The Heights Dry Zone

[J008]

Now that the election is over, I'm going to contact Ellen Cohen to see if she's any good at her job. I'll ask her about repealing this stupid rule that makes the neighborhood dry. Maybe she can't do it herself, but she should be willing to help.

It won't matter once the new parking ordinance goes into effect.

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/eating/2011/11/restaurant_and_bar_owners_crow.php

[RedScare]

It won't matter once the new parking ordinance goes into effect.

http://blogs.houston...owners_crow.php

Ahh, the residents want urban planning, but they also want acres of parking. They want their cake and to eat it, too. It is so hard to legislate utopia, especially when all of your friends want to drive there in their SUVs.

[J008]

Ahh, the residents want urban planning, but they also want acres of parking. They want their cake and to eat it, too. It is so hard to legislate utopia, especially when all of your friends want to drive there in their SUVs.

I guess something has got to give. I'd give up acres of parking (all parking actually) pretty quick. No suprise who the losers will be.

You'd think we would be up in arms about the govt imposing more and more costly regulations on small business owners.

[VicMan]

I agree that businesses should not be forced to provide parking. In dense urban areas, it is a given that you need to walk and/or take public transportation

If the city still wants people to take cars, it should encourage development of parking garages in any vacant lots

[SilverJK]

Any local Houston business should be provided with a parking exemption promoting local business. This would fit in to the whole "Houston First" thing I believe (until someone later removes the exemption and screws all the local beneficiaries).

Red,

While i agree with you, I never will understand the expression "have your cake and eat it too" what the hell else am i going to do with the cake?

[RedScare]

Any local Houston business should be provided with a parking exemption promoting local business. This would fit in to the whole "Houston First" thing I believe (until someone later removes the exemption and screws all the local beneficiaries).

Red,

While i agree with you, I never will understand the expression "have your cake and eat it too" what the hell else am i going to do with the cake?

The phrase speaks to the wish to have the best of both worlds, in the sense that one wishes to both possess the cake and also to eat it. Once eaten, the cake can no longer be possessed, as it is gone. It makes more sense to say one wishes to eat their cake and possess it (or preserve it) too. I find this phrase to be so appropriate in describing so many of the demands of Heights residents. They wish to oppose density in the Heights with ordinances that limit one home to a lot, and outlaw townhomes and condos, thereby preserving the Heights' origins as Houston's first suburb, but then decry the building of a "suburban" Walmart, claiming condos or apartments above retail is needed. They also complain of the McMansions that are built that were forced by the lotline ordinance. They support West End residents in "preserving" the character of their neighborhood, though those very residents employed a scorched earth policy of razing every old home in the hood, replacing them with 3 to a lot townhomes. There was a huge Swamplot argument about parking on the street near Heights area restaurants, while simultaneously decrying the razing of a home to provide off street parking.

Frankly, "having their cake and eating it too" is a nice way of saying these people are completely bi-polar in their wishes. Even their preservation demands are bi-polar. They want the irginal homes preserved while they add hideous 2 story additions to the back. Some of them even think that is attractive. They probably think Lindsay Lohan's boob job is attractive, too. The same principle apllies.

[JJxvi]

RedScare beat me to it, "have your cake and eat it too" is not about someone who wants a piece of cake, gets it, and eats it, but more along the lines of someone wanting unlimited cake. Meaning that after they eat their peice of cake, they always still need to have another piece, also. Or think of it as everybody gets a piece of cake, and one person eats their own piece and then looks around and cries that everybody else has a piece of cake but them.

[TheNiche]

The phrase speaks to the wish to have the best of both worlds, in the sense that one wishes to both possess the cake and also to eat it. Once eaten, the cake can no longer be possessed, as it is gone. It makes more sense to say one wishes to eat their cake and possess it (or preserve it) too. I find this phrase to be so appropriate in describing so many of the demands of Heights residents. They wish to oppose density in the Heights with ordinances that limit one home to a lot, and outlaw townhomes and condos, thereby preserving the Heights' origins as Houston's first suburb, but then decry the building of a "suburban" Walmart, claiming condos or apartments above retail is needed. They also complain of the McMansions that are built that were forced by the lotline ordinance. They support West End residents in "preserving" the character of their neighborhood, though those very residents employed a scorched earth policy of razing every old home in the hood, replacing them with 3 to a lot townhomes. There was a huge Swamplot argument about parking on the street near Heights area restaurants, while simultaneously decrying the razing of a home to provide off street parking.

Frankly, "having their cake and eating it too" is a nice way of saying these people are completely bi-polar in their wishes. Even their preservation demands are bi-polar. They want the irginal homes preserved while they add hideous 2 story additions to the back. Some of them even think that is attractive. They probably think Lindsay Lohan's boob job is attractive, too. The same principle apllies.

I've always understood that from context and I do concur with your analysis, but I hate using the expression. It's just weird. Cake is not a prized commodity just to have around and possess; it is actually quite affordable, easily obtainable, and is subject to rapid spoilage. If anything, there's often too much of it to go around. I wish the same were true of Linday Lohan's anatomy, be it natural or "enhanced", but alas that is not the case.

[J008]

The phrase speaks to the wish to have the best of both worlds, in the sense that one wishes to both possess the cake and also to eat it. Once eaten, the cake can no longer be possessed, as it is gone. It makes more sense to say one wishes to eat their cake and possess it (or preserve it) too. I find this phrase to be so appropriate in describing so many of the demands of Heights residents. They wish to oppose density in the Heights with ordinances that limit one home to a lot, and outlaw townhomes and condos, thereby preserving the Heights' origins as Houston's first suburb, but then decry the building of a "suburban" Walmart, claiming condos or apartments above retail is needed. They also complain of the McMansions that are built that were forced by the lotline ordinance. They support West End residents in "preserving" the character of their neighborhood, though those very residents employed a scorched earth policy of razing every old home in the hood, replacing them with 3 to a lot townhomes. There was a huge Swamplot argument about parking on the street near Heights area restaurants, while simultaneously decrying the razing of a home to provide off street parking.

Frankly, "having their cake and eating it too" is a nice way of saying these people are completely bi-polar in their wishes. Even their preservation demands are bi-polar. They want the irginal homes preserved while they add hideous 2 story additions to the back. Some of them even think that is attractive. They probably think Lindsay Lohan's boob job is attractive, too. The same principle apllies.

I can see a six story mixed use development from my house in the effette called the heights and haven't heard that much complaining. I think the neighborhood is more likely to support dense development on major streets (and the parking trouble) than it was say when onion creek was starting up.

I don't think the ordinance would find as much support among heights residents as it would among highly capitalized retail\restaurant business. Raising barriers to entry doesn't hurt everybody.

[TheNiche]

Raising barriers to entry doesn't hurt everybody.

Not if you pretend to have cultivated an appreciation for post-digested cake, I suppose.

[RedScare]

I've always understood that from context and I do concur with your analysis, but I hate using the expression. It's just weird. Cake is not a prized commodity just to have around and possess; it is actually quite affordable, easily obtainable, and is subject to rapid spoilage. If anything, there's often too much of it to go around. I wish the same were true of Linday Lohan's anatomy, be it natural or "enhanced", but alas that is not the case.

The prhase is from the 1500s. My sources tell me cake was indeed a prized commodity back then. But, maybe you'd like this one better...You want the butter and the money for the butter. Or...You want to be at Mass and in the Procession too. Being a former Catholic, I kinda like that last one.

[infinite_jim]

LOL, how exactly will this cut down on the number of variance requests?

[Ross]

LOL, how exactly will this cut down on the number of variance requests?

That's achieved by making the address for requesting a variance unlisted, and returning any variance request that doesn't go to the right address to the requester.

[infinite_jim]

That's achieved by making the address for requesting a variance unlisted, and returning any variance request that doesn't go to the right address to the requester.

What are you talking about?

I can not directly name past projects, but I've had to request a parking variance for a project in Midtown and was allowed to offset my parking req's using ch42 (available off site parking swap). If that variance had not been granted it (existing req's) would have sunk the project.

[Ross]

What are you talking about?

Humor. You wanted to know how the proposal would reduce variance requests. I replied that the way to reduce the variance requests is to make the submission address impossible to find, and to return improperly addressed variance requests, ie those sent to City Hall or the Mayor, to the requester with a note to send it to the correct, but impossible to find, address. Much like the joke Jeff Millar used to write about regarding the insurance company with the unlisted claims number that greatly improved profits.

[LTAWACS]

the more they sell the better.

[heights_yankee]

Any local Houston business should be provided with a parking exemption promoting local business. This would fit in to the whole "Houston First" thing I believe (until someone later removes the exemption and screws all the local beneficiaries).

I think this is a brilliant idea.

In the last 6 months, two buildings on Studewood have been torn down to make more parking spaces. If they pass this ordinance, that's what we'll see- bulding/parkinglot/building/parkinglot/building/parkinglot.

Parking issues have been a much bigger road block for some businesses trying to open in the Heights than the dry area has. Antidote & Heights Ashbury both had issues. In HA case, it almost prevented them from opening.

[jamesw]

I agree it sucks. How did Antidote get around the problem? I admit I was one of the evil people who parked on-street near Antidote yesterday....

Cheers

James

[heights_yankee]

I agree it sucks. How did Antidote get around the problem? I admit I was one of the evil people who parked on-street near Antidote yesterday....

Cheers

James

I don't know, honestly.

I try to bike/walk to Antidote but when I do have to drive, I often park on the street as well. People get pretty creative in that parking lot.

[J008]

I agree it sucks. How did Antidote get around the problem? I admit I was one of the evil people who parked on-street near Antidote yesterday....

Cheers

James

I think their parking is probably adequate considering their square footage, they just tend to have people that linger a while.

[SilverJK]

I didn't expect a serious a response to my sarcastic jab at silly old sayings... = ]

The infinite cake eaters also like to talk out of both sides of their faces.... i guess that allows you to talk and eat at the same time?

[Heightsfamily]

I had seen the yard signs but could not find out much more until this morning's article on Swamplot. I think they present a good clear case for voting against liquor sales in the Heights and you can easily find out if you are eligible to vote on the proposition. And they will give you a yard sign if you want one!

 

http://swamplot.com/swamplot-sponsor-keep-the-heights-dry/2016-10-20/

[HouHeightsGuy]

Just so you know the proposition does not allow liquor sales.  

 

Proposition 1 would allow the legal sale of beer and wine for off-premise consumption only in an area where it’s currently not allowed — the “dry Heights.”

 

The purpose of the proposition is to change the law to allow grocery stores to sell beer and wine.  Kroger would have incentives to improve their store on 20th and HEB has said they would move into the old Fiesta spot off 23rd and Shepherd.

 

Also, so everyone can have all the facts here is the link for advocacy group who support the ballot measure. http://www.heightswins.com/index.html

[s3mh]

38 minutes ago, HouHeightsGuy said:

 

 

The purpose of the proposition is to change the law to allow grocery stores to sell beer and wine.  Kroger would have incentives to improve their store on 20th and HEB has said they would move into the old Fiesta spot off 23rd and Shepherd.

 

Just so you know, the change in the law is not limited to grocery stores.  Anyone who obtains a permit can sell beer and wine for off premises consumption.  That would include CVS, Walgreens, convenience stores and beer and wine only package stores.  It could also potentially offer a work around for the club permit.  Joe's Burgers could have a beer and wine counter in a separate room of the same building and sell beer and wine to take next door to drink with your burger.  Texas allows sale of single servings of beer.  So, this is a very real possibility.  

[HouHeightsGuy]

2 hours ago, s3mh said:

the change in the law is not limited to grocery stores.  Anyone who obtains a permit can sell beer and wine for off premises consumption.  That would include CVS, Walgreens, convenience stores and beer and wine only package stores. 

This is true. I was trying to say that the proposition is not going to allow businesses to sell liquor and would not change anything with restaurants or bars (which currently have a way to sell alcohol with the club permit system).

 

I know that the main focus of the proposition is for a grocery store and that was the reason I mentioned it.

[Heightsfamily]

Apologies! That was a mis-statement on my part. I should have been clearer as I know it is limited to beer and wine. That being said, it is not what exactly is being sold that us the issue for me. It is the prospect of stores that may negatively disrupt the neighborhood as I enjoy it. Furthermore I can easily hit the 11th street Kroger or Kim's Liqours if I need something - less than a five minute drive or a stop on my way home. Major grocery chains have shown little love to the Heights so I plan my grocery shopping around that as well. Glad the issue is getting notice in any case. 

[brian0123]

I don't live in the Heights but have always been confused about the "keep it dry" argument. The rest of Houston doesn't have a problem, yet the Heights acts like a problem will be introduced by allowing sales. I live in Braeswood, and we're not overrun by shady corner stores.

 

Also, don't try to say "oh it's keeping our neighborhood unique and special"... no, it's not. Your neighborhood is like any other older hood already, just consumed by Victorian themed townhomes. Midtown, East Downtown, that pocket of 6th ward off Washington, even Galveston... those are some unique places... and they aren't dry.

 

Again, I could care less how the vote goes since I never go to the Heights anymore, but I really find this debate strange like we're still in the prohibition era.

[txcat84]

"Liquor", as seemingly innocuous as the word may be, will be a frequently-dropped buzzword in this campaign. I really can justify voting either way, but I certainly recommend folks do so armed with facts. 

[ADCS]

20 hours ago, Heightsfamily said:

Apologies! That was a mis-statement on my part. I should have been clearer as I know it is limited to beer and wine. That being said, it is not what exactly is being sold that us the issue for me. It is the prospect of stores that may negatively disrupt the neighborhood as I enjoy it. Furthermore I can easily hit the 11th street Kroger or Kim's Liqours if I need something - less than a five minute drive or a stop on my way home. Major grocery chains have shown little love to the Heights so I plan my grocery shopping around that as well. Glad the issue is getting notice in any case. 

So NIMBYism

[mollusk]

First off, the referendum isn't even about going wet, it's about going damp - beer and wine only, off premise only.  In other words, allowing the grocery and convenience stores to have the same stock that they can have less than a mile east or west.  Second, the on premise / liquor ship sailed some time ago with the not particularly exclusive "private clubs." Finally, the thoroughly wet rest of the Heights is hardly a hotbed of winos sleeping on lawns, etc., etc. - I should know, I've lived in the wet Heights since it was still a kinda sketchy neighborhood.

 

The dry argument sounds a whole lot like an analogue of "a taco truck on every corner!!!"  Or this.