The Heights Dry Zone

[s3mh]

32 minutes ago, brian0123 said:

So you're already experiencing problems despite the dry law, and are concerned it will get worse? The issues you describe sound more like law enforcement problems than access to beer. We had similar problems when I lived in Midtown and it just took repeated calls to HPD and city council to get it cleaned up.

The repeated calls to HPD and city council happened five years ago and have been ongoing.  We also have a constable program where subscribers get a Harris County Constable patrol and direct number.  There are a couple of local TV reporters living in the neighborhood.  Stories about crime get on the news all the time because word gets to the local TV stations very quickly.  Just in the past few weeks, stories have been on the news about someone stealing a dog, a bike thief and a group of kids trying to rob people walking on the bike path by White Oak Bayou.  But despite what can only be described as neighborhood hyper-vigilance, problems persist in the neighborhood.  We are close to three major highways and are crisscrossed by multiple bus lines.  Just about anybody and everybody is passing through the Heights.  Adding five retailers selling cheap beer and wine in a very concentrated area that is already experiencing all sorts of problems with crime and vagrants is not a good idea, even if it means we get an extra HEB in addition to the one that is going in on Waugh and Washington Ave.

[Angostura]

On 10/26/2016 at 9:21 AM, s3mh said:

Allowing beer and wine sales will mean that at a minimum 5 additional retailers (CVS, Walgreens, Kroger, Sunny's & Michoacana) will offer cheap beer and wine within close proximity to residential development, schools, parks and playgrounds.  

 

This is not factually accurate.

 

Neither CVS nor Walgreen's qualify as a grocery store under chapter 3, and therefore run afoul of the 300-ft rule due to their proximity to Hamilton Middle School. La Michoacana is not in the dry zone, but would presumably also run afoul of the 300-ft rule due to its proximity to Love Elementary since, although it is largely a grocery store, it is less than 10,000 s.f., so it doesn't qualify under Chapter 3.

 

Both the 20th St Kroger and Sunny's on 14th will likely apply for and receive off-premise licenses, so you'll be able to pick up a 6-pack while waiting to pick up your pizza at Pink's.

 

I would also not be surprised if Revival Market applied as well.

 

[mollusk]

41 minutes ago, Angostura said:

 

This is not factually accurate.

 

 

Does that really matter in this context?  Straw man arguments are a time honored attribute of issue discussions.  The only real value in knocking them down is if there are onlookers who haven't joined one camp or another.  That, and it can be a virtual substitute for aerobic exercise (which many of us could stand more of).

[JJxvi]

Just checked this thread because I was wondering if the usual suspects would be up in a clamor over this.  Yep.

[s3mh]

1 hour ago, Angostura said:

 

This is not factually accurate.

 

Neither CVS nor Walgreen's qualify as a grocery store under chapter 3, and therefore run afoul of the 300-ft rule due to their proximity to Hamilton Middle School. La Michoacana is not in the dry zone, but would presumably also run afoul of the 300-ft rule due to its proximity to Love Elementary since, although it is largely a grocery store, it is less than 10,000 s.f., so it doesn't qualify under Chapter 3.

 

Both the 20th St Kroger and Sunny's on 14th will likely apply for and receive off-premise licenses, so you'll be able to pick up a 6-pack while waiting to pick up your pizza at Pink's.

 

I would also not be surprised if Revival Market applied as well.

 

Why wouldn't CVS or Walgreens qualify?  Because you say so?  f Kroger is going to be selling beer and wine, CVS and Walgreens would certainly want to take a shot at getting the exemption.  The ordinance is not written tightly enough to make it obvious that a store like CVS would be excluded.  And given the way the City of Houston likes to fold like a cheap suit under the weight of big business interests, I would be surprised if CVS and Walgreens did not get the exemption.

[s3mh]

14 minutes ago, JJxvi said:

Just checked this thread because I was wondering if the usual suspects would be up in a clamor over this.  Yep.

Actually, this issue has thrown people in all different directions.  I have seen ardent anti-HAHC people come out for vote no (Bill Baldwin is behind the Keep the Heights Weird vote no group).  I have seen ardent anti-Walmart people come out strongly in favor of HEB (won't name names as they are not public figures).  So, sorry.  The world is a bit more complicated than what you hear on AM radio every morning.

[JJxvi]

Ha. I didn't say anything about what side anybody was on, just the levels of clamor.

[s3mh]

16 minutes ago, JJxvi said:

Ha. I didn't say anything about what side anybody was on, just the levels of clamor.

Oh, I see.  Caring about your neighborhood and voicing opinions is something that you think is worthy of ridicule.  That is even worse.

[flatline]

La Michoacana already sells beer.  I've had occasion to pick up a cheap, cold six-pack of tall boys to go with deliciously-marinated fajita meat and crispy chicharrones, whereupon I immediately transported my quarry to, and consumed it in, the Dry Heights.

[UtterlyUrban]

I am personally against certain parts of the city having different laws regarding "vices" than other parts.  I can't vote this item in this election.  But, if it came to a general election on this matter, I would vote to make the heights wet.

 

conversely, I am also fine with the heights de-annexing and creating their own town if they wish and then they could stay dry or wet by their own vote.

[IronTiger]

23 hours ago, Angostura said:

 

 

If it's a dated concept (which it is) then it should be worth getting rid of anyway, HEB or no HEB.

 

If no grocery stores in Texas, or even Houston, for that matter, could sell alcohol, it wouldn't be an issue. The problem is that a store at this site that isn't able to sell beer and wine will have to compete with one 12 blocks away that can. 

You've basically ignored my other points to focus on one point in which I gave for a valid reason of voting Yes. I pointed out how your "H-E-B architecture can be nice" comment was essentially meaningless and you ignored that.

 

But even if it is somewhat dated, is that wrong? I think Texas roadside parks are in many ways functionally obsolete, that doesn't mean I'd like to see them all go away. Furthermore, as much as I like alcohol, I don't have a dependence on it that would cause me to demand the area be wet (now, 12 miles out of town on the other hand, but that's not the issue here).

 

To me, motivations matter. It's not just the availability of alcohol in the Heights, it's that H-E-B is pushing it in order to build a cookie-cutter store in the area (the "But H-E-B is LOCALIZED" argument would only show that if H-E-B really wanted to fit in with the neighborhood, it would not have a beer and wine section). If I lived in the Heights (which I don't), I would be very wary of anyone advocating to changing the law based solely on corporate interests, because that's what it is, isn't it?

[txcat84]

18 minutes ago, IronTiger said:

Furthermore, as much as I like alcohol, I don't have a dependence on it that would cause me to demand the area be wet.

I see what you did there

 

And I don't mean to trigger, or whatever they call it now when you present an unpopular opinion, but a lot of really good things happen thanks to 'corporate interests'.

 

Edited October 28, 2016 by txcat84

[IronTiger]

2 hours ago, txcat84 said:

I see what you did there

 

And I don't mean to trigger, or whatever they call it now when you present an unpopular opinion, but a lot of really good things happen thanks to 'corporate interests'.

 

Don't worry, I'm not a SJW, so no language policing for me.

 

Yes, I agree corporate interests do drive a lot of things for the greater good, but I don't think this is one of them.

 

I think that the vote should've been to provide an exception to grocery stores (keeping the area "officially" dry, at least on the books, plus that takes care of the "everyone selling beer" problem). Besides, didn't the Montrose H-E-B have to jump through some hoops to allow them to sell beer? When it opened five years ago, the beer and wine departments were empty and roped off because of their proximity to schools.

 

[Ross]

The law doesn't provide a means to allow only grocery stores to sell alcohol. 

[kylejack]

On 10/28/2016 at 10:55 AM, IronTiger said:

I think that the vote should've been to provide an exception to grocery stores

 

 

Sounds like you want to carve out an exception for narrow corporate interests while fencing out the mom and pops (such as convenience stores). I disagree and would like to get rid of this archaic relic of Prohibition.

[IronTiger]

38 minutes ago, kylejack said:

 

Sounds like you want to carve out an exception for narrow corporate interests while fencing out the mom and pops (such as convenience stores). I disagree and would like to get rid of this archaic relic of Prohibition.

 

I'm not trying to "carve out an exception for narrow corporate interests", I'm trying to think of a reasonable compromise that would allow H-E-B to come in while assuaging fears of the "element" at convenience stores if beer and wine were sold. Of course, you do have a point in that it only goes farther to kiss up to corporate interests.

 

Personally, I don't mind the "dry area" of the Heights but seeing how I am not a resident of the Heights I have no legal say in the matter. If I did though I would vote NO, keep things the way the are. H-E-B can come and adapt to the neighborhood or screw off.

[kylejack]

I want to get rid of Prohibition because Prohibition sucks. Getting a nice HEB is just icing on the cake.

[UtterlyUrban]

All residents of the same city should be governed by ONE set of municipal ordinances.  the Heights should either de-annex and form their own dry (or wet) city or, stay in Houston and become wet (subject to all other existing ordinances) like the rest of the city.

[txcat84]

Why? Not being snide or trying to hijack the thread, but I would like to understand your opinion.

[august948]

Why not?  It's not like the Heights is a haven of tetotalers, is it?  Prohibition had it's heyday long ago.  If the Heights was a religious commune that might be understandable, but it's just another neighborhood in Houston.

[txcat84]

I don't follow. Guess it's just my opinion, but management decisions should be made at the lowest possible level by the people the rules affect the most.

[kylejack]

Well, if I live near the zone, the rules affect me.

[UtterlyUrban]

11 hours ago, txcat84 said:

I don't follow. Guess it's just my opinion, but management decisions should be made at the lowest possible level by the people the rules affect the most.

Your position would imply that city ordinances could vary, literally, block by block and create literally thousands of variances.  My 10 block area wants special requirements on cabs and garbage collection.  500' away, those folks want something else.  That wouldn't work, would it?

 

the natural boundary is the city limit.

 

the HOUSTON residents of the Heights need to comply with the broader ordinances that apply to the rest of Houston OR de-annex and become their  own City and they can do as they wish.

 

 

[txcat84]

1 hour ago, kylejack said:

Well, if I live near the zone, the rules affect me.

Agreed, but maybe not as much as those within the dry area? I see where you're coming from though, and I'm sure it's frustrating.

 

1 hour ago, UtterlyUrban said:

Your position would imply that city ordinances could vary, literally, block by block and create literally thousands of variances.  My 10 block area wants special requirements on cabs and garbage collection.  500' away, those folks want something else.  That wouldn't work, would it?

 

the natural boundary is the city limit.

 

the HOUSTON residents of the Heights need to comply with the broader ordinances that apply to the rest of Houston OR de-annex and become their  own City and they can do as they wish.

 

 

Fair enough, but I think having transportation availability and city services is agreeable to pretty much everyone within a city, and from a have/have not standpoint aren't as derisive of issues.

 

And for the most part, I think being able to buy beer and wine at a grocery store is generally agreeable too, but the situation has metastasized as the Heights has gentrified. Thus, here we are with a relatively unique situation that can't be put into the same peg holes as cabs and trash cans?

 

And before we go any further, to whom it may concern, don't get butt hurt or attack-y. This is an attempt to educate myself before pulling the lever.

[UtterlyUrban]

Txcat84.  Let me ask you this:

 

if liquor sales are a "Bad" --- "bad" enough to have a tiny area of the city be dry -- does that mean that this "Bad" has simply been exported to other neighborhoods?

 

What are your thoughts?

 

here are mine:

 It is clearly true that many (perhaps not "all", just "many" or likely "most") residents of the heights dry zone do drink and visit establishments that sell and serve liquor outside the zone.  That means that the folks who support keeping the Heights dry -- for all the reasons that they cite for wanting to keep the heights dry (traffic, noise, thugs, mugs, etc, etc), ---- are really saying "I want all that to be in another neighborhood  and let some other Houston resident deal with it daily.  I'll just drive there when I want a whiskey and contribute to that OTHER Houston residents 'problem' ."

 

If its "bad" enough to be banned in the heights, then its bad enough to be banned in Montrose, right?

[txcat84]

I think that's the obvious argument, but I think it should have been made 50 years ago (we probably agree there).

 

To your point, if it was an alcohol good vs. bad thing, why not ban it in Harris County, the state, the nation, the WORLD?! (evil laugh). I get that, and given, I'm leaning toward voting for the wetness, but I think it may not be a question of alcohol good vs. alcohol bad for many people.

 

At this point, the lack of alcohol, plus rapid gentrification have generated a unique, situational growth pattern. I think that's more what people feel they are voting for or against. They see that the neighborhood can indeed be nice without alcohol, so it becomes a not-broke-don't-fix thing.

 

Is alcohol a straw man for many people voting against? Probably, but unfortunately I don't think anyone can say with 100% certainty that there won't be adverse effects. (For me, I think the good probably outweighs the bad)

 

We should have have never home schooled this kid to begin with, but do we stick him in a public now that he's all grown up and weird? 

[s3mh]

The Texas legislature decided a very, very long time ago that the regulation of alcohol sales should be left up to municipalities and counties.  That approach made sense way back when and makes sense today for the reason that Texas has a large number of rural districts for the state legislature that could potentially gang up on the urban districts and impose alcohol restrictions on the entire state.  Texas is one of the most permissive states for alcohol sales.  Texas allows the sale of single servings for carryout.  Texas allows beer and wine to be sold in grocery stores (PA and few other states do not).  Texas allows liquor sales with beer and wine (OH and others only allow liquor to be sold in state stores).  Within that permissive environment, muni/county officials are given the power to impose a dry zone on serving and selling alcohol, but not on private consumption (i.e. regulation, not prohibition).  

 

The Heights was originally its own municipality.  A little over a decade before actual prohibition, the Heights was annexed to the City of Houston.  As part of the deal, the dry zone stayed in place.  Since then, many new residential communities sprouted up all over the City of Houston and mimicked the dry zone through deed restrictions.  There are deed restrictions in Norhill and Woodland Heights, but very few in the Heights proper.  So, while people buying into the Heights were not given the protection of deed restrictions, they were given some measure of protection with the dry zone.  This was very relevant for me when I bought because the area was just on the cusp of the rapid gentrification while Washington Ave was being converted into a new Richmond Strip.  I did not want to live anywhere near bars, clubs and convenience stores that were selling booze.  I passed on a couple of nice properties that were in Kutzbach because they were too close to the wet areas along Studewood and White Oak.  I purposefully chose the Heights proper because it was a historic district and in a dry area.  

 

So, the foregoing is to demonstrate that the debate is not about whether the Heights should have the ability to declare itself dry.  That happened over a hundred years ago pursuant to legislation that is still the law of the land in Texas.  The debate is whether that dry restriction should be stripped away in part.  What it then boils down to is saying to people who did their homework and looked up and down the street to make sure they bought in an area that would be best for raising kids and growing old into retirement that their preference and investment do not count unless they can prove that there will be some great harm by changing the law.  But the burden is really on those who want to change the law to show that changing the law will not cause any change in the benefits residents have enjoyed in the dry zone.  For me, the fact that the convenience store just down the street is going to be selling beer and wine just next to a bus stop is a clear change to the benefit I have enjoyed by very purposefully buying in a dry zone.  If you live outside of the dry zone and are ok with living next to a convenience store that sells beer and wine, that is great for you, but it does not mean that I should be ok with it or that I should support HEB's effort to change the law.  

[Angostura]

 

1 hour ago, s3mh said:

Texas is one of the most permissive states for alcohol sales.  

 

 

 

Some things you cannot do in Texas:

 

• Buy or sell beer or wine between the hours of midnight and 7AM.
• Buy or sell beer or wine before noon on Sunday
• Buy a drink in a bar or restaurant after 2AM
• Leave the premises of a bar or restaurant with an open container 
• BYO to an establishment with a private club license
• Buy liquor in a grocery or convenience store
• Operate a liquor store outside of the hours of 10AM to 9PM, Mon-Sat
• Produce beer, wine or spirits and sell them directly to a retailer.
• Produce beer, wine or spirits and sell them to the public at a location other than where they were produced.
• Purchase beer, wine or spirits from the producer and sell them to the public.
• Purchase beer, wine or spirits from a retailer in another state.

 

 

Yes, some states are worse (esp. in the NE), but a lot of states are much more permissive. TX is pretty middle-of-the-pack, and still has a lot of consumer-unfriendly laws on the books.

 

 

[s3mh]

http://www.chron.com/business/real-estate/article/H-E-B-signs-lease-for-Washington-Avenue-property-10591702.php

 

HEB has had a lease signed for Washington Ave for months.  90k sq ft store at the corner of S. Heights and Washington Ave.  Funny how Scott McLelland didn't have a big press conference with a bunch of politicians at the Wash Ave site the way he did at the Shep location.  The lack of transparency and astroturf campainging is not going over well.  It is actually a bit offensive that HEB appears to think that we were all dumb enough not to be able to figure out that the HEB on Wash Ave was a done deal.

[Angostura]

1 hour ago, s3mh said:

http://www.chron.com/business/real-estate/article/H-E-B-signs-lease-for-Washington-Avenue-property-10591702.php

 

HEB has had a lease signed for Washington Ave for months.  90k sq ft store at the corner of S. Heights and Washington Ave.  Funny how Scott McLelland didn't have a big press conference with a bunch of politicians at the Wash Ave site the way he did at the Shep location.  The lack of transparency and astroturf campainging is not going over well.  It is actually a bit offensive that HEB appears to think that we were all dumb enough not to be able to figure out that the HEB on Wash Ave was a done deal.

 

 

The lease memo was available to the public since it was filed with the county clerk back in May. The lease is in the name of "HEB Grocery Company LP," not some cryptically named shell company (e.g. "BKR Memorial II, LLC," which is the grantor in the lease memo), so it comes up when searching for "HEB" on the county clerk's website. 

 

I stumbled across it when looking for the Shepherd & 23rd lease and posted it to the Going Up thread yesterday (coincidentally, just a few minutes before the first Chronicle article on the lease was posted yesterday afternoon).