The Langley: Residential High-Rise At 1717 Bissonnet St.

[LTAWACS]

The residents are myopic indeed. Thanks for posting. Very dramatic.

[talltexan83]

http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2013/12/jury-sides-with-residents-in-ashby-case/?cmpid=bna

[Subdude]

'Twill be a happy Christmas in Southampton:

 

 

A verdict has been reached in years-long fight between residents and the developer of a planned 21-story high rise in the Rice University area. A jury has unanimously sided with residents who've filed a lawsuit opposing the construction of the Ashby High Rise at 1717 Bissonnet. As for the future of the high rise, the judge will now determine whether the project is a permanent nuisance, and if the judge says yes, it could stop the project...This case is sure to set a precedent for the future of development here in Houston.

 

 

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9363856

 

 

 

Squeaky wheels....grease...

 

 

 

[Subdude]

It will be interesting to see if the developer appeals, and if so, on what grounds.  How much can they be willing to sink into this proposal?  What will be even more interesting is the extent to which this ruling really does set a precedent.  I'm sure the people in River Oaks who are unhappy with the proposed office building on San Felipe are paying extremely close attention.  

 

 

[infinite_jim]

It will be interesting to see if the developer appeals, and if so, on what grounds.  How much can they be willing to sink into this proposal?  What will be even more interesting is the extent to which this ruling really does set a precedent.  I'm sure the people in River Oaks who are unhappy with the proposed office building on San Felipe are paying extremely close attention.

In order for the jury to award tort monies, tort has to be proven not speculated.

[nate]

Keep in mind that this win for 20 of the 30 Plaintiffs does not mean that the Project will not get built, even if it is upheld on appeal.

 

Judge Wilson will hold a separate hearing on whether or not to permanently enjoin the Project. If there is no injunction issued, the Project could go forward with the payment of damages that were determined by the jury today.

 

Attached is the Charge of the Court with the jury's findings.

58775292.PDF

Edited December 17, 2013 by nate

[Gator80]

Wow. I guess all of those goofy signs worked after all.

[cloud713]

Ugh I hope it gets built..

[TowerSpotter]

Ugh I hope it gets built..

Yeah such a bummer....I think there is still a bit of hope.

[Howard Huge]

You have seriously got to be kidding me.

I have no words. Where did these jurors come up with these random/outrageous dollar amounts? Even down to 'xx,xxx.58 cents'. Cents? Really?? Who the hell do you think you are? Man, now I REALLY hope this thing gets built so bad and it actually DOES lower their precious property values to the tune of more than they are awarded and they end up having to stay living under the "Tower Of Terror" because moving out would equal a huge loss.

[Howard Huge]

I wanna know who handpicked that "appraiser", he was probably greased by the deep pockets of the residents.

I HIGHLY doubt that if this project gets built i will be able to waltz into SouthHampton and buy a house for 22% less than what I can now. If anything, like other posters have already stated, it will just make everything even more expensive than it is now.

Buncha hogwash.

[jt16]

Without injunctive relief, the project would just move forward anyway and the developer would appeal or settle the jury award.

[Triton]

Wait wait wait... they are getting paid damages for something that hasn't even been built and may not be allowed to be built. Okay.

[Subdude]

Wait wait wait... they are getting paid damages for something that hasn't even been built and may not be allowed to be built. Okay.

 

I believe the damages are payable only if the project is built.

 

Buckhead (the developer) has said they will appeal, but I don't think they said on what grounds.  I'm no lawyer, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that appellate courts are hesitant to overturn (unanimous) jury verdicts except when there has been an error of some sort, or something that compromised the fairness of the trial.

[Nucleareaction]

 

My lord... Read the article and understand it before replying!

 

When all is said and done, how much is $1.6m in damages compared to the cost of construction?

[capnmcbarnacle]

You have seriously got to be kidding me.

I have no words. Where did these jurors come up with these random/outrageous dollar amounts? Even down to 'xx,xxx.58 cents'. Cents? Really?? Who the hell do you think you are? Man, now I REALLY hope this thing gets built so bad and it actually DOES lower their precious property values to the tune of more than they are awarded and they end up having to stay living under the "Tower Of Terror" because moving out would equal a huge loss.

 

I'm sure they got these numbers from various appraisers and expert witnesses who put a number on the loss of market value.  Both sides got the chance to present testimony from their own expert witnesses and the jury got to decide who they believed. 

 

There is nothing too surprising about this verdict.  If you are the guy next door, is having a 20 story building over your backyard a nuisance?  I see how the jury would think it is, and it's easy to get an appraiser to give an opinion on a loss in value if it gets built.  It's also clear the jury thought other people were too far away to be effected and gave them nothing.  That being said, I'd be very surprised if the judge permanently enjoins this project.  The residents will get compensated for the loss of use and enjoyment of their property and Buckhead will build their building.

[Montrose1100]

If the Tower doesn't get built, I will ring a church bell and claim it the day that no-zoning died in Houston.

[talltexan83]

I still believe the primary tactic of the residents is to delay this project until legal fees, shift in capital markets, shift in demand, etc force Buckhead to take another route.  I know Buckhead has very publicly stated they will fight this as far as it can go (Supreme Court?), but the costs they're incurring have to be getting outrageous? Do you think they'll eventually sue to recoup those expenses?

 

I'm also betting they can sell the parcel for a very healthy profit (not bad for a "worse case scenario").  I did have another general question:

 

Hines vs Buckhead:  In a project like this, how much does the relative profile/experience of the firm come into play when we're talking about securing financing or quality contractors?  Has Buckhead completed a project like this before?  Does that even matter?

[Triton]

Now I fear we'll have to turn our eyes to the Hines tower near River Oaks.

[Subdude]

I still believe the primary tactic of the residents is to delay this project until legal fees, shift in capital markets, shift in demand, etc force Buckhead to take another route.  I know Buckhead has very publicly stated they will fight this as far as it can go (Supreme Court?), but the costs they're incurring have to be getting outrageous? Do you think they'll eventually sue to recoup those expenses?

 

 

That's what I don't understand.  Given the resistance of the neighborhood, why would they continue to push the tower?  Why not work with the neighborhood to come up with something everyone can live with?  Who are they benefiting by being  confrontational? 

[cloud713]

Now I fear we'll have to turn our eyes to the Hines tower near River Oaks.

Ugh...

[aarosurf]

The San Felipe tower still has no signs of breaking ground, which makes me worry.

[august948]

They should rent the ashby lot out for frat parties until they are ready to start building.

[Houston19514]

They should rent the ashby lot out for frat parties until they are ready to start building.

 

Good idea.  It might also make a good location for regular art festivals.

[ig2ba]

That's what I don't understand.  Given the resistance of the neighborhood, why would they continue to push the tower?  Why not work with the neighborhood to come up with something everyone can live with?  Who are they benefiting by being  confrontational? 

 

Themselves and other developers in the future.

 

And any business who relies on predictability of regulations and the rule of law.

 

Besides these groups, nobody really.

[lockmat]

I still believe the primary tactic of the residents is to delay this project until legal fees, shift in capital markets, shift in demand, etc force Buckhead to take another route.  I know Buckhead has very publicly stated they will fight this as far as it can go (Supreme Court?), but the costs they're incurring have to be getting outrageous? Do you think they'll eventually sue to recoup those expenses?

 

 

That's what I don't understand.  Given the resistance of the neighborhood, why would they continue to push the tower?  Why not work with the neighborhood to come up with something everyone can live with?  Who are they benefiting by being  confrontational? 

I think it will be very difficult to please the residents while allowing the developers to make a profit.

I mean, what if the developers wanted to build a hideous one story building? They could argue that would lower their home values too.

[LTAWACS]

Those effin residents ... we should start a fund to assist with the developer's legal fees. In return the developer can name a floor or a park bench in honor of the largest donors.

[Reaper88]

So, why did we have no-zoning in the first place?

[Sky-guy]

Those effin residents ... we should start a fund to assist with the developer's legal fees. In return the developer can name a floor or a park bench in honor of the largest donors.

The LTAWACS Amenities level

Edited December 18, 2013 by Sky-guy

[KinkaidAlum]

Property rights are a two way street. That's the law. 12-0 jury verdict in short order reflects the law.

 

Buckhead can build this thing. The ruling didn't block them from building. It just states that if they do, they must compensate others for lost value and damages. 

 

The fact that some residents weren't compensated because they were too far away to be impacted by things like foundation issues demonstrates to me that the jury was paying attention to the facts presented.