The Heights Historic Districts

[RedScare]

There you go. An elegant an educational post that shows exactly how it should be done. Those who buy into the neighborhood buy into the deed restrictions as well. Nothing is hidden, nothing sprung on the homeowners after the fact, and no strong arm tactics by elected officials who were theoretically elected to serve their constituents. Somehow, when I try to explain that deed restrictions are a better solution, I am seen as the enemy, mostly by those who believe their vision should be inflicted upon their neighbors without recourse. But, heights yankee is one of the preservationists. She explained how only ONE homeowner waited out the 90 days in the last 10 years (sorry I was wrong about the 3). Unfortunately, in spite of the resounding success of the deed restriction approach, heights yankee still supports the draconian approach of a city ordinance (unless she's changed her mind).

A couple of things I'd like to point out to the couple of posters who will invariably label me a realtor or builder. I am neither. My property is deed restricted, one of the few on my block, and it was when I bought the house. I have no intention of violating it. Additionally, my block is governed by the lot line ordinance, though I have always argued that this promotes the building of larger homes. And, lastly, when I sell, it won't be in the high 200s or low 300s. It will be more like the low 400s. And I don't have a large addition on the back of my house, or anywhere else, for that matter. I do, however, have a brand new garage in back with a 2nd floor gameroom. I don't know if these anecdotes prove that the historic district homes sell for less than the non-restricted areas, but please understand that I do not want to find out.

[Marksmu]

I attended the meeting last week and have seen the flyers and website set up by the self-appointed opposition. The op-ed is a pretty tame treatment of the opposition.

The op ed treatment was tame? She claims at the end to want an "honest adult discussion" but she distorted facts, and made assumptions throughout her op ed. The chronicle would NEVER allow a dissenting piece to make it on its pages, so there is nothing honest or adult about this discussion at all...just more propoganda.

http://www.responsib...eservation.org/ is a website set up by a "group" (it isn't a non-profit) led by three prominent Heights area realtors. The op-ed was very kind not to point out the glaring conflict of interest. What is most telling about this "group" is that they actually claim that self-imposed deed restrictions and landmarking are better than even the existing historic district ordinance. Thus, this group doesn't just oppose the changes, they oppose any government initiated historic district ordinance.

Actually its huge and on the bottom of the home page....Why realtors....I dont really consider that dishonest. Not as much so as distorting facts to get your way and impose your beliefs on your neighbors.

The "scare tactics" are needed because many legitimate complaints with the ordinance could be easily remedied by better language. The ordinance needs to be more specific on the perameters for expansion, restoration and demolition. Too much discretion is placed in the hands of HAHC. But the realtors do not ask for this. Instead, they argue based on a 2002 op-ed addressing a different version of the ordinance and a single statement by a HAHC official that the ordinance is just the tip of the iceberg, and HAHC will dictate whether you can hang your toilet paper in the overhand or underhand fashion. If the extent of the authority of HAHC is a concern, work to better define and limit it. Do not tell tales about the HAHC governing paint color and AC placement in a dark post-apocalyptic future where HAHC robots monitor our every move.

They are not asking us to fix the language or clarify their crappy ordinance for them...they are cramming it down our throats as is. I have posted it time and time again. The ordinance as written CAN dictate paint color and AC placement whether or not they tell you it cant. The language is broad enough to allow it. We could actually come to some agreements that make everyone happy if the discussion were open and actually allowed. They are not asking for a discussion on the topic they are cramming what is written down our throats and just hoping to get it done before enough people wise up on what is being done.

The revised ordinance will have virtually no effect on them, unless their house burned down to the ground. But if that is the only concern, address it in the revisions. Don't kill of historic preservation for everyone else because you want to be able to rebuild your block busting mansion in case of a fire.

Well I am sure they feel much better knowing that if their house burns down they can not rebuild their home the way THEY want.....rather they have to rebuild it the way YOU want. Im sure that gives them a warm fuzzy feeling all over. Now lets all get together and cram our beliefs down everyone elses throats whether they want it or not. AND AGAIN - they are not asking us to help revise the ordinance. They are voting it into LAW the way it is currently written. What part of that are you not understanding?

Also, the number of true teardown properties in the Heights is quickly diminishing. That means that investors will start looking at properties that are in good condition for demolition and will be looking to build as many sq ft as possible to cover the higher lot price for a bungalow that has been updated. If the Houston economy got rolling again, it could mean the end of most of the historic bungalows in the Heights and the rise of a faux historic River Oaks/Bellaire neighborhood.

Speculation, and nothing more. Some people want small bungalows in nice areas. The cheapest home in the nicest neighborhood is always the easiest home to sell. The bungalows are benefiting from the new construction, plain and simple. This is most likely as much about not wanting taxes to go up as the area continues to improve as it is about preservation.

And then there are lots of arguments that are just self-serving and silly. People claim that the bungalows must go in order to attract families to the Heights to support the public schools. If you build a 4500 sq ft house on a lot and sell it for 800-1mi, do you really think that family will be sending their kids to Field or Browning? Smaller and more affordable housing will bring in the kind of families who are willing to put the time into bringing the schools up to snuff, not monster mansions.

Here you are wrong again. Having a Smaller bungalow or a larger home does not mean that the people who live in them are any different at all. That argument just shows your bias against not just the home, but also the people who buy them. You apparently are offended and afraid of people who have more money than you. I wonder what went so wrong in your life that you have such hatred of those who may have more than you.

Finally, the claim that this ordinance works a "constructive [sic] condemnation", as one poorly informed opposition questioner asked at the meeting, is not credible. The government is not the virtual insurer of property values. Anyone purchasing in the Heights over the past decade has been on notice that the neighborhood is full of historic homes and has been actively seeking historic preservation ordinances. The Heights neighborhood is one of the most sought after real estate markets in the entire city. As the City grows and gas prices go back through the roof, property values in the Heights will continue to climb through the roof. In California, bungalows go for 500-700k compared to 300-500k in Houston. There is still plenty of appreciation left and no reasonable investment back expectation has been harmed.

Its absolutely a credible argument. Condemnation has nothing at all to do with insuring the value of the property. Rather it places a value upon the loss of property rights that were present at the time of purchase and are removed without compensation or agreement. I guess you are an attorney and all your legal knowledge is at work here.

Your "On Notice" argument is also worthless. There is no "notice" that you could have the rules changed just because you bought an older home. Its a ridiculous argument.

The less like California that Texas remains, the better this State will be. California is a model state of things NOT to do. It is a bankrupt state full of some of the worst ideas/planning/governing in the United States.

[s3mh]

Your "On Notice" argument is also worthless. There is no "notice" that you could have the rules changed just because you bought an older home. Its a ridiculous argument.

You have notice that the rules could change because the historic distric is governed by an ORDINANCE. Ordinances are created, revised and repealed all the time by City Council. It is a ridiculous argument to claim that the ordinance could never be revised just because the ordinance affects real property or because people petitioned to create a historic distric. There is no bait and switch. The petition created a historic district that would be governed by an ordinance, not by an unchangeable restriction that is recorded in the real property records. When someone signed the petition, they were agreeing to be in a historic district governed by an ordinance. They were not singing a contract. They were not creating a deed restriction. It is like voting for annexation by a municipality but then complaining when the municipality changes an ordinance. Ordinances are ordinances.

[AtticaFlinch]

You have notice that the rules could change because the historic distric is governed by an ORDINANCE. Ordinances are created, revised and repealed all the time by City Council. It is a ridiculous argument to claim that the ordinance could never be revised just because the ordinance affects real property or because people petitioned to create a historic distric. There is no bait and switch. The petition created a historic district that would be governed by an ordinance, not by an unchangeable restriction that is recorded in the real property records. When someone signed the petition, they were agreeing to be in a historic district governed by an ordinance. They were not singing a contract. They were not creating a deed restriction. It is like voting for annexation by a municipality but then complaining when the municipality changes an ordinance. Ordinances are ordinances.

They can be revised either way, either more lax or more draconian. And, simply because they can be revised doesn't mean they will. Regardless, if there is no ordinance, there's nothing to be revised. Again, give existing homeowners the ability to opt in or out, and make this ordinance mandatory for new buyers and the entire debate disappears. Why can't that be done?

[Marksmu]

You have notice that the rules could change because the historic distric is governed by an ORDINANCE. Ordinances are created, revised and repealed all the time by City Council. It is a ridiculous argument to claim that the ordinance could never be revised just because the ordinance affects real property or because people petitioned to create a historic distric. There is no bait and switch. The petition created a historic district that would be governed by an ordinance, not by an unchangeable restriction that is recorded in the real property records. When someone signed the petition, they were agreeing to be in a historic district governed by an ordinance. They were not singing a contract. They were not creating a deed restriction. It is like voting for annexation by a municipality but then complaining when the municipality changes an ordinance. Ordinances are ordinances.

And what about the people who signed nothing at all? Who simply bought a house with no restrictions and not inside an existing historic district and with no ordinance at all? What about that huge group of people? Most of the people who signed the petition were uninformed or worse..They were intentionally uninformed and misled. It is pretty clear to everyone involved now that this has been on their agenda for a long time. Whether you can be honest enough to admit it was a bait and switch, the reality is that a bait and switch is exactly what it was. They promised one thing to get the ball rolling got a bunch of folks all fired up about living next door to huge condominiums, and three story town homes, and now they are attempting to enact something completely different...something the majority of people do not want.

I did not sign, agree, or have any notice whatsoever that the city was planning on taking my private property rights. It is just happening. The city, the dishonest preservation group, the chronicle, the mayor, and the HAHC, are now just attempting to cram these changes through as quickly as possible before the people have time to get wind of it, and stand up and stop it. I believe if properly informed the majority of people would never sign on to have this type of restriction imposed upon them. The key here is "if properly informed" this has been as dishonest, and political as anything I can remember.

Most people I think are in favor of reasonable restrictions. Minimum lot size, setbacks, height, etc. I do not believe that most people are against new construction, remodeling, or in the case of new construction forcing people to build what some political group thinks is historical new construction (what a joke). There are already areas that have the restrictions you seem to covet...Woodland Heights seems to have all the restrictions you covet, and you see no complaining about anything there, because they all knew what they were getting when they bought. It was not a surprise to them to have a whole new set of rules forced upon them.

[s3mh]

And what about the people who signed nothing at all? Who simply bought a house with no restrictions and not inside an existing historic district and with no ordinance at all? What about that huge group of people? Most of the people who signed the petition were uninformed or worse..They were intentionally uninformed and misled. It is pretty clear to everyone involved now that this has been on their agenda for a long time. Whether you can be honest enough to admit it was a bait and switch, the reality is that a bait and switch is exactly what it was. They promised one thing to get the ball rolling got a bunch of folks all fired up about living next door to huge condominiums, and three story town homes, and now they are attempting to enact something completely different...something the majority of people do not want.

I did not sign, agree, or have any notice whatsoever that the city was planning on taking my private property rights. It is just happening. The city, the dishonest preservation group, the chronicle, the mayor, and the HAHC, are now just attempting to cram these changes through as quickly as possible before the people have time to get wind of it, and stand up and stop it. I believe if properly informed the majority of people would never sign on to have this type of restriction imposed upon them. The key here is "if properly informed" this has been as dishonest, and political as anything I can remember.

Most people I think are in favor of reasonable restrictions. Minimum lot size, setbacks, height, etc. I do not believe that most people are against new construction, remodeling, or in the case of new construction forcing people to build what some political group thinks is historical new construction (what a joke). There are already areas that have the restrictions you seem to covet...Woodland Heights seems to have all the restrictions you covet, and you see no complaining about anything there, because they all knew what they were getting when they bought. It was not a surprise to them to have a whole new set of rules forced upon them.

Quite to the contrary, the 90 day waiver was extremely unpopular when it was included in the ordinance. The 90 day waiver was included as a concession based on representations of builders and investors that the waiver period would be used constructively and not just be an additional cost of doing business in the Heights. If there was a bait and switch, this was it. Once the ordinance went into place, the builders just factored in the 90 day waiver and went on about as their business as they had always done.

Deed restrictions do not work when a block has been busted. If there is an existing house on the block that does not conform to the restrictions, you can't have them. Most every block in the Heights has at least one or two houses that are outside the kind of restrictions that would preserve the block. The deed restrictions worked great in Norhill because practically every house was a single story bungalow with the original setback. There are too many new construction outliers in the Heights to make that work.

As for the takings, you have to show that your reasonable investment backed expectations have been harmed. Under Penn Central, the USC held that there was no taking even though Penn Central could not build a giant skyscraper over the top of the building. In the Heights, anyone who owns property will still be able to make a profit on their investment by renovating, adding on or demolishing and building a compatible new structure. The government is not required to pay property owners if historic preservation laws keep them from realizing the maximum return on their investment. It is only the reasonable investment backed expectations that are protected, not the entire investment backed expectation.

[chester77008]

s3mh,

I have said this before, you CAN deed restrict your own property. I realize that this does not protect your entire block, but it does protect your home and any of your neighbors homes who share your belief and want to preserve what they have. These restrictions last for 20 years, and only YOU can "bust" them. You can customize them anyway you chose.

I understand that you want block by block protection, but that is not the spirit of the Heights, that is not what made this neighborhood so appealing to such a diverse group of people.

I remember seeing a yard sign in the Heights about 4 years ago, and I only ever saw one, it was in the 600 block of Oxford. It said, "I moved to the Heights to AVOID restrictions".

Don't forget that this is part of the fabric of the Heights, you may not like it, but it is not going away.

[SCDesign]

S2mh,

If you were around for the original petition for the Historic District you would know that the ORIGINAL Ordinance provided for a 30 day waiver period. At that time you could submit for a demolition CoA and a plan CoA simultaneously, so the wait time was truly 30 days. In 2007 the Ordinance was changed to make the 6th Ward a Protected Historic District and at the same time the 90 day waiver was negotiated. That’s 90 days none concurrent so it totals 180 days to demolish and build a new non conforming house, The HAHC originally wanted 365 days but the builders said they would fight the whole Ordinance change if they didn’t change it to a more reasonable length of time. The builders traded the 6th Ward for 90 Days (I lobbied against the compromise because I thought it was just the first step in a progression of taking – I think I’m psychic).

As for your statement:

“You have notice that the rules could change because the historic distric is governed by an ORDINANCE. Ordinances are created, revised and repealed all the time by City Council. It is a ridiculous argument to claim that the ordinance could never be revised just because the ordinance affects real property or because people petitioned to create a historic distric. There is no bait and switch.”

People who actually read the Ordinance and signed with full knowledge of what the Ordinance says would have read this:

Sec 33-227 Amandment; changes in boundary

Amendment of any landmark, protected landmark, historic district or archeological site and any change in the boundary of any historic district or archeological site shall require action by the city council and shall follow to procedures for application, notice, public hearing and recommendation by HAHC and the commission used for the original designation of the landmark, historic district or archeological site.

Sec. 33-227 states that anyone who signed the original petition should have expected the City to follow the Ordinance and to RE-PETITION before implementing any changes to the Ordinance, thus giving the everyone the ability to not agree to any changes. To not follow the rules that are clearly stated in teh Ordinance IS a bait and switch.

[RedScare]

Why does s3mh keep talking as if my house was in an historic district when I bought it. It was NOT historic when I bought it. In addition, when the petitioners came around 3 years ago, South Heights voted AGAINST historic district status. Now, they are cramming it down our throats. What makes s3mh think that I am at fault when there was NO historic district and we voted NO? Why does HE get to tell me what to do with my property?

What's most infuriating about s3mh's argument that his opinion counts more than mine is that I was here FIRST! Why does he get to come in a year ago and change the rules for me? Why don't I get to change his rules?

Edited August 19, 2010 by RedScare

[RedScare]

Listen, I don't have the time to tear through the data, nor do I care to. Since I live in an old bungalow, I regularly search HAR for other old bungalows to see what the going rate is. So, when Red mentioned $75/sq ft in his post, I knew there was a misunderstanding of what was being said. And I didn't cherry pick the data. As I stated, I took the output as it came across, did 5 simple calcs, and realized there must have been a misunderstanding. I did NOT cherry pick the $/sq ft data. I just looked at the first five, which happened to be the most expensive in raw dollars. I'm sure there were others that were even more expensive per sq ft, especially as you get to the smaller houses (1000-1100 sq ft).

Why is it that you consistently try to elevate everything into such ugliness? I think the name calling and stereo-typing is tired and unnecessary incidentally.

That was a typo. I corrected it to $275, apparently right after you read it.

[TheNiche]

Why does s3mh keep talking as if my house was in an historic district when I bought it. It was NOT historic when I bought it. In addition, when the petitioners came around 3 years ago, South Heights voted AGAINST historic district status. Now, they are cramming it down our throats. What makes s3mh think that I am at fault when there was NO historic district and we voted NO? Why does HE get to tell me what to do with my property?

What's most infuriating about s3mh's argument that his opinion counts more than mine is that I was here FIRST! Why does he get to come in a year ago and change the rules for me? Why don't I get to change his rules?

The rules are not sacred. Even the rules acknowledge that the rules can be changed. When you buy property, you take on known risks, including the risk that the political environment may shift dramatically. There is nothing wrong with greedy d-bags trying to manipulate the rules to their personal advantage, but perhaps it is a signal that your kind is no longer welcome in the Heights and is your cue to cash out.

Consider the bright side. Next year, when you--or your buyer--hire me to protest the value of your new improvements , we'll be able to pull the 'Historic District impairment to land value' card. That'll be an interesting experiment. (And I'd bet that they'd be almost as willing to accept the argument as they are for land in a floodway, for hurricane-damaged properties, or as that a flipped coin landed on heads.)

[TheNiche]

I didn't cherry pick the data. As I stated, I took the output as it came across, did 5 simple calcs, and realized there must have been a misunderstanding. I did NOT cherry pick the $/sq ft data. I just looked at the first five, which happened to be the most expensive in raw dollars.

You selected the five most expensive properties and that's not cherry-picking? If you aren't going to put thought and effort into your posts, don't bother.

[TheNiche]

If I really wanted to try to cherry pick data, I would have done this, and sorted by $/sq ft. You'll see that the highest $/sq ft homes aren't necessarily the highest PRICED homes...I just originally picked those since they were the easiest (as I clearly explained). If I need to explain this data any further, don't bother asking.

(sorry about the formatting)

Price

Rank Price Sq Ft $/sq ft $/sq ft Rank

1 $410,000 1197 $342.52 1

2 $389,000 1224 $317.81 2

14 $312,500 1014 $308.19 3

10 $325,000 1093 $297.35 4

11 $324,900 1150 $282.52 5

3 $365,000 1341 $272.18 6

12 $319,900 1180 $271.10 7

9 $325,000 1217 $267.05 8

4 $364,900 1382 $264.04 9

5 $359,900 1372 $262.32 10

So out of 79 listing matching your criteria, you replaced the top five with the top ten--not one of which had a below-average price per square foot of enclosed space!--and that's not cherry-picking?

You just stepped in your own pile. That's embarrassing.

[TheNiche]

Good lord. You're an idiot.

I list it based on price, I list it based on price/sq ft....what do you want? All I was trying to say was there are SOME bungalows out there that are going for more than $75/sq ft. You accused me of cherry picking since I chose the list based on the highest asking price. So I re-sort based on highest price per sq ft to prove my point that I wasn't cherry picking. Listen, I know there are homes for LESS than $150/ft, and who knows, some even less.

Good lord. I think you're the "pile".

Ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated. Your post has been reported to the moderators.

[TheNiche]

"and, with that, she took her leave, her golden curls indignantly shaking."

ad hominem

[heights]

Ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated. Your post has been reported to the moderators.

Since you decided to use the term "Ad hominem" in not just one post, but two, you might want to see if the "attacks" actually fit the definition of Ad hominem attacks (they didn't). From http://plover.net/~b.../adhominem.html you'll see that "The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there." There are plenty of examples if you follow that link or research the term elsewhere.

Edited August 19, 2010 by heights

[TheNiche]

"The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there."

True. However, their intent to undermine my argument is implicit.

[OutfieldDan]

So, what's the deal about the meeting tonight? This is a HAHC public comment meeting. What is the purpose of the meeting and who will be attending that can affect the City Council's vote? Is Gonzalez going to be there, or any other city councel members? The mayor?

I actually have no beef with the HAHC. Their job is to enforce our historic ordinance as it is written and the problem is not the HAHC, but the proposed ordinance. Maybe the media will be there (for a change) and if enough go to protest the changed ordinance, they will report it.

I notice that the meeting is going to be in a large room at the Geo R Brown Conv Center (General Assembly Hall B, 3rd floor). It would be good to have a large representation there that correctly mirrors our neighborhood's opposition.

[OutfieldDan]

The historic activists were out in force at last night's meeting. By number, public comments were much in favor of the proposed changes to the ordinance. Because this was a public forum where anyone could speak for two minutes, it was an opportunity for our neighborhood to express our opposition for a change instead of just being allowed to write a question on a piece of paper. It's too bad the side of property freedom was not represented with more comments. The historic activists were obviously well organized, wearing tshirts with their logo and labels saying to preserve history.

There were many comments by the activists that were troubling to me. Several preservation activists said that there should not be a re-petition, that it is unlawful for a re-vote, and that it would ruin four years of effort. One even said that if there is a re-vote, no one from a new home should be allowed to vote because they are not affected by the changes. The overwhelming phrases they used was that it was for the greater public good, and that it's unfortunate that some might be harmed.

Where was everybody?

[SCDesign]

Last nights meeting was actually a surprise to me. There were about 700 people there and I think it was pretty even as far as I could tell. I think the time and location were a nasty trick by the HAHC and that it gave the HDers a big advantage. The GRB at 6:30 on an Astro's game night? Really? It took me 30 minutes and $10 to enjoy my right to attend a public meeting (and my car was broken into, thank you). I didn't get inside until 7:00 but from that point on I think the speakers for and against were pretty much evenly divided. Unfortunately, I don't believe that is good enough. There may have been a possibility of the HAHC not passing the Ordinance as written if there was a SIGNIFICANT opposition, but I really doubt 50/50 will be enough to discourage them. If HAHC recommends it Planning will definitely pass it so the only place to stop it now is when it goes to City Council. If the opposition doesn't show up for that public meeting than it will be their own fault when this is imposed on them. I'm not going to have much symapathy at that point.

Edited August 20, 2010 by SCDesign

[Gooch]

I think the time and location were a nasty trick by the HAHC and that it gave the HDers a big advantage. The GRB at 6:30 on an Astro's game night? Really? It took me 30 minutes and $10 to enjoy my right to attend a public meeting (and my car was broken into, thank you).

So it wasn't the same for everyone? Did the HAHC give away free parking and police escort to the supporters to avoid the parking and traffic? WOW!

Edited August 20, 2010 by Gooch

[s3mh]

S2mh,

If you were around for the original petition for the Historic District you would know that the ORIGINAL Ordinance provided for a 30 day waiver period. At that time you could submit for a demolition CoA and a plan CoA simultaneously, so the wait time was truly 30 days. In 2007 the Ordinance was changed to make the 6th Ward a Protected Historic District and at the same time the 90 day waiver was negotiated. That’s 90 days none concurrent so it totals 180 days to demolish and build a new non conforming house, The HAHC originally wanted 365 days but the builders said they would fight the whole Ordinance change if they didn’t change it to a more reasonable length of time. The builders traded the 6th Ward for 90 Days (I lobbied against the compromise because I thought it was just the first step in a progression of taking – I think I’m psychic).

As for your statement:

“You have notice that the rules could change because the historic distric is governed by an ORDINANCE. Ordinances are created, revised and repealed all the time by City Council. It is a ridiculous argument to claim that the ordinance could never be revised just because the ordinance affects real property or because people petitioned to create a historic distric. There is no bait and switch.”

People who actually read the Ordinance and signed with full knowledge of what the Ordinance says would have read this:

Sec 33-227 Amandment; changes in boundary

Amendment of any landmark, protected landmark, historic district or archeological site and any change in the boundary of any historic district or archeological site shall require action by the city council and shall follow to procedures for application, notice, public hearing and recommendation by HAHC and the commission used for the original designation of the landmark, historic district or archeological site.

Sec. 33-227 states that anyone who signed the original petition should have expected the City to follow the Ordinance and to RE-PETITION before implementing any changes to the Ordinance, thus giving the everyone the ability to not agree to any changes. To not follow the rules that are clearly stated in teh Ordinance IS a bait and switch.

Nice try. You changed the language of 33-227. Here is what it actually says:

Amendment of any designation of any landmark, protected landmark, historic district or archaeological site and any change in the boundaries of any historic district or archaeological site . . . .

(emphasis added)

Not even the opponents of the revisions have tried to make this argument because it is plainly false. The section of the ordinance you cite only has to do with amendments to the designation of a historic district (etc.) or changes in the boundaries. This section simply refers to changes to the designation of a district and not changes to the ordinance that governs the district.

The funny thing is that this section of the ordinance prohibits Sue Lovell's "re-polling" of districts. Historic districts are either historic districts or they are not. If a historic district does not want to be a historic district, they must follow the process set forth in 33-222 et seq. There is no ordinance giving the City the power to "re-poll" districts. The City does not have the power to do so. Nothing in the revised ordinance gives the City that power. The City can't do it. It is just that simple.

I went to the meeting last night. It is interesting what happens when people actually have to stand up and speak to the decision makers and community. The opposition has been howling about how they didn't get to speak at the public meetings. But, when they got their chance, they didn't have much to say. People blame the ordinance for scaring off builders, but haven't we hit a bit of a rough patch in the economy recently? And the ordinance did nothing to scare off the builders at Rutland and 15th. And the guy who called out the owners of new construction was not tactful, but made a valid point. What decade will it be when they need to do anything that will require HAHC approval, if ever? Sure, I understand the point about rebuilding after a fire. But, why not just urge revision to that section. Why knock down all the other bungalows when you already got to do it?

And that is really the tragedy of the whole thing. There are plenty of areas for compromise and plenty of problems with HAHC that should be addressed. But, the realtor lead opposition decided to make this a kill the historic districts campaign without any room for middle ground.

I talked to some of the "yes" people last night and have talked to a bunch of neighbors. From my neighbors, I am hearing that they have become disenchanted with the blue sign campaign because it is so clearly over the top with their arguments about house paint and AC placement. Many were handed blue signs to put in their yard and, upon further investigation, have removed the sings. I also met some very interesting people from the "yes" campaign that have done extraordinary things to preserve their historic homes. What this boils down to is that the Heights is the Heights because people have made major investments in preserving and maintaining historic homes. This is what separates the Heights from the rest of the City. Builders have capitalized on the work of preservationists. If the Heights was full of 1970s ranches, no one would pay 700-900k for a 3500 sq ft faux victorian on a 6600 sq ft lot. We are now at a turning point where the new builds are threatening the very people who made the neighborhood desirable. But people in historic homes have no way to recover the cost externalities of the new builds. Thus, it is certainly within the power of the City to address this market inefficieny and to reward those who invested so much to preserve the historic character of the Heights. This is really the last stand for the historic buildings in the Heights. Once they are gone, they are gone forever.

[RedScare]

This is really the last stand for the historic buildings in the Heights. Once they are gone, they are gone forever.

Where's a crying Indian when you need one. Oh, here we go...

Seriously, can we lay off the 'bungalows as people' rhetoric? Your argument is that a 90 year old house, one of thousands in Houston and 10s of thousands in the US, is more important than the person who owns it, so important that the government may swoop in and effectively take it from me, merely allowing me to live in it, but only if I fix it up the way they say. It is all so disgusting, so reminiscent of a communist country. I mean, really, people stood up in public and said this district is 'for the greater public good'? It's all just about enough to make me barf in my historic spitton on my back porch.

[SCDesign]

s3mh,

I did leave that off, which was an honest mistake, but it has no bearing on what that section states. From the number of attorneys I've talked to that section will be one of the main areas on trial if they don't do a re-petition. That and whether this constitutes zoning which is against the Houston Charter, teh validity of the original petition process, and a number of other things. If this passes the City Council the lawsuit will hit Federal Court by the following Monday. Then the question will be whether the Federal judge feels that this Ordinance should be allowed to be enforced while it is being argued, or not. Whoever wins that argument will be the ultimate victor: at least for 5 years or so.

It just kills me when people say "They are lying, the ordinance doesn't say anything about paint color" because it's what the Ordinance doesn't say that scares everyone. It's so broad that you are trusting that it will be interpreted, by unelected people who don't even own property in the area, to not include paint color, or light fixtures, or whatever, when it does not say they can't. There is NO area that I have seen government given the power to control something, outside of regulating the financial or energy sectors, where they haven't interpreted that power as broadly as possible. Good luck with that trusting thing you have going, I honestly hope it works out.

When a few houses are painted objectionable colors, and someone complain to their friend on the HAHC board saying “can’t you make them paint their house a better color so it doesn’t offend us, as a friend”, do you really think they won’t do it? It’s happened before.

Here’s an example that will be germane to this discussion, and which I know intimately. Have you had to deal with an alley yet? A number of years ago the alleys became an issue in the Heights because people, mainly builders, were improving the alleys and using them. A lot of people liked that, but some didn't so they complained to the City that the improved alleys were causing flooding and drainage problems. Some of them were so it was an honest complaint. At first the City decided to simply inspect the alleys being improved to make sure they didn't cause problems, and that seemed to work most of the time but there were still some problems. Some dishonest people tried to get around even that by improving them on the weekend. So the City decided to photograph all of the alleys and classify them according to their condition. Now if you want to improve an alley you have to get it fully engineered by a Civil Engineer, do a plan and profile, and have a bonded company do the improvement. Alley improvements which used to cost a few thousand dollars, now costs about $200 per linear foot, or generally about $40,000 to go half of a block. How did that happen? Because there was nothing in the existing City Ordinance that said anything about how alleys should be treated, so in the absence of any restraint the City decided to go to the limits of their power and make alley improvements as onerous as possible. Incidentally, this is what spurred the front loading garage trend in the Heights that people hate so much, so everything has its unforeseen consequences.

Edited August 20, 2010 by SCDesign

[Gary]

Seriously, can we lay off the 'bungalows as people' rhetoric? Your argument is that a 90 year old house, one of thousands in Houston and 10s of thousands in the US, is more important than the person who owns it, so important that the government may swoop in and effectively take it from me, merely allowing me to live in it, but only if I fix it up the way they say. It is all so disgusting, so reminiscent of a communist country. I mean, really, people stood up in public and said this district is 'for the greater public good'? It's all just about enough to make me barf in my historic spitton on my back porch.

Careful Red, you almost sound republican here.

[RedScare]

Careful Red, you almost sound republican here.

I'm telling ya, I really do! This insistence of my neighbors that their wish to look at pretty bungalows gives them the right to take over design of my house by government fiat, plus the belief that they can decide which retailers build stores several miles away, has just about soured me on liberal ideals. I believe in helping my neighbor, not telling him how to keep his house. It is rather stunning that some people feel so strongly that they can do this. It's not like I'm building a mosque next door to them or something.

If they only wanted to restrict themselves and their districts from doing anything, I'd be fine with it. After all, I have no desire to tell Norhill residents or North Heights residents how to live. But, they are not satisfied with simply legislating themselves out of house and home, they want to come down to South Heights and do it to me.....without letting me vote on my own property!

Misery loves company, I guess.

[Krol]

The supporters were definately better organized last night. The majority of them were also more rational. The opponents suffer from an angry disposition that doesn't play well in that type of situation. The property rights argument appears to be losing steam because the supporters have a point that they have the right to maintain their investments and what they bought into. My version of property rights may not be your version. It can be argued both ways.

There's also growing realization among the Mcmansion types that no protection could mean that the little bungalow next door gets replaced in favor of density. The Heights has been lucky so far. However, take a little drive down west 15th street between the Blvd. and Shepherd...consider the townhomes being built over at the ole Ashland Tea House site or the condos currently planned for Studewood behind Someburger. Density is knocking on our door. That is the reality and it is probably a much greater threat than having your house burn down.

The count last night was roughly 40/30 in favor of stronger protections. Among the 30 who stated their opposition, four were from one property on Kipling, one was from the Houston Property Rights Association (who said he is actually a renter), one was from the Houston Association of Realtors, two were part of the trio of realtors who have formed the anti-preservation website, one worked for one member of that realtor trio and at least one was a Heights builder.

It seems as if the more the facts get out there, the more people are calming down. CM Lovell indicated at city council this week that a new draft is being compiled. I'll bet it will incorporate a lot of the suggestions that have been made. This is the sausage-making process that always occurs with the crafting of new legislation.

Think about what might happen with no protection and instead of misinformation about paint color, air conditioners and front porch lights, grab a sausage link and take part in the messy process to create a better proposal?

[TheNiche]

Density is knocking on our door. That is the reality and it is probably a much greater threat than having your house burn down.

Really?

...REALLY!?

[TheNiche]

Careful Red, you almost sound republican here.

Funny, that's exactly what I thought about all the white non-sportsmen wearing white fishing shirts and toting Anti-Wal-Mart yard signs at White Linen Night was that they looked like Republicans from The Woodlands. And in fact, they are doing very Republican things. They're waging a class war and imposing restrictions upon their neighbors. They're even apparently voting Republican. Many of these same people had anti-Sarah-Jackson-Lee stickers slapped on their shirts.

[heights_yankee]

Funny, that's exactly what I thought about all the white non-sportsmen wearing white fishing shirts and toting Anti-Wal-Mart yard signs at White Linen Night was that they looked like Republicans from The Woodlands. And in fact, they are doing very Republican things. They're waging a class war and imposing restrictions upon their neighbors. They're even apparently voting Republican. Many of these same people had anti-Sarah-Jackson-Lee stickers slapped on their shirts.

To be fair, many Democrats dislike SJL in the same way many Republicans dislike Rick Perry.