The Heights Historic Districts

[s3mh]

That is the problem with the back room way that this ordinance is being done. They got people to support one thing, then they perverted it. You will most likely not be able to repair or upgrade your bungalow later, or it will cost you significantly more than it would cost you to do it today. That is not intended to be a scare tactic, its the truth.

As to the scare tactics - have you ever seen people get fired up, excited and mad and show up over something that had a marginal impact on their life? No - People only get excited and stand up when something is absolutely terrible. If it were just an inconvenience nobody would be opposing it. It is not an inconvenience, its a huge change to the property itself.....The city has introduced an extremely harsh extremely restrictive ordinance....if you want to end up in the middle with something that everyone is happy with the opposition has to be extremely to the other side. Otherwise we will end up with something that is extremely to the city side.

I agree with the James - if you limit or restrict construction, the improvements that have fundamentally changed the heights from an old run down neighborhood into a nice place that people actually want to live will dry up. I am in support of preventing the subdivision of lots to cram lots of houses onto a small lot....I dont want to see large brownstones completely change what the heights is...but at the same time, I also agree that at least 2/3 of the new homes are nice, aesthetically pleasing, two story homes that are adding to the neighborhood, not detracting. The value of the lots are too high to prevent two story homes from being built next door to small bungalows - that is an economic reality. Most, if not all new builds are going to be two story homes.

I think the majority of people would support an ordinance that prevented sub diving lots, that supported prevailing lot lines, and set backs, but did not limit what the house could look like, what materials it could be made from, and what color it would be.

The problem with the ordinance is it has gone way too far - much farther than anyone ever intended it to go. I think the majority of people have no idea what it is that is being rammed through. They get an email that says come get your yellow sign, and stop big townhomes from being built next door...stop new construction. What they dont know is the negatives....they are not being told, because there has been no media attention, mailers, or flyers. They are most likely seriously misinformed. Very few people actually know how bad the ordinance actually is....that is the truth, that is the reality...we live in an uninformed, apathetic society now....You may be informed, but your neighbor sporting the yellow sign most likely is not, or is misinformed.

You seem to be relatively well informed, but even in this post you stated that the HAHC would not be able to control the color of your house. The precise wording of the ordinance actually does allow them to control the color of your home. I know you don't support that aspect of it, and you think I am just fear mongering, but I am not. The wording of the ordinance allows the HAHC to determine the color of your home until they remove it from the ordinance, if passed it will become reality. Will it be enforced? I dont know - I seriously doubt it, but its better to not have ordinances and laws that are in force just not be applied. It does not make sense to pass something that will not be enforced unless someone complains...When a law or ordinance is only enforced on a case by case basis it gives rise to serious questions of fairness and equal application.

I close with my libertarian beliefs....Just remember, that once the government has the power to control this aspect of your life, they will not give it back....they never downsize and return rights to people...its just a constantly expanding black hole of bureaucracy.

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.

[AtticaFlinch]

There is plenty of money to be made with historic bungalows and plenty of peolpe willing to do it.

It will certainly make the neighborhood more exclusive. It's a good plan B if you fail to stop the Walmart construction.

[s3mh]

It will certainly make the neighborhood more exclusive. It's a good plan B if you fail to stop the Walmart construction.

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).

[LookyHere]

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).

This is the case for us as well. We bought a medium sized bungalow that was renovated by the previous owners. The renovation is almost 10 years old now but it suits our small family fine. My partner and I think often about adding another child to the mix but we cannot afford a larger, new construction and there are very few bungalows with more than 3 bedrooms. I office from home, so we have to have that space available. Preservation of bungalows allows us and many of our friends (who are artists, academics, musicians as well as middle management professionals) to call the Heights home. I have several friends (a ballet dancer, one who works at TUTS and another who works at the Alley) who live in Norhill, which I believe has the strictest historic ordinances in the Heights. They have all had to make "conforming" changes and go through the HCAC. It did not make any of their changes cost prohibitive. These are not super high income people. I do not live in a Historic district but the renovation to my bungalow was pretty conforming. If conforming was totally cost prohibitive, the young couple who owned this home before us probably wouldn't have been able to do it this way. The most expensive part of a renovation like this is wood windows and they are well worth it in the long run.

[SCDesign]

From the meeting tonight for Norhill, Woodland Heights and Freedmans Town:

About 250 people were there and at least 225 were in favor of the nowe ordinance. Maybe more. One thing that was said that is encouraging, Sue Lovell said "I don't know how to say it any plainer, we WILL have a ballot vote" and I don't believe she qualified it this time with an "if there is enough opposition" If she based her decision on tonight she would probably decide it isn't necessary. Oh, and the ballot will use the 51% threshold not the 67%, unless they do it after the new ordinacne has passed. I do think that next weeks meeting will be a different story but people do need to show up. Marlene also explained that if the ballots show there is support in certain areas and not in others that they will change the district to fit the support.

[LookyHere]

From the meeting tonight for Norhill, Woodland Heights and Freedmans Town:

About 250 people were there and at least 225 were in favor of the nowe ordinance. Maybe more. One thing that was said that is encouraging, Sue Lovell said "I don't know how to say it any plainer, we WILL have a ballot vote" and I don't believe she qualified it this time with an "if there is enough opposition" If she based her decision on tonight she would probably decide it isn't necessary. Oh, and the ballot will use the 51% threshold not the 67%, unless they do it after the new ordinacne has passed. I do think that next weeks meeting will be a different story but people do need to show up. Marlene also explained that if the ballots show there is support in certain areas and not in others that they will change the district to fit the support.

THIS is the answer. I know my friends in Norhill really want a "no means no" protected status. If that neighborhood wants it, let them have it with out all this other nonsense.

[TAPHouston]

From the meeting tonight for Norhill, Woodland Heights and Freedmans Town:

About 250 people were there and at least 225 were in favor of the nowe ordinance. Maybe more. One thing that was said that is encouraging, Sue Lovell said "I don't know how to say it any plainer, we WILL have a ballot vote" and I don't believe she qualified it this time with an "if there is enough opposition" If she based her decision on tonight she would probably decide it isn't necessary. Oh, and the ballot will use the 51% threshold not the 67%, unless they do it after the new ordinacne has passed. I do think that next weeks meeting will be a different story but people do need to show up. Marlene also explained that if the ballots show there is support in certain areas and not in others that they will change the district to fit the support.

I don't believe the vote was quite that lopsided, especially with regard to districts other than Woodland Heights. Lovell did indeed affirmatively state that there would be a ballot vote and there was NO qualification in her statement; however, when I asked her after the meeting to confirm she meant what she said, she claimed she didn't say that and why would she send a ballot when the vote was clear. I pointed out that she had used the word "guaranty" when she said there would be a repetition. She became very agitated and eventually said she wouldn't talk to me any more because I called her a liar.

A couple of things were clear: Lovell is being very underhanded in how she is conducting these meetings. In addition to her misrepresentations about a repetition, she and the other city employees carefully culled through the written questions and would read one question but provide an answer to a different question.

Second, it is clear that neither Lovell nor the other city representatives have much idea of what is in the ordinance. At one point, a city representative answered a question about fences by saying they weren't covered and by pointing out that you don't even need a permit unless it exceeds a certain height. Of course, fences are specifically enumerated in the list of items that constitute alterations. The question about landscaping came up. Again they claimed that it wasn't covered. Again the plain language of the ordinance covers any alteration to the "site," defined as the property.

I'm sure this is a done deal but I'm glad I saw just how dishonest/uninformed/clueless (take your pick) our city officials are.

[SilverJK]

why do people have "Say Yes" signs in their yard, weren't we all under the impression there wasn't going to be a vote??? Say yes to what? Elitism?

[s3mh]

why do people have "Say Yes" signs in their yard, weren't we all under the impression there wasn't going to be a vote??? Say yes to what? Elitism?

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.

[20thStDad]

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.

I don't see where anything democratic is being proposed. I'm not getting a vote, and someone else will make decisions for me once this is imposed.

[Marksmu]

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 think alot of people would be alot more comfortable with the ordinance if they knew WHAT was actually covered. Also, it would be much more palatable if it exempted property currently owned from the restrictions so that they could do what they want to with their own property. There were not restrictions when the property was bought, there should not be restrictions for the duration of their ownership. I am still not in favor of restrictions popping up at the time of sale, but its better than the current proposition b/c at the very least the owners of the lot now who may have had plans to build a new home later are not completely robbed of doing what they had long planned to do. Any new owner would buy with full knowledge of the current restrictions. It would still have a negative effect on property values, but at the very least if you want to stay in your home, or build a new one on your lot, your personal expectation of your property are not completely destroyed.

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.

While I completely agree that a Realtor is the most overpayed profession based on the pathetic amount of work they actually do - I do not agree there is anywhere near as much interest in restoration and addition as there is in new builds. If you wait 100 years you may eventually get enough people to restore and repair all the blight that dots the area - but that wait is a negative to the area. The builders who are putting up attractive new homes where blight used to stand are doing a great service to the neighborhood. They are allowing families who need/want more than 2 or 3 bedrooms and 1 bath to come into the neighborhood. They bring with them their money. They increase the value of your property, they increase the tax base which benefits everyone, and they bring money into the area, that has already shown to have a positive impact. The horrible run down Kroger is now a nice Kroger - nice restaurants are popping up and people are visiting them. The increase in value/liquid cash has been a huge boom to the area. It was builders who took the initial risk to come in and make the Heights desirable again, and now that it is, the new residents who are moving into the older homes b/c they cant afford the new ones are trying to stop the builders from doing what they have been doing for years.

Also, there is no chance of the Heights turning into a Bellaire - Almost all the builders who are building new homes in the area are at least trying to go with a Victorian/New Orleans style....nobody, or at least very few are trying to throw up a bunch of spanish style homes with orange roofs, or the stucco homes that are throughout Bellaire. There is no chance at all that the Heights will ever look like Bellaire. It already has a unique quality to it, and the mix of new/old on many street is very attractive. I think you will find zero opposition to this ordinance in Woodland heights where those homeowners bought with full knowledge of the restrictions....but an after the fact imposition of a restriction is just wrong.

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.

Painting can easily be considered either ordinary maintenance, when repainting to the same color, or an alteration when you change colors. The fact that it is ambiguous makes me believe that it was intentionally made ambiguous so they could evoke the ordinance when someone does something that makes those who just happen to be in power (or their friends) upset . I am willing to bet that if you paint your bungalow an artistic purple with huge bright yellow flowers next door to one of the HAHC board members, that the paint choice would be considered an alteration and not normal maintenance.

It is not at all unreasonable to think that an appointed board would abuse their power. History shows us that where there is the opportunity for abuse, it will occur. We need to remove the opportunity BEFORE we put the system in place that will enable it.

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 love hearing this argument. Deregulation is not what caused a near collapse of our financial system. There was abuse in the system, and some took great advantage of it (mortgage brokers), but the sub-prime mortgage fiasco headed up by Fannie and Freddy are the indirect cause of the collapse. Fannie and Freddie CEO's both warned the government years before the collapse that we were headed toward a collapse if the system was not changed to allow them to turn down unqualified buyers. The congressional black caucus was the leading cause of lending rules being loosened so that anyone could qualify for home regardless of income. When they were told that the system would collapse they played the race card and the disgusting abuse of political correctness took hold and the abuse continued. The collapse was not caused by GWB, or his congress, or the deregulation of the financial market...it was caused by a Democrat congress, and a politically correct president who could not find his own rear end.

Technology has occasionally arisen to enable the government to loosen their grips, such as in telephones and a few other monopolies, but when it comes to creating bureaucracy, how many government programs can you name that have ever been eliminated? I can think of only one...the TRCC, and that was just a state program that was doomed from the start because it was bad for builders and for homeowners. The courts were a more effective/efficient use of time and resources than the TRCC.

[sonic0boom]

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.

A couple things here:

1. A realtor would be happy to sell a renovated $500K bungalow just as soon as a $500K new build. In fact, they would much prefer the former because a neighborhood of renovated homes is much more desirable. Take a look on HAR, and you'll see that nice, restored bungalows don't go for that much less than a newer house in the neighborhood that has twice the square footage.

2. "... destroy what is left of Houston's historic homes...". In context of most of the older homes in the Heights, this is like saying that the homes in Cinco Ranch will be historic 60-70 years from now. I won't go in to differences with build quality or the look/character of the home, but most of the homes in the Heights were built with the same idea in mind -- cheaper, working class single family homes in the 'burbs.

And just another observation, I am amazed at how much the Heights has kept its character over the past 10 years despite all these evil, elitist builders/realtors/architects. We're talking about one of the hottest neighborhoods in one of the nation's largest cities and yet in the main Heights area, you are more likely to see a smaller, older home than a McVic. All this without the proposed changes.

[Gooch]

The builders who are putting up attractive new homes where blight used to stand are doing a great service to the neighborhood. They are allowing families who need/want more than 2 or 3 bedrooms and 1 bath to come into the neighborhood. They bring with them their money. They increase the value of your property,

IF you own one of the new builds. Existing bungalows get reduced to teardown value, example: Rice Military.

they increase the tax base which benefits everyone,

Not the person paying the taxes!

Also, there is no chance of the Heights turning into a Bellaire - Almost all the builders who are building new homes in the area are at least trying to go with a Victorian/New Orleans style....

No chance? Not even a little bit? The neighborhood is depending on nothing more than developer's sense of good will to build something asthetically suitable. Counting on developer's goodwill is... umm... well... a brave exercise in trust. How can we trust the developer's any more than HAHC.

nobody, or at least very few are trying to throw up a bunch of spanish style homes with orange roofs, or the stucco homes that are throughout Bellaire. There is no chance at all that the Heights will ever look like Bellaire.

What (other than builders good will and sense of style) prevents that from happening? Everyone seems to think HAHC is trying to prevent The Heights from becoming another Bellaire. I think the risk is becoming another Rice Military.

While this ordinance gives the HAHC way too much arbritrary power; the current situtation puts too much power into developers hands. Largely the ordinance is backlash to some of the egregious things we've all observed in the neighborhood. There's got to be some middle ground.

but an after the fact imposition of a restriction is just wrong.

Yes and no. Expecting to live in the core of the 4th largest city in the US, while it's undergoing a drastic population expansion with its attendent densification, while expecting absolutely zero land-use regulation is a bit optimistic. While encouraging those that own historic properties to accept change in the form of new intrusive structures... you are conviently leaving out yourself. Change is indeed hard in whatever form it takes. Edited August 4, 2010 by Gooch

[mcook2002]

for the win....

I don't see where anything democratic is being proposed. I'm not getting a vote, and someone else will make decisions for me once this is imposed.

[Marksmu]

IF you own one of the new builds. Existing bungalows get reduced to teardown value, example: Rice Military.

Existing bungalows get renovated all the time now, right next door to new builds. Its been going on for 10 years, I have a feeling it will continue. Some people want new, some want to save old. Its not 100% in either direction....there are areas of the heights (woodland heights) that are all old. If you want an expensive small home, thats your place.

Not the person paying the taxes!

The person paying taxes gets benefits from their tax dollars....if you dont want to pay high taxes dont live in an expensive home. That may require you to move, b/c lots are now at least $200,000 for a 66x132

No chance? Not even a little bit? The neighborhood is depending on nothing more than developer's sense of good will to build something asthetically suitable. Counting on developer's goodwill is... umm... well... a brave exercise in trust. How can we trust the developer's any more than HAHC.

What (other than builders good will and sense of style) prevents that from happening? Everyone seems to think HAHC is trying to prevent The Heights from becoming another Bellaire. I think the risk is becoming another Rice Military.

Builders want to make a profit. They are not building for fun or to make neighbors angry. They generally know what sells Victorian, or as the bungalow snobs like to call them McvVics. The Bellaire style home is not being built in the heights, b/c it most likely wont sell. If you want a house like those in Bellaire, go live in Bellaire. The drive to make a profit and sell a house has been working pretty well so far. I can think of only 1 house in the greater heights area that resembles a Bellaire home and while I think it sticks out like a sore thumb....the guy who built it, built it for himself, not as a spec home by a builder.

While this ordinance gives the HAHC way too much arbritrary power; the current situtation puts too much power into developers hands. Largely the ordinance is backlash to some of the egregious things we've all observed in the neighborhood. There's got to be some middle ground.

What egregious things are we talking about?? I really do want to know what egregious things you object to. Is it Tricon building the 2 story homes with the front facing garages? Tricon has several other nice contributions to the area. The homes that they built before those over the garage homes are on average very nice. I can think of several stand alone homes that are quite nice. I would rather trust someone whose financial well being is dependent upon there being a good strong market for their product, than a group of close minded, politically appointed hacks, who are drunk with their new found powers. People who are invested heavily usually make much better decisions than those who are not invested. Profit is a strong driver for people to build something that will sell.

Yes and no. Expecting to live in the core of the 4th largest city in the US, while it's undergoing a drastic population expansion with its attendent densification, while expecting absolutely zero land-use regulation is a bit naive. While encouraging those that own historic properties to accept change in the form of new intrusive structures... you are conviently leaving out yourself. Change is indeed hard in whatever form it takes.

Im not asking for no land use regulation. It makes sense that the area prevent industrial business from expanding...though we dont have zoning, the requirement for drainage for new structures is very effective at preventing industry from expanding here. The lot value also is very effective, and I support the prevention of subdiving lots to cram more homes on them. I am not advocating no control at all...but I am firmly against a vocal minority of people who want to keep things exactly as they are against dictating to everyone else how its going to be. Most people just want to know what they are buying, and then find something they are happy with, and be left alone. They dont expect the rules to change half way through the game. The people supporting the ordinance whole heartedly are a very vocal minority. If you asked people now to sign the petition with all of the information you would not even come close to get 50% of the vote.

This was a bait and switch. Plain and simple.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Marksmu

[Gooch]

That may require you to move, b/c lots are now at least $200,000 for a 66x132

True enough. And if one doesn't want to live in a newly created historic district they are free to move to have the benefit of unrestricted property use. See how that works? 

  

What egregious things are we talking about??  I really do want to know what egregious things you object to

I'm not about to start criticising specific homes. If you can't think of a single home in the Heights that doesn't fit the scale, heightline, and setback of it's neighbors... I can't help you understand why some form of restriction is needed. Sorrry.

Most people just want to know what they are buying, and then find something they are happy with, and be left alone. They dont expect the rules to change half way through the game

what about those that bought a house  because it as in a neighborhood of bungalows. Thier rules are getting changed, too. 

[AtticaFlinch]

what about those that bought a house because it as in a neighborhood of bungalows. Thier rules are getting changed, too.

Gooch, this is where I disagree with you. The owners who bought bungalows bought knowing full well they owned in an area without the rules. Why can't the city grandfather an exemption for current owners? That seems to me the only fair compromise.

[Gooch]

Gooch, this is where I disagree with you. The owners who bought bungalows bought knowing full well they owned in an area without the rules. Why can't the city grandfather an exemption for current owners? That seems to me the only fair compromise.

I agree that ALL owners should factor in the risk of buying into a wild-west-no-hold-barred area. Owners that like it as it is have the risk of the character changing. AND Owners have the risk that some type of rule will be imposed in the future. Both are possible, and likely. One simply cannot anticipate the regulatory climate to be static. It's as poor of an assuption as assuming the character of a neighborhood is static. Given that there almost zero rules, that land use regulation is the norm rather than the exception, and governments ever forward regulatory creep, it should have been obvious that rules would be added at some point.

Some in the Heights, the first residential suburb in the city, with a large stock of original houses, and an active historical preservation group, are acting surprised that the area is being made into a historic district. They shouldn't should be.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Gooch

[SilverJK]

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.

Let me say this again... what are you saying yes to? You are just putting in in everyones face that you support the strong-arming of people's property rights. What if they decide you can't put politically motivated posters in your yard... you couldn't put your sign up support non-voting issues in the future!

Edited August 5, 2010 by SilverJK

[Marksmu]

True enough. And if one doesn't want to live in a newly created historic district they are free to move to have the benefit of unrestricted property use. See how that works?

Newly created - means I lost rights, I lost value. The restrictions will reduce the value of the property as people like me (the silent majority) no longer want to move there. Builders will be much less interested in building there because of the probable delays, increased costs, and increased construction time to get materials and approvals. Its a negative for every single person except that small vocal minority of people who want everything to be the way it was in 1920. Unfortunately the small minority is just louder. I am free to move, but I am not leaving till I get paid for the lost value in my home because of the restrictions.

I'm not about to start criticising specific homes. If you can't think of a single home in the Heights that doesn't fit the scale, heightline, and setback of it's neighbors... I can't help you understand why some form of restriction is needed. Sorrry.

I know of some homes that I would not build b/c I dont like them. But I would not call many of them egregious...there are maybe a handful egregious ones...All in all 90+% of the new homes are very attractive, and add to the neighborhood, not detract. Of those 90% its likely that only 35-40% of them would get approval based on the HAHC guidelines I have seen.

what about those that bought a house because it as in a neighborhood of bungalows. Thier rules are getting changed, too.

Wrong - there were no rules and they knew it when they closed. There is a disclosure form in your closing package....the title company checks off the box as to whether or not there are deed restrictions, set backs, etc. It was clearly checked unrestricted.

If you bought with bungalows and they are unrestricted you knew full well the risk that anything, even a high rise condominium complex could be built. It is a risk that you take by purchasing unrestricted property. 9 times out of 10 the unrestricted property gamble pays off.

Unrestricted property is worth more money, that is why it is sought out.

I came from a neighborhood with deed restrictions...very harsh deed restrictions. I hated it. I intentionally moved where I did because there were no deed restrictions. I bought where I bought for a reason. Now your trying to change the rules. There was never any expectation by anyone of anything when I bought. It is all new and its wrong.

[sevfiv]

Reminder from the GHPA:

The City of Houston Planning & Development Department is hosting the fourth in its series of public meetings to discuss proposed changes to the historic preservation ordinance tonight (Thursday, August 5) from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Glenbrook United Methodist Church, 8635 Glen Valley Drive.

Although anyone may attend, tonight’s meeting will primarily address property owners in the proposed Glenbrook Valley historic district. The complete schedule of meetings and a summary of the proposed amendments are on the Planning & Development Department website.

There is a great deal of misinformation circulating about the proposed amendments. GHPA’s website addresses these misrepresentations. Click here to view the information in pdf format, which can be e-mailed or printed to share with your neighbors.

GHPA will continue to provide its members with updates on this issue.

[JJxvi]

And just another observation, I am amazed at how much the Heights has kept its character over the past 10 years despite all these evil, elitist builders/realtors/architects

That's because the defining "character" of the Heights is a hodge podge of building styles, and even types over about 100 years. The closest person to me who sticks anti-new construction, and "Say Yes" and whatever other new sign is out in their front yard lives in a grocery store (although I dont believe neither they, nor I, actually live in one of the affected historic districts. The neighborhood has changed a lot since I was a kid, mainly due to the influx of money into the neighborhood. Thats the only change I see, the neighborhood is richer, not better, nor worse. Its still a hodgepodge of commercial, even industrial, mixed with old houses, even apartment complexes in the middle of neighbiorhood blocks, only now theres new homes and townhomes added to the mix. I live across the street from a large commercial building that has been transformed into lofts, its been there since I was a kid. The family business is two houses don and has been there for 30 years. The house next door to me is a big new home (2 on what was once one lot), where previously there was a 950 SF shack that appeared ready to fall at any moment. There's an apartment complex 2 blocks away, theres the people that live in the grocery store. There's new buildings sure, but most of the places are 20-30-50-80 years old. Anybody that moved into the Heights in the past 80 years moved into a hodge podge that has been constantly evolving and been added onto with very little directed development or thought to an overarching character. The "historic district" types want to change the nature of my hood, IMO, not preserve it.

[Marksmu]

Reminder from the GHPA:

The City of Houston Planning & Development Department is hosting the fourth in its series of public meetings to discuss proposed changes to the historic preservation ordinance tonight (Thursday, August 5) from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Glenbrook United Methodist Church, 8635 Glen Valley Drive.

Although anyone may attend, tonight’s meeting will primarily address property owners in the proposed Glenbrook Valley historic district. The complete schedule of meetings and a summary of the proposed amendments are on the Planning & Development Department website.

There is a great deal of misinformation circulating about the proposed amendments. GHPA’s website addresses these misrepresentations. Click here to view the information in pdf format, which can be e-mailed or printed to share with your neighbors.

GHPA will continue to provide its members with updates on this issue.

That PDF from the GHPA - is propoganda. I am not faulting you or saying anything at all about your posting it, you are doing a service by posting it here for discussion....I'm just stating, and I am stating it as fact, that what is written on that PDF is 100% not supported by what is written in the ordinance. Does anyone else not think that it is very odd, and extremely untruthful, that the GHPA is taking the time to create a web site, and have meetings to dispel the myth of all these untruths, while 100% refusing to do the much faster, much better, more legitimate process of just modifying the ordinance to actually say what they want you to believe it says?

They wont modify the ordinance to actually conform to the propaganda they are putting out because the truth remains, that they do in fact want to control all exterior aspects of your home. If they did not, they would just modify the ordinance to state explicitly what it is that is covered and put to rest the items that are not.

The only truthful statement is that the ordinance does not currently control any interior modifications.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Marksmu

[ISMDAVID]

That's because the defining "character" of the Heights is a hodge podge of building styles, and even types over about 100 years. The closest person to me who sticks anti-new construction, and "Say Yes" and whatever other new sign is out in their front yard lives in a grocery store (although I dont believe neither they, nor I, actually live in one of the affected historic districts. The neighborhood has changed a lot since I was a kid, mainly due to the influx of money into the neighborhood. Thats the only change I see, the neighborhood is richer, not better, nor worse. Its still a hodgepodge of commercial, even industrial, mixed with old houses, even apartment complexes in the middle of neighbiorhood blocks, only now theres new homes and townhomes added to the mix. I live across the street from a large commercial building that has been transformed into lofts, its been there since I was a kid. The family business is two houses don and has been there for 30 years. The house next door to me is a big new home (2 on what was once one lot), where previously there was a 950 SF shack that appeared ready to fall at any moment. There's an apartment complex 2 blocks away, theres the people that live in the grocery store. There's new buildings sure, but most of the places are 20-30-50-80 years old. Anybody that moved into the Heights in the past 80 years moved into a hodge podge that has been constantly evolving and been added onto with very little directed development or thought to an overarching character. The "historic district" types want to change the nature of my hood, IMO, not preserve it.

Your points are well thought out and presented very articulately. Well Done.

[TheNiche]

Hey, Marksmu, I just wanted to compliment you on your performance in this thread. I just wish we saw this analytical and decisive side of you more often on other threads.

[dbigtex56]

That PDF from the GHPA - is propoganda. I am not faulting you or saying anything at all about your posting it, you are doing a service by posting it here for discussion....I'm just stating, and I am stating it as fact, that what is written on that PDF is 100% not supported by what is written in the ordinance. Does anyone else not think that it is very odd, and extremely untruthful, that the GHPA is taking the time to create a web site, and have meetings to dispel the myth of all these untruths, while 100% refusing to do the much faster, much better, more legitimate process of just modifying the ordinance to actually say what they want you to believe it says?

I'm 99% sure that you're not 100% correct.

[Marksmu]

I'm 99% sure that you're not 100% correct.

Welcome to the 1% of the time that you are wrong then.

I have not made even one comment that cannot be supported by the wording of the ordinance. While Sue Lovell, and the GHPA can attempt to dispel myths by talking about all the inaccuracies that are allegedly being spread around, the fact remains that the ordinance is what is controlling, not what they say in a meeting. When it is all said and done and the HAHC has all the control, it will not help your cause any that Sue Lovell said they would not do exactly what it is they are doing to you.

The fact remains that it is the black and white wording of the ordinance that will dictate what can and cannot be done. All the fluff you hear in these meetings is nothing more than a campaign promise, and everyone knows how worthless campaigns promises are.

[s3mh]

Welcome to the 1% of the time that you are wrong then.

I have not made even one comment that cannot be supported by the wording of the ordinance. While Sue Lovell, and the GHPA can attempt to dispel myths by talking about all the inaccuracies that are allegedly being spread around, the fact remains that the ordinance is what is controlling, not what they say in a meeting. When it is all said and done and the HAHC has all the control, it will not help your cause any that Sue Lovell said they would not do exactly what it is they are doing to you.

The fact remains that it is the black and white wording of the ordinance that will dictate what can and cannot be done. All the fluff you hear in these meetings is nothing more than a campaign promise, and everyone knows how worthless campaigns promises are.

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.

[s3mh]

That's because the defining "character" of the Heights is a hodge podge of building styles, and even types over about 100 years. The closest person to me who sticks anti-new construction, and "Say Yes" and whatever other new sign is out in their front yard lives in a grocery store (although I dont believe neither they, nor I, actually live in one of the affected historic districts. The neighborhood has changed a lot since I was a kid, mainly due to the influx of money into the neighborhood. Thats the only change I see, the neighborhood is richer, not better, nor worse. Its still a hodgepodge of commercial, even industrial, mixed with old houses, even apartment complexes in the middle of neighbiorhood blocks, only now theres new homes and townhomes added to the mix. I live across the street from a large commercial building that has been transformed into lofts, its been there since I was a kid. The family business is two houses don and has been there for 30 years. The house next door to me is a big new home (2 on what was once one lot), where previously there was a 950 SF shack that appeared ready to fall at any moment. There's an apartment complex 2 blocks away, theres the people that live in the grocery store. There's new buildings sure, but most of the places are 20-30-50-80 years old. Anybody that moved into the Heights in the past 80 years moved into a hodge podge that has been constantly evolving and been added onto with very little directed development or thought to an overarching character. The "historic district" types want to change the nature of my hood, IMO, not preserve it.

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.

[little frau]

I would ask why that small bungalow next to you was left to decay. Was it because the owners could not afford to make repairs that would satisfy the HAHC?