in order to put siding on an addition. That is false. If your building has 117 siding, HAHC can require your addition to also have 117 siding. That means that you will have to go all the way to Grogan's on Yale to find this rare and exotic historic material. HAHC cannot require you to go to a historic salvage yard and find vintage 117 siding. There are many other examples. And there are less egregious examples in the literature being sent around by the realtor/builder funded opposition. The funny thing is that I would strongly support an effort to draft a better historic preservation ordinance, as would many of my neighbors. But, it is clear from the arguments from opponents that this isn't about perfecting the historic district ordinances. It is about undoing what many fought for years to do. Thus, it is "no means no" v. "big government is gonna tell you what TV channel you can watch", and a good opportunity to come together and create historic preservation that works well for every is lost.

Oh please. I live in a bungalow that cost less than 300k and I have a say yes sign in my yard. The real elitism is coming from the builders/realtors/architects that want to destroy what is left of Houston's historic homes just for a quick buck. They think that if you have enough money, you should not have to be subject to any democratic process. That is elitism.

It will actually make the neighborhood more accessible. The only way I could afford to get in the neighborhood was to buy a bungalow when the builders weren't buying them up to tear them down and replace them with 3500 sq ft monsters. I probably saved a 100 year old oak in the process. If the builders are given back all the power, the neighborhood will become Bellaire jr. (but may then be able to buy out the Wal-Mart property when it decides to close up, like they are doing with the Sam's Club on Dunlavy).

You are really underestimating those who have yellow signs. I have talked to a number of neighbors who have yellow signs (I am in the west Historic dist in the Heights). They were all very active in supporting the original ordinance, know the provisions intimately and feel that they were betrayed when the City put in the 90 day waiver. They want no to mean no. But they do not understand that the process to get a yes is too perilous a journey for those acting in good faith. I think a lot of fence sitters would be ok with no means no if the process to approval was less subjective. And I think the revision process for the ordinance is a good opportunity to craft solid protections that are also user friendly. I disagree that historic preservation will scare away investment in the neighborhood. What should have been a teardown on my street is being restored with an addition. The builder was able to sell it based on a floorplan. There is plenty of money to be made with historic bungalows and plenty of peolpe willing to do it. Before I bought my bungalow, I bid on a number of foreclosures and as-is properties. Each time, the property was bid up well over lot value and restored by the buyer. The only reason the buyer won over a builder was because of the bad economy and the 90 day waiver. Now that lending is thawing, the builders are back and are willing to float the 90 days. Thus, I know of about a half dozen historic bungalows that would have been torn down but for the bad economy. The reality is that historic preservation will preserve bungalows and bring in investment to the neighborhood, but not the kind of dollars realtors and builders would like to see (although I am not sure why realtors would complain about making 9k to put a bunch of pictures on the internet and filling out a EMK). But there is plenty of land to do as you want outside of the historic districts. Which brings me back to the color argument. In order to buy the color argument, you have to believe that painting your house is not ordinary maintenance, but is really an alteration to the exterior of the building. Could there be a better definition of "alteration"? Yes. But to go around saying that we have to go back to block busting builders because this is a stealth plot by the City to dictate paint color, landscaping and AC placement is just not reasonable. Finally, government gives power back all the time. It is called deregulation. That is why we have iphones instead of Ma Bell. That is also a major reason we had a near collapse of our financial system. The founding fathers, Jefferson in particular, were just as concerned with private tyranny as they were with government tyranny.

I have a lot of concerns with the revised ordinance. However, after talking to many neighbors, the perception is that realtors and builders are using the proposed revisions as an opportunity to undo what many fought so hard to get--protection for historic districts. Many of my neighbors were very upset when the 90 day waiver made it in to the original ordinance and are very glad to see it go. I will need to do an addition and do a lot of exterior repairs on my 1920 bungalow. I am wary of the HAHC. However, I am afraid that the current tea party-esque "you can't tell me what to do with my land" arguments and the realtor/builder scare tactics ("they can tell you what paint to use"--they can't, "They can force you to make repairs"--City has always had that power, and look at how much it is enforced) are alienating many who would support a better version of what has been proposed. It is now an all or nothing debate. Looking at the current make up of City council, all will win the day, even with vocal opposition. People want protection in their historic districts. What kind of protection and how it is enforced should be up for debate. But, it won't be because people are trying to make this a re-referendum on whether we should have historic districts at all. I am seeing yellow signs popping up on my street in greater numbers than the blue signs. I think the opposition has overplayed their hand with all the scare mongering and hyper-libertarianism.

Wal-Mart used the term "urban" when discussing a possible concept for the Yale location, not me. Regardless of how you define "urban", Wal-Mart appears to be conceding that its typical suburban superstore is not suited for the area.

Peter Brown did that site plan pro-bono for the 22 superneighborhood leaders. He is trying to find middle ground between the opposition and the developers by proposing a site plan that would make everyone happy. Peter Brown's plan is not the plan that Wal-Mart and Ainbinder are proposing. In fact, no one has seen what Wal-Mart and Ainbinder are proposing. The site plan leaked to the Chronicle was just a preliminary design that Ainbinder prepared. In fact, Ainbinder's planning firm (Marsh Darcy) took down the signs for the replat request. So, it looks like Ainbinder and Wal-Mart were changing the property dimensions up to the last dimensions before Wal-Mart bought the land. No one, beyond Ainbinder and Wal-Mart, know what the development will look like. Wal-Mart is talking a lot of talk about making the Yale location some new urban concept Wal-Mart, but won't give anyone any details. The only thing they have said for certain is that they are not going to put in a gas station or a tire/lube service center. They made the same promise for the Silber location. Not sure about 45 and Crosstimbers.

Architects, Builders and Realtors certainly have a right to have a voice in the debate, especially those who also reside in the area. However, they also have financial interests that are not necessarily in line with what is best for the development of historic districts. Architects are afraid that people will just ask them to modify designs that have passed muster with HAHC, which will diminish the amount they can make on additions and new construction. Realtors want the largest possible commission (as that is about all they are good at, collecting their commission). Thus, they want to see as many sq ft as can fit on every lot. Builders want to do what they have always done. Use the cheapest materials and construction methods in order to make the most money. (yes, yes, I know that not all builders are that way, but builders in Houston do not have a good history). So, architects, builders and realtors can certainly speak out and should be heard. But, we need to put their comments into proper context.

I am in agreement that the historic preservation ordinance is problematic and needs to be better defined to give people better notice of what will fly and what will be rejected in order to make the HAHC's job more mechanical and less political. I think this point in and of itself is more than enough to get City leaders to listen up and make some needed revisions. But I do not understand why we need to push arguments to the limit of credibility and possibly beyond. The HAHC has the power to approve or disapprove. They have no authority to require anyone to do anything. Sure, I guess if you have the choice between material A and material B, and the commission disapproves A, they have dictated that you have to use material B. But those instances will be very rare. The real problem is that people should have better notice of what will get approval and what won't. Maybe have a guide with certain pre-approved fixtures, materials, designs, etc. which would allow people to forgo HAHC if they use something that is pre-approved.

It says "compatible with" not "identical to". The term "compatible" assumes that you have two things that are not identical. Of course, left to the subjective determination of the HAHC, hardi-plank may be determined to not be compatible with wood siding (beveled, 117 or otherwise). Thus, I think it is a fair criticism that there is substantial ambiguity, which, in turn, gives HAHC too much discretion. But, that could be remedied by establishing clear guidelines. I am just afraid that legitimate criticism is loosing way to arguments that push the language of the ordinances beyond their logical limits.