The Heights Historic Districts

[Heights Homeowner]

Get Ready Folks! I got an email saying that the Planning Director is going to present her info to Council next week on Wednesday. Now the fun begins.

[Marksmu]

Get Ready Folks! I got an email saying that the Planning Director is going to present her info to Council next week on Wednesday. Now the fun begins.

Swamp lot is reporting no changes to the boundaries will be recommended...SURPRISE!....seriously though its just more bad news....Have they rescheduled the council meeting on this yet?

[Marksmu]

Swamp lot is reporting no changes to the boundaries will be recommended...SURPRISE!....seriously though its just more bad news....Have they rescheduled the council meeting on this yet?

Looking at the repeal maps....from City of Houston...its interesting that they did not post Heights South....I believe that is where the most opposition was...I wonder what is holding up that process?

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/hist_pres_amend.html

I like that they have shown which properties opted out. Gives you an easy way to judge the intelligence or apathy of your neighbors.

[barracuda]

I attended the HAHC meeting last week, and I have to admit, the approval process is not as bad as I had feared. The bulk of the certificate of appropriate items on the agenda were approved as part of a consent agenda, and the HAHC board was sympathetic towards the remaining projects that were flagged for various reasons. Even projects that had questionable design elements were approved when the owner or architect explained the reasoning and the board discussed the ramifications and benefits to the value and appearance of the property. And looking back through previous meeting minutes, it appears that nearly all submitted COAs are approved. It seems that unless a project is particularly egregious in violating the ordinance, they are willing to consider approval. To be honest, I wish someone had proposed something overtly in violation of the ordinance just to see what would happen.

I do think the process could be sped up for simple COA requests. It requires being added to the schedule, and HAHC only meets once a month. This combined with the permitting process can easily add more than a month to getting a project started. It seems reasonable for larger projects like new home construction, but I think routine projects (like a COA for replacing a front door) could be done quicker. But I suppose it forces the property owner to think long and hard about their project, which is usually not a bad thing.

P.S. - I'm not suggesting that the design restrictions of the ordinance are preferable to everyone, just that the commission is easy to work with and the approval process is probably not worth getting worked up about - they seem willing to work with you and not fight you.

Edited February 23, 2011 by barracuda

[Heightsfamily]

Looking at the repeal maps....from City of Houston...its interesting that they did not post Heights South....I believe that is where the most opposition was...I wonder what is holding up that process?

http://www.houstontx...pres_amend.html

I like that they have shown which properties opted out. Gives you an easy way to judge the intelligence or apathy of your neighbors.

Or maybe not. I faxed in my "survey" to repeal the district and the little map does not reflect this. How many others had the same experience?

[Heights Homeowner]

I attended the HAHC meeting last week, and I have to admit, the approval process is not as bad as I had feared. The bulk of the certificate of appropriate items on the agenda were approved as part of a consent agenda, and the HAHC board was sympathetic towards the remaining projects that were flagged for various reasons. Even projects that had questionable design elements were approved when the owner or architect explained the reasoning and the board discussed the ramifications and benefits to the value and appearance of the property. And looking back through previous meeting minutes, it appears that nearly all submitted COAs are approved. It seems that unless a project is particularly egregious in violating the ordinance, they are willing to consider approval. To be honest, I wish someone had proposed something overtly in violation of the ordinance just to see what would happen.

I do think the process could be sped up for simple COA requests. It requires being added to the schedule, and HAHC only meets once a month. This combined with the permitting process can easily add more than a month to getting a project started. It seems reasonable for larger projects like new home construction, but I think routine projects (like a COA for replacing a front door) could be done quicker. But I suppose it forces the property owner to think long and hard about their project, which is usually not a bad thing.

P.S. - I'm not suggesting that the design restrictions of the ordinance are preferable to everyone, just that the commission is easy to work with and the approval process is probably not worth getting worked up about - they seem willing to work with you and not fight you.

They've been very agreeable lately. They weren't before the spotlight was on them. They were a major pain. Now that the Mayor fired Sharie Beale, maybe they will be better. I wouldn't be surprised of all of their willingness to work with people right now won't be short lived once they get a few months down the road...although this issue won't be going anywhere any time soon so they will be under lots of scrutiny for a long time. Get your remodel requests in now if you want a reasonable process.

[Marksmu]

Or maybe not. I faxed in my "survey" to repeal the district and the little map does not reflect this. How many others had the same experience?

Mine was recorded properly but I did not fax it. I returned it by mail....

[OutfieldDan]

They've been very agreeable lately. They weren't before the spotlight was on them. They were a major pain. Now that the Mayor fired Sharie Beale, maybe they will be better. I wouldn't be surprised of all of their willingness to work with people right now won't be short lived once they get a few months down the road...although this issue won't be going anywhere any time soon so they will be under lots of scrutiny for a long time. Get your remodel requests in now if you want a reasonable process.

I'm looking for a second home bungalow to buy. We will probably rent it out for a while and then after a year my wife's parent's will move in. We are reluctant to consider anything in a Historic district. I don't care that the HAHC is being nice now. The ordinance prevents a reasonable second story addition that looks nice, and the HAHC's track record is not good with for instance many denials being for use of hardiplank. Ask Allison on Courtland about her experience with "too many fenestrations" for her remodel.

We've been in the market for this home for about two months. It's very refreshing to see new construction in Sunset Heights, and NE of Main St. I had no idea that these neighborhoods were progressing so much. There are many instances of dilapidated bungalos being replaced with very nice new construction and the neighborhoods are improving significantly. FWIW, we are fascinated by the creativity of the new construction regarding materials, floor plans, etc. It's fun to go to open houses and the McMansions are the most interesting. Smaller well maintained, and updated bungalows near the new construction are attractive to us because the neighborhood is starting to look very nice. E of Main St and N of Cavalcade is where there seems to be the most recent improvement.

Unfortunately, there is nothing going on in most of Houston Heights. It's already stagnating. There's a bungalow in rough shape (particularly inside) on Courtland near 18th that is listed for $279,000. No central AC, only one bathroom, 1970's kitchen, etc. I doubt they will get more than $200,000 for it. It's been on the market for a while - not sure how long. Before the ordinance, it would probably have sold easlily at $279K for lot value alone. We looked at a few camelbacks in the Heights, but they're all cramped in the camelback second story adddition. Upstairs ceilings are low, floor space is limited and the bedroom closets are very small. The camelback additiion is a design failure, in my opinion. Most camelbacks look stupid from the street too.

[RedScare]

This is why we opposed the ordinance. Adding ugly additions in order to "protect" the original simply ruins the entire house. Unfortunately, we will have to watch our neighborhood decline under the weight of this ordinance, with our only recourse being that we can say, "I told you so." Not the way I wanted to see all of my hard work rewarded.

[Heights Homeowner]

This is why we opposed the ordinance. Adding ugly additions in order to "protect" the original simply ruins the entire house. Unfortunately, we will have to watch our neighborhood decline under the weight of this ordinance, with our only recourse being that we can say, "I told you so." Not the way I wanted to see all of my hard work rewarded.

I can't add on to mine in a way that makes sense to fix the objections a homebuyer would have. The ordinance prohibits it. So it will remain historic and I'll quit improving it, live with it the way it is and NOT make it better. It had an ugly remodel in the 80's. I have been working to make it look more period. That stops. I need dormers for my attic master. I need more closets. I need more storage. I need a half bath and a larger kitchen. All were in the plans and now won't happen because the most important things that need to be done won't be permitted.

BTW, this is being circulated today. It would be funny if it were not so tragic.

[barracuda]

I hope at least this aspect of the ordinance can be changed. There are plenty of two-story houses and second-story additions sprinkled throughout the historic districts from before the ordinance, and I personally think additions that are flush at the front are much more natural and functional. Not only that, but less yard space is consumed in a vertical buildup, allowing a back yard and more drainage area. The camelback additions are awkward both in appearance and in terms of the floor plan, and they are particularly unbecoming on a corner lot where the profile contrast is most visible. I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, as I there are a number of camelbacks under construction right now by folks who are just following the rules in order to add square footage. But I would love to see this rule scrapped before more and more houses are given a humpback.

[crunchtastic]

Something barracuda said earlier has been bugging me all day. Would I really have to apply for permission just to replace my front door? Really?? I have to replace my own 100 year old door that's been warped, shimmed and planed to death. As it is, I'll need to have a new one custom milled to fit. It's just unconscionable to me I'd have to ask permission from a committee.

Whole parts of the Heights still have open ditches for drainage, and you have to permit a door? Sorry, but Onion Creek, a mac n cheese place and a couple of antiques stores ain't all that. Boy am I glad I chose the east end instead.

[Heights Homeowner]

Something barracuda said earlier has been bugging me all day. Would I really have to apply for permission just to replace my front door? Really?? I have to replace my own 100 year old door that's been warped, shimmed and planed to death. As it is, I'll need to have a new one custom milled to fit. It's just unconscionable to me I'd have to ask permission from a committee.

Whole parts of the Heights still have open ditches for drainage, and you have to permit a door? Sorry, but Onion Creek, a mac n cheese place and a couple of antiques stores ain't all that. Boy am I glad I chose the east end instead.

Sad to say but you would have to get permission fromt the HAHC to change EVERY architectural feature except light fixtures and paint. Front doors, windows, trim work, railings, siding, facia board, soffits, all have to have a permit and a Certificate of Appropriateness. Now you see why we fought so hard.

[Dan the Man]

Whole parts of the Heights still have open ditches for drainage, and you have to permit a door?

Good point.

[samagon]

Something barracuda said earlier has been bugging me all day. Would I really have to apply for permission just to replace my front door? Really?? I have to replace my own 100 year old door that's been warped, shimmed and planed to death. As it is, I'll need to have a new one custom milled to fit. It's just unconscionable to me I'd have to ask permission from a committee.

Whole parts of the Heights still have open ditches for drainage, and you have to permit a door? Sorry, but Onion Creek, a mac n cheese place and a couple of antiques stores ain't all that. Boy am I glad I chose the east end instead.

mac n cheese is all that, luckily I can make it in my kitchen.

[dbigtex56]

"I suspect Council would over-rule the hysterical preservation commission." "They will be reasonable where the hysterical group is not."

(emphasis added)

It wasn't especially funny the first time. Repetition doesn't help.

[Heights Homeowner]

(emphasis added)

It wasn't especially funny the first time. Repetition doesn't help.

It wasn't meant to be funny the first time. And it isn't funny that city council is being lied to about whether they have to vote on this crap or not. The mayor and planning director out and out LIED to council on Wednesday on numerous issues. Some of them called them on it. They couldn't "win" fair and square so they had to cheat and lie and deceive everyone, including city council.

[barracuda]

Something barracuda said earlier has been bugging me all day. Would I really have to apply for permission just to replace my front door? Really?? I have to replace my own 100 year old door that's been warped, shimmed and planed to death. As it is, I'll need to have a new one custom milled to fit. It's just unconscionable to me I'd have to ask permission from a committee.

Whole parts of the Heights still have open ditches for drainage, and you have to permit a door? Sorry, but Onion Creek, a mac n cheese place and a couple of antiques stores ain't all that. Boy am I glad I chose the east end instead.

You could probably replace it without anyone noticing, but yes, you are supposed to get a COA, per sec. 33-201. This is why I suggested such routine alterations be fast-tracked for approval instead of requiring the full COA process. Replacing a door shouldn't require going through the same review process as the construction of a new house.

Alteration means any change to the exterior of a building, structure, object or site. Alteration shall include, but is not limited to, changing to a different kind, type or size of roofing or siding materials; changing, eliminating, or adding exterior doors, door frames, windows, window frames, shutters, railings, columns, beams, walls, porches, steps, porte-cocheres, balconies, or ornamentation; or the dismantling, moving or removing of any exterior feature.

[dbigtex56]

It wasn't meant to be funny the first time. And it isn't funny that city council is being lied to about whether they have to vote on this crap or not. The mayor and planning director out and out LIED to council on Wednesday on numerous issues. Some of them called them on it. They couldn't "win" fair and square so they had to cheat and lie and deceive everyone, including city council.

I understand that you're opposed to this ordinance. If lies have been told or misrepresentations made, the specifics would do a lot towards persuading people to your point of view.

My comment regarded your repeated substitution of the word 'hysterical' for 'historical'; it puts me in mind of people who use terms like "Femi-Nazis".

Surely there are wittier and more convincing ways to make a point.

[Marksmu]

I understand that you're opposed to this ordinance. If lies have been told or misrepresentations made, the specifics would do a lot towards persuading people to your point of view.

My comment regarded your repeated substitution of the word 'hysterical' for 'historical'; it puts me in mind of people who use terms like "Femi-Nazis".

Surely there are wittier and more convincing ways to make a point.

Sadly, when you point out the specifics and the EXACT wording of the ordinance to the preservationist crowd they call you a liar.

Then you quote the language, show how ambiguous it actually is, and how the HAHC can easily abuse the ordinance and its language, and they call you a liar again.

You can not win with these people...the truth is not persuasive...they do not care how they get what they want, or who they trample to get it...

When the truth, even a very clear bad truth, is not persuasive people naturally start to exaggerate to make their point, and get some attention to their arguments. That is all that has happened here...you get a little crazy to draw attention to your cause....look at the Union protesters....they are only making news because they are acting crazy and not giving up....if it was calm and orderly the news organizations would not care.

[Heights Homeowner]

I understand that you're opposed to this ordinance. If lies have been told or misrepresentations made, the specifics would do a lot towards persuading people to your point of view.

My comment regarded your repeated substitution of the word 'hysterical' for 'historical'; it puts me in mind of people who use terms like "Femi-Nazis".

Surely there are wittier and more convincing ways to make a point.

My use of the term "hysterical" rather than historical comes from seeing flyer after flyer full of scare tactics about townhouses, condos and high rises. The ordinance even states that this was an emergency. They have grossly exaggerated the number of demolitions. So, when you see a group that repeatedly talks as if the sky is falling when it's not, sometimes a more descriptive term is required. If the term fits, wear it. It is anything but funny. This is an issue about individual rights and they are being usurped by the city in an illegitimate and undemocratic process. I use the term appropriately as a descriptor for the types of claims these groups are making and are unchallenged.

As far as the lies and misrepresentations go, the list is long. All you have to do is listen to last weeks council comments. And all of these lies and deceptions are going to hit the proverbial fan soon.

[SilverJK]

I understand that you're opposed to this ordinance. If lies have been told or misrepresentations made, the specifics would do a lot towards persuading people to your point of view.

My comment regarded your repeated substitution of the word 'hysterical' for 'historical'; it puts me in mind of people who use terms like "Femi-Nazis".

Surely there are wittier and more convincing ways to make a point.

What about the repeated subsitution of the word "preservationist" for "ordinance". If you are against the ordinance, you are called anti-preservationist, even if you have spent a lot of time/money/effort on saving/rehabbing/restoring historical buildings. Just because it is less blatant doesn't make it acceptable.

[Heights Homeowner]

I understand that you're opposed to this ordinance. If lies have been told or misrepresentations made, the specifics would do a lot towards persuading people to your point of view.

My comment regarded your repeated substitution of the word 'hysterical' for 'historical'; it puts me in mind of people who use terms like "Femi-Nazis".

Surely there are wittier and more convincing ways to make a point.

My use of that term also stems from emails I have recieved from people I know and know I am opposed to this ordinance. They have made comments like they "nearly lost their mind" regarding a house was torn down in a neighborhood they don't even live in. Or have sent me hate mail telling me we are trying to destroy the neighborhood. I have pointed out the vague language of the first draft of the ordinance which allowed for city control of everything and for that I was called a liar, and continue to be called a liar. But I can read and the complaints made about that vague language were solved by some exclusions in the final ordinance. I've watched this group operate for years but wouldn't have called them hysterical until the last nine months when they have demonstrated they are completely irrational about this issue and appear to be quite hysterical.

Instead of picking at my words however, perhaps you might ask why someone would use those words.

[samagon]

Sadly, when you point out the specifics and the EXACT wording of the ordinance to the preservationist crowd they call you a liar.

Then you quote the language, show how ambiguous it actually is, and how the HAHC can easily abuse the ordinance and its language, and they call you a liar again.

To be fair they say "that isn't the spirit of the law" and that you are intentionally "making it look worse than it will be"

But in reality, until the law is practiced, no one knows how the law will be enforced, however the wording is there for them to be extremely draconian in their enforcement.

What is very frustrating is to see people who are in vehement support of the ordinance having made it very clear through their misunderstanding that they have never read it, they are just for it. How can someone be for something without knowing what capability it has?

Anyway, the real question that needs to be asked, is: If that isn't within the spirit of the ordinance, why was it written that way?

[s3mh]

To be fair they say "that isn't the spirit of the law" and that you are intentionally "making it look worse than it will be"

But in reality, until the law is practiced, no one knows how the law will be enforced, however the wording is there for them to be extremely draconian in their enforcement.

What is very frustrating is to see people who are in vehement support of the ordinance having made it very clear through their misunderstanding that they have never read it, they are just for it. How can someone be for something without knowing what capability it has?

Anyway, the real question that needs to be asked, is: If that isn't within the spirit of the ordinance, why was it written that way?

The first revision to the ordinance had no change in the language about maintenance/repairs etc. But you all ran around claiming that the City would be able to control paint color, HVAC, and even content of political yard signs under the revised ordinance. This was not based on anything the City had ever done in the past, but pure speculation on reading the ordinance in a vacuum. So there was a case where the law had been practiced, and the anti-preservation people ignored the practice to try to scare people into believing that there was some intent on the part of the City that did not exist. This was largely the reason the anti-preservationists could barely get half the needed votes to do away with the historic districts. They had no good argument for allowing builders to run wild in the Heights and had to resort to scare tactics to try to fool people into believing that the ordinance would do all kinds of things it would not do. As a result, a big opportunity was lost to work together to create a better ordinance. A fast track procedure for minor changes would have been a great idea. But issues like that never came up because the vast majority of the dialog with the City was either all in or all out.

As noted above, the HAHC is perfectly reasonable. They have approved three new construction projects in the Heights in the past two sessions (two were 3500 sq ft houses). While lot value for a neglected bungalow will go down, the value of an empty lot looks to be going up ($320k asking price for a lot in the Heights East--probably 40-50k too high, but who knows). In the short run, the building boom in the historic districts will slow a bit as the McVic builders flee to the non-district areas. But that is good for the Heights too. Areas north of 20th and on the periphery of the districts will see more development than they would have without the ordinance. Inside the districts, there will never again be the horrific contemporary odd balls, monsterous fake New Orleans junk packed 4 to a 2 home lot and cruddy, oddball rennovations (closed in porches, goofy circular windows and other oddities that wreck the character of historic homes).

The Heights will be even better than ever under the Historic Ordinance. People looking to buy won't have to worry about what might go up next door anymore. People looking to rennovate won't have to worry about ending up with lot value after being surrounded by McVics. Crow all you want about how Eastwood is now better than the Heights because of the Historic Ordinance. Or about how the Heights are "stagnating" because someone thinks they can still get lot value (just saw a great bungalow on Columbia sell within a week of listing--some stagnation). Just like the claims about paint color and HVACs, the reality is nothing like what the anti-preservationists will ever be able to recognize.

[samagon]

I understand that you're opposed to this ordinance. If lies have been told or misrepresentations made, the specifics would do a lot towards persuading people to your point of view.

My comment regarded your repeated substitution of the word 'hysterical' for 'historical'; it puts me in mind of people who use terms like "Femi-Nazis".

Surely there are wittier and more convincing ways to make a point.

For reference as to why everyone replaces historical with hysterical...

.....content of political yard signs under the revised ordinance.....

Although it was mentioned once that it was a point that the ordinance as was written gave the capability for this to be governed, and even stated by the person that made the comment that it was not believed that this would be the way the law was interpreted, or enforced.

However, this has been referenced on more than multiple occasions this person I quoted, to create a 'negative hysteria' if you will, and I'm sure it isn't used just in here. I'm sure this person mentions it to every person possible to continue to sow seeds of dissension and confusion regarding the ordinance.

You had mentioned you applaud this person's writing and standing up, I wish I could agree with you. A person who disagrees with something without truths and facts is not standing up at all, they are just blowing hot air (or mashing on a keyboard, as it were). in fact, I would go so far as to state that a person such as s3mh does more to harm their plight than gain support by making false statements, and not even knowing the text of the ordinance in full before making claims about what it does and doesn't achieve, or can achieve.

[samagon]

The first revision to the ordinance had no change in the language about maintenance/repairs etc. But you all ran around claiming that the City would be able to control paint color, HVAC, and even content of political yard signs under the revised ordinance. This was not based on anything the City had ever done in the past, but pure speculation on reading the ordinance in a vacuum. So there was a case where the law had been practiced, and the anti-preservation people ignored the practice to try to scare people into believing that there was some intent on the part of the City that did not exist. This was largely the reason the anti-preservationists could barely get half the needed votes to do away with the historic districts. They had no good argument for allowing builders to run wild in the Heights and had to resort to scare tactics to try to fool people into believing that the ordinance would do all kinds of things it would not do. As a result, a big opportunity was lost to work together to create a better ordinance. A fast track procedure for minor changes would have been a great idea. But issues like that never came up because the vast majority of the dialog with the City was either all in or all out.

As noted above, the HAHC is perfectly reasonable. They have approved three new construction projects in the Heights in the past two sessions (two were 3500 sq ft houses). While lot value for a neglected bungalow will go down, the value of an empty lot looks to be going up ($320k asking price for a lot in the Heights East--probably 40-50k too high, but who knows). In the short run, the building boom in the historic districts will slow a bit as the McVic builders flee to the non-district areas. But that is good for the Heights too. Areas north of 20th and on the periphery of the districts will see more development than they would have without the ordinance. Inside the districts, there will never again be the horrific contemporary odd balls, monsterous fake New Orleans junk packed 4 to a 2 home lot and cruddy, oddball rennovations (closed in porches, goofy circular windows and other oddities that wreck the character of historic homes).

The Heights will be even better than ever under the Historic Ordinance. People looking to buy won't have to worry about what might go up next door anymore. People looking to rennovate won't have to worry about ending up with lot value after being surrounded by McVics. Crow all you want about how Eastwood is now better than the Heights because of the Historic Ordinance. Or about how the Heights are "stagnating" because someone thinks they can still get lot value (just saw a great bungalow on Columbia sell within a week of listing--some stagnation). Just like the claims about paint color and HVACs, the reality is nothing like what the anti-preservationists will ever be able to recognize.

I honestly didn't read any of what you wrote, I scanned it, but saw no answer to my question, which I really want to hear your answer:

Again, I ask, if the framers of the ordinance had no intention of allowing such overzealous things happen, why is it written is such a way as to allow it? Why don't you answer that one S3MH? I encourage anyone who approves of the ordinance in its current state to please answer that question for me. And for the record, I'm not talking about political yard signs either, you are the only person who keeps bringing that up.

I bet that if the ordinance was written in a much more specific manner that it would have gained even more support than it had, and in addition, they would not have had to resort to such underhanded tactics of getting it approved. But that's just my opinion and I have no way of supporting it as anything more.

I went ahead and bolded the important parts for you, hopefully you won't miss it this time.

Edited February 28, 2011 by samagon

[SilverJK]

The first revision to the ordinance had no change in the language about maintenance/repairs etc. But you all ran around claiming that the City would be able to control paint color, HVAC, and even content of political yard signs under the revised ordinance. This was not based on anything the City had ever done in the past, but pure speculation on reading the ordinance in a vacuum. So there was a case where the law had been practiced, and the anti-preservation people ignored the practice to try to scare people into believing that there was some intent on the part of the City that did not exist. This was largely the reason the anti-preservationists could barely get half the needed votes to do away with the historic districts. They had no good argument for allowing builders to run wild in the Heights and had to resort to scare tactics to try to fool people into believing that the ordinance would do all kinds of things it would not do. As a result, a big opportunity was lost to work together to create a better ordinance. A fast track procedure for minor changes would have been a great idea. But issues like that never came up because the vast majority of the dialog with the City was either all in or all out.

As noted above, the HAHC is perfectly reasonable. They have approved three new construction projects in the Heights in the past two sessions (two were 3500 sq ft houses). While lot value for a neglected bungalow will go down, the value of an empty lot looks to be going up ($320k asking price for a lot in the Heights East--probably 40-50k too high, but who knows). In the short run, the building boom in the historic districts will slow a bit as the McVic builders flee to the non-district areas. But that is good for the Heights too. Areas north of 20th and on the periphery of the districts will see more development than they would have without the ordinance. Inside the districts, there will never again be the horrific contemporary odd balls, monsterous fake New Orleans junk packed 4 to a 2 home lot and cruddy, oddball rennovations (closed in porches, goofy circular windows and other oddities that wreck the character of historic homes).

The Heights will be even better than ever under the Historic Ordinance. People looking to buy won't have to worry about what might go up next door anymore. People looking to rennovate won't have to worry about ending up with lot value after being surrounded by McVics. Crow all you want about how Eastwood is now better than the Heights because of the Historic Ordinance. Or about how the Heights are "stagnating" because someone thinks they can still get lot value (just saw a great bungalow on Columbia sell within a week of listing--some stagnation). Just like the claims about paint color and HVACs, the reality is nothing like what the anti-preservationists will ever be able to recognize.

are you just a troll, or do you actually believe in what you just said? "barely get half the needed votes" Are you serious? If it would have been the other way around, where the card had to be signed and returned for the ordinance to stay, do you really think think it would have did as well? Take off the blinders and work with your neighbors. The ordinance is in effect already, why not work with the anti-ordinance folks (quit calling them anti-preservation) on coming up with a solution that more people will tolerate? Do you really not care about 1/4 of your neighbors?

You are the same person how said "we will remember who opposed us" and made your threats about preventing people from getting COAs, so yeah I would say the speculative vacuum reading was warranted. Keep on spewing your worthless rhetoric though.

[Marksmu]

The first revision to the ordinance had no change in the language about maintenance/repairs etc. But you all ran around claiming that the City would be able to control paint color, HVAC, and even content of political yard signs under the revised ordinance. This was not based on anything the City had ever done in the past, but pure speculation on reading the ordinance in a vacuum. So there was a case where the law had been practiced, and the anti-preservation people ignored the practice to try to scare people into believing that there was some intent on the part of the City that did not exist. This was largely the reason the anti-preservationists could barely get half the needed votes to do away with the historic districts. They had no good argument for allowing builders to run wild in the Heights and had to resort to scare tactics to try to fool people into believing that the ordinance would do all kinds of things it would not do. As a result, a big opportunity was lost to work together to create a better ordinance. A fast track procedure for minor changes would have been a great idea. But issues like that never came up because the vast majority of the dialog with the City was either all in or all out.

As noted above, the HAHC is perfectly reasonable. They have approved three new construction projects in the Heights in the past two sessions (two were 3500 sq ft houses). While lot value for a neglected bungalow will go down, the value of an empty lot looks to be going up ($320k asking price for a lot in the Heights East--probably 40-50k too high, but who knows). In the short run, the building boom in the historic districts will slow a bit as the McVic builders flee to the non-district areas. But that is good for the Heights too. Areas north of 20th and on the periphery of the districts will see more development than they would have without the ordinance. Inside the districts, there will never again be the horrific contemporary odd balls, monsterous fake New Orleans junk packed 4 to a 2 home lot and cruddy, oddball rennovations (closed in porches, goofy circular windows and other oddities that wreck the character of historic homes).

The Heights will be even better than ever under the Historic Ordinance. People looking to buy won't have to worry about what might go up next door anymore. People looking to rennovate won't have to worry about ending up with lot value after being surrounded by McVics. Crow all you want about how Eastwood is now better than the Heights because of the Historic Ordinance. Or about how the Heights are "stagnating" because someone thinks they can still get lot value (just saw a great bungalow on Columbia sell within a week of listing--some stagnation). Just like the claims about paint color and HVACs, the reality is nothing like what the anti-preservationists will ever be able to recognize.

So if the Ordinance was not originally designed to control paint color, why then did they have to go back and SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE IT?? Paint color control was allowed in the original draft and specifically excluded in the version that became law.

The anti-ordinance crowd is the only reason that was modified. If it were not for them, it would now be law that you have to ask some donkey's permission to change your house color! The government has an extremely poor track record on abuse of power and use of power for personal gains....I want them to have as little control over myself and my property as possible.

You support the ordinance because you perceive it to do what you want. But when there is a new government in power who does not agree with you any longer, how do you think you will feel when an ordinance is passed requiring you to tear down your old well maintained shack if any repair requiring a permit ever has to be made? After all a very good case can be made that the older well maintained shacks are huge fire hazards, and a danger to the public. Many have extremely old wiring without grounds, many have uninsulated aluminum wiring, they are old dry wood just ready for a match, none of them have the newer fire retardant drywall or other features that make the PUBLIC safer....you see where I am going? It does not take a huge imagination to come up with a reason that we the public can create to cause you to lose the rights on YOUR home....You got your way this time...but power is fickle...those who abuse it lose, and then the next administration comes in and usually goes to far in their efforts to undue the previous administrations problems.

Look to Washington. Everyone hated Bush, now we have something far worse, a polar opposite.....wait till 2012....if you are an Obama lover you are very likely to HATE the next president.....going too far always has repercussions.

[Heights Homeowner]

They had no good argument for allowing builders to run wild in the Heights and had to resort to scare tactics to try to fool people into believing that the ordinance would do all kinds of things it would not do.

I don't have time to address the rest of the nonsense from this post at the moment but this is a perfect example of the appropriate use of the term "hysterical" preservationist. Really - allowing builders to run wild?? The builder boogey man running wild through the Heights is deserving of the term hysterical. This is the typical language of these people.