Jump to content

Guiding Growth


Recommended Posts

I wish Houston would release a lot of its ETJ that we all know it won't annex, and let these suburban communities in unincorporated Harris County form their own towns and cities. Let them govern themselves and have zoning and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/5715041.html

Looks like the old zoning debate is stirring again.

The Klineberg survey is intentionally vague. Most everybody (especially property owners which have a dog in the hunt) can think of a way in which they might like to regulate some aspect of development. Exactly what ought to be done is another matter altogether.

For instance, one person in the article complained about development that was out of scale with the surrounding area. If historical scale or density is the criteria for future development that ought to be adhered to, then it would be exceedingly difficult to densify large swaths of the inner loop which are essentially suburban in character. Ardent urbanistas that want to promote centralization and density would likely not take too well to that kind of a policy. Then there are competing special interests, such as those that would want to promote development in Midtown to the exclusion of other areas, or the poor blacks of Third Ward, which may try to stave off any kind of change (for better or worse) in an attempt to keep the neighborhood essentially segregated by race...even as folks at the University of Houston might be trying to expand in such a way as could ultimately transform that area.

There's just too much infighting for land use regulation to work effectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not everyone has to be happy with how development goes for there to be land use regulations. It doesn`t have to be all (everyone is totally satisfied and there are no conflicts of interest) or nothing (as it is now).

Besides, if Klineberg knows how to ask a question, why is his survey intentionally vague?

(Gasp!) Is he...not asking good questions on purpose, to...to put a political spin on popular opinion?

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not everyone has to be happy with how development goes for there to be land use regulations. It doesn`t have to be all (everyone is totally satisfied and there are no conflicts of interest) or nothing (as it is now).

I guess it all comes down to whether you think that the politicians in City Council have your own interests at heart. Its great if you happen to live next door to them or one of their more generous campaign donors, I suppose.

Otherwise... -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before we even start talking about zoning we should get rid of the setback/parking rules (and other such restrictions) and then wait a 5-10 years or so to see what happens.

not that easy. some of that is dictated at the state level with deed restrictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not everyone has to be happy with how development goes for there to be land use regulations. It doesn`t have to be all (everyone is totally satisfied and there are no conflicts of interest) or nothing (as it is now).

This is one of those enduring myths about Houston... It is simply not correct to say that there are currently NO land use regulations. There are many neighborhoods with deed restrictions and there are building setback, parking, and other regulations on land use covering the entire city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of those enduring myths about Houston... It is simply not correct to say that there are currently NO land use regulations. There are many neighborhoods with deed restrictions and there are building setback, parking, and other regulations on land use covering the entire city.

Yeah, I thought about that when I was writing the post. I made use of the term really just because "all or nothing" is one of those set phrases. Sorry if that gave the wrong impression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not that easy. some of that is dictated at the state level with deed restrictions.

Aren't the requirements dealing with mandatory parking spaces, etc. city ordinances? If it turns out that deed restrictions are getting in the way of progress, then I guess we'll just have to go with zoning.

Or we could just zone certain parts of the city -- portions around LRT stations etc. could be eminent domained and then portioned out to companies that agreed to form-based zoning. That would be better than zoning the whole thing.

Edited by N Judah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't the requirements dealing with mandatory parking spaces, etc. city ordinances? If it turns out that deed restrictions are getting in the way of progress, then I guess we'll just have to go with zoning.

Or we could just zone certain parts of the city -- portions around LRT stations etc. could be eminent domained and then portioned out to companies that agreed to form-based zoning. That would be better than zoning the whole thing.

Supreme Court decisions prevent zoning of some areas and not others. Either all of a municipality must be zoned or none of it. Having said that, there are all kinds of quirks in urban planning law that I don't understand, so there may be a loophole somewhere that circumvents the requirements placed upon traditional zoning methods.

One way that might work, for instance (and I'm not suggesting it except as an example), would be to implement $20,000 per unit impact fees on all multifamily anywhere in the City except within a quarter-mile of a rapid transit facility. It'd kill development throughout large swaths of our massive City, especially near all those shiny new Energy Corridor jobs, and scarcity in those areas would result in some extreme rent increases as well as tremendous apartment growth out towards Katy, but damned if it wouldn't be effective for getting development rolling in Midtown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supreme Court decisions prevent zoning of some areas and not others. Either all of a municipality must be zoned or none of it. Having said that, there are all kinds of quirks in urban planning law that I don't understand, so there may be a loophole somewhere that circumvents the requirements placed upon traditional zoning methods.

Hmm...in that case, I was thinking they could just eminent domain anything near a LRT station and then portion it out to whoever submitted the best "proposal." They'd all submit bids (as would be the case with, say, a brand new library) and then choose the one that suited their tastes the most.

Edited by N Judah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before we even start talking about zoning we should get rid of the setback/parking rules (and other such restrictions) and then wait a 5-10 years or so to see what happens.

Marlene Gaffrick from COH Planning spoke at our neighborhood association meeting last week. Seems that the City is well disposed to granting setback variances in return for concessions from developers. As she put it, this way the City can get something of benefit out of the development. As a case in point, they granted a setback variance to the West Ave development, one of the conditions being addition of a right hand turn lane onto Kirby from Westheimer.

Edited by sidegate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm...in that case, I was thinking they could just eminent domain anything near a LRT station and then portion it out to whoever submitted the best "proposal." They'd all submit bids (as would be the case with, say, a brand new library) and then choose the one that suited their tastes the most.

Although METRO was granted powers of eminent domain within some particular radius of each light rail station, that was before the New London case initially set a precedent allowing it, followed within days by the State of Texas passing legislation disallowing it. I'm not sure what would happen if METRO tried to use their powers, aside from the inevitable lawsuit.

Now what METRO has done so far is negotiate with a Midtown property owner so as to purchase his property from him, shielding him from property taxes while he puts together a development proposal. The City of Houston and HISD were not happy about that, but I don't know what ever came of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't the requirements dealing with mandatory parking spaces, etc. city ordinances? If it turns out that deed restrictions are getting in the way of progress, then I guess we'll just have to go with zoning.

not necessarily. some deed restrictions do affect parking.

Or we could just zone certain parts of the city -- portions around LRT stations etc. could be eminent domained and then portioned out to companies that agreed to form-based zoning. That would be better than zoning the whole thing.

the last time the city attempted to zone, they made it too complicated which brought out many foes, including some neighborhoods. they hired a planner from denver (i believe) to lead the process. she had a BIG interest in forming green spaces however it was at the expensive of not being able to develop some land which did not sit well with most property owners and developers. the use of eminent domain to acquire property for some type of zoning would probably bring out more foes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now what METRO has done so far is negotiate with a Midtown property owner so as to purchase his property from him, shielding him from property taxes while he puts together a development proposal. The City of Houston and HISD were not happy about that, but I don't know what ever came of it.

I was wondering what happened to this as well. i haven't heard a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although METRO was granted powers of eminent domain within some particular radius of each light rail station, that was before the New London case initially set a precedent allowing it, followed within days by the State of Texas passing legislation disallowing it. I'm not sure what would happen if METRO tried to use their powers, aside from the inevitable lawsuit.

I wonder if the New London case and the METRO case are the same scenario since one is a city and the other is not. I don't see how METRO doing eminent domain would be different from TxDOT or HCTRA. Anyway, I know it's been talked about on this site before...I'll go check out the old thread, maybe some legal eagles have already weighed in on the subject.

Edited by N Judah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the use of eminent domain to acquire property for some type of zoning would probably bring out more foes.

How so? The eminent domain METRO has around LRT stops is miniscule compared to the city as a whole. Many of the neighborhoods around the stops are relatively new and would stand to benefit tremendously. I am sure there are many people who would love to get in METRO's way just as a proof of concept --just because they could-- but if spite is such a great motivator for them then I guess as a city we really are just stuck with what we have.

Edited by N Judah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How so? The eminent domain METRO has around LRT stops is miniscule compared to the city as a whole. Many of the neighborhoods around the stops are relatively new and would stand to benefit tremendously. I am sure there are many people who would love to get in METRO's way just as a proof of concept --just because they could-- but if spite is such a great motivator for them then I guess as a city we really are just stuck with what we have.

Imagine yourself as a current owner of some of the property in question. You've held on for the past 3+ yrs in the hopes of developing a project. Then METRO comes in, claims eminent domain and then allows someone else to develop it. How would you feel?

Those that are directly affected will be the most vocal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine yourself as a current owner of some of the property in question. You've held on for the past 3+ yrs in the hopes of developing a project. Then METRO comes in, claims eminent domain and then allows someone else to develop it. How would you feel?

Those that are directly affected will be the most vocal.

Correct. And if they paid me correct market rate I wouldn't have anything to complain about. Same with the Memorial side of Katy Freeway. Even if I had something to complain about, I probably wouldn't have any way of doing anything about it, if the power that be did their job correctly.

Houston is not a populist paradise. All it needs is some big money maniac to steamroll this city into being where it needs to be. We have done this same s--t for the last 50 years and nobody had complained about it until the freeway lobby felt threatened.

At any rate, my question still stands: how would this would bring about "more" foes relative to the amount of "foes" that would be brought out if zoning were enacted across the whole city?

Edited by N Judah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At any rate, my question still stands: how would this would bring about "more" foes relative to the amount of "foes" that would be brought out if zoning were enacted across the whole city?

that's a different question than the use of eminent domain to acquire property. zoning doesn't result in property changing hands.

as for getting the market rate, the most recent case i can think of are the two brothers that lost their land for a pocket park near the galleria. seems the city didn't give them near what ed wulfe offered for their property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...