The Heights Historic Districts

[s3mh]

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.

Here is some hysterical language:

http://blogs.chron.com/houstonpolitics/2011/03/the_gestapo_at_city_hall.html

Maybe CM Jones will be the anti-preservationist candidate for mayor.

[crunchtastic]

Here is some hysterical language:

http://blogs.chron.com/houstonpolitics/2011/03/the_gestapo_at_city_hall.html

Maybe CM Jones will be the anti-preservationist candidate for mayor.

Looks like you found another place to post your sob story about lot value and having your view ruined. It also appears there are quite a few people who would rather suffer Jolanda Jones' antics than than your social engineering agenda masquerading as preservation.

[samagon]

Here is some hysterical language:

http://blogs.chron.c..._city_hall.html

Maybe CM Jones will be the anti-preservationist candidate for mayor.

still waiting patiently for your answer!!!

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?

[Heights Homeowner]

Here is some hysterical language:

http://blogs.chron.com/houstonpolitics/2011/03/the_gestapo_at_city_hall.html

Maybe CM Jones will be the anti-preservationist candidate for mayor.

Anyone know how much historic preservation costs the city? How much to run the commission? How much for the historic preservation staff? Did MAP cut anyone there? I'm sure we could save hundreds of thousands of dollars by eliminating this department entirely. Randy Pace, Thomas McWhorter, Courtney Spillane, Diana DuCroz, probably others, would save us plenty. Without having the cost of managing the commission, we could save a bit more.

Were there any cuts to that department? Then there is the big salaries of the directors. Without preservation to manage, maybe we would only need one, not two. Or maybe they could focus on the real job of planning instead of this nonsense. My guess is there will be no cuts to the historic staff. The Governor saw fit to slice the budget for the Texas Historic Commission. Why can't our mayor?

Maybe our next mayor will? What do you think?

[Heights Homeowner]

Looks like you found another place to post your sob story about lot value and having your view ruined. It also appears there are quite a few people who would rather suffer Jolanda Jones' antics than than your social engineering agenda masquerading as preservation.

Did anyone watch the council battle yesterday over not just preservation but redistricting. The knives were out for Parker. She is very unpopular with her own council. Several of them, Clutterbuck and Adams in particular went for the jugular yesterday.

I think its item 18:

http://houstontx.city.swagit.com/player.php?refid=03022011-3

[SilverJK]

Here is some hysterical language:

http://blogs.chron.c..._city_hall.html

Maybe CM Jones will be the anti-preservationist candidate for mayor.

I think you mean *anti-ordinance*

nice use of hysterical language while attempting to call out... hysterical language.

now for my hysterical language rant...

I suppose CM Jones is one of your right wing conservative teabaggers you constantly imply are the only ones against the ordinance?

[Heights Homeowner]

I think you mean *anti-ordinance*

nice use of hysterical language while attempting to call out... hysterical language.

now for my hysterical language rant...

I suppose CM Jones is one of your right wing conservative teabaggers you constantly imply are the only ones against the ordinance?

He always uses "anit-preservation" instead of anti-ordinance" which is yet another fine example of why we use the term hysterical preservationist. Everything is the extreme. We can't be for preservation and against the ordinance because he can only conceive of preservation in terms of giving the city control. Extremism earns you extreme description hence the reference by Jones (not that I advocate use of that term).

[Marksmu]

Here is some hysterical language:

http://blogs.chron.c..._city_hall.html

Maybe CM Jones will be the anti-preservationist candidate for mayor.

I have a feeling that you and Jones have more in common than you have differences. Just because she is on the right side of an issue for once in her life does not make her a viable candidate for anything other than a Democrat controlled district.

[Marksmu]

Did anyone watch the council battle yesterday over not just preservation but redistricting. The knives were out for Parker. She is very unpopular with her own council. Several of them, Clutterbuck and Adams in particular went for the jugular yesterday.

I think its item 18:

http://houstontx.cit...efid=03022011-3

Its the Mayor's report, not item 18.

Wong at 15:00 makes a great argument...that gifford, or whatever her name is makes it crystal clear....quoting roughhand, not exact...Gifford: "we do not need any of the property owners support to start a historic district"

That is truly a sad statement, and reflects the true arrogance of this administration.

[s3mh]

He always uses "anit-preservation" instead of anti-ordinance" which is yet another fine example of why we use the term hysterical preservationist. Everything is the extreme. We can't be for preservation and against the ordinance because he can only conceive of preservation in terms of giving the city control. Extremism earns you extreme description hence the reference by Jones (not that I advocate use of that term).

No, anti-preservation is accurate. This thread alone is full of posts bashing on bungalows as not being deserving of preservation because they are too small for modern families and have no architectural value because they are out of a Sears catalog. Then there are the arguments about diversity of housing being something that is better for the Heights than preserving historic structures. And tons of talk about how new construction in the Heights is the reason the Heights has been successful instead of the work of preservationists. The argument that people who are anti-ordinance are actually pro-preservation is based on the fake argument that deed restrictions are all you need to preserve the historic character of the Heights. That is like saying that regulating emmissions from the ship channel is a bad way to control air pollution in Houston because people who want clean air should just drive less and use fewer petroleum products. And as I have said numerous times, if the people who were against the ordinance were really for preservation, they would have come forward with ways to make a better revised ordinance rather than sending fliers out trying to kill off the historic districts altogether. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing extreme about the ordinance. There is no great imposition on property rights. People are still building in the Heights. People are still selling their homes for a nice profit in the Heights (although there is a bit of a glut of high-end overbuilt houses). People are still rennovating their housing in the Heights. Thus, the anti-preservationists are forced to make outlandish claims about due process and constitutional law, and find themselves in the company of CM Jones and her extremely ignorant Gestappo comment.

[samagon]

Its the Mayor's report, not item 18.

Wong at 15:00 makes a great argument...that gifford, or whatever her name is makes it crystal clear....quoting roughhand, not exact...Gifford: "we do not need any of the property owners support to start a historic district"

That is truly a sad statement, and reflects the true arrogance of this administration.

it isn't arrogance, it is the truth, unfortunately...

Sec. 33-221. Designation.

(a) The city council may designate buildings, structures, objects and sites as

landmarks and protected landmarks, may designate areas as historic districts, may

designate sites as archaeological sites, and may define, amend and delineate the

boundaries of any landmark, protected landmark, historic district or archaeological site

as provided in this article.

Unfortunately, S3MH hasn't gotten back to me on why things like this are written in the ordinance, if there are no intentions to use the ordinance that way.

Obviously, from Gifford's quote there, the intention was absolutely to use it in the way it was written (at least by some).

[RedScare]

No, anti-preservation is accurate. This thread alone is full of posts bashing on bungalows as not being deserving of preservation because they are too small for modern families and have no architectural value because they are out of a Sears catalog. Then there are the arguments about diversity of housing being something that is better for the Heights than preserving historic structures. And tons of talk about how new construction in the Heights is the reason the Heights has been successful instead of the work of preservationists. The argument that people who are anti-ordinance are actually pro-preservation is based on the fake argument that deed restrictions are all you need to preserve the historic character of the Heights. That is like saying that regulating emmissions from the ship channel is a bad way to control air pollution in Houston because people who want clean air should just drive less and use fewer petroleum products. And as I have said numerous times, if the people who were against the ordinance were really for preservation, they would have come forward with ways to make a better revised ordinance rather than sending fliers out trying to kill off the historic districts altogether. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing extreme about the ordinance. There is no great imposition on property rights. People are still building in the Heights. People are still selling their homes for a nice profit in the Heights (although there is a bit of a glut of high-end overbuilt houses). People are still rennovating their housing in the Heights. Thus, the anti-preservationists are forced to make outlandish claims about due process and constitutional law, and find themselves in the company of CM Jones and her extremely ignorant Gestappo comment.

As an owner of an original bungalow who has been forced to stop renovations in midstream due to this ridiculous ordinance as well as the diminished value of my home, I am uniquely qualified to call you out as a pathological liar. An ordinance that causes me to stop renovations because the renovations approved and permitted in 2009 for my garage are now outlawed on my house is the very definition of extreme. I hope you stay in your crappy house in your district, because I'd give you an earful if I ever saw you on my block.

And, no, my wonderful half-renovated bungalow is not historic, though that doesn't mean I don't care for it dearly, and don't want architecturally ignorant morons telling me what I can't do with it.

[Heights Homeowner]

Its the Mayor's report, not item 18.

Wong at 15:00 makes a great argument...that gifford, or whatever her name is makes it crystal clear....quoting roughhand, not exact...Gifford: "we do not need any of the property owners support to start a historic district"

That is truly a sad statement, and reflects the true arrogance of this administration.

I was refering to the redistricting issue, where the knives were really out. That is item 18. The preservation issue was in the Mayor's Report and was tame compared to the redistricting issue.

And it's Gafrick...LOL!

Edited March 5, 2011 by Heights Homeowner

[Heights Homeowner]

No, anti-preservation is accurate. This thread alone is full of posts bashing on bungalows as not being deserving of preservation because they are too small for modern families and have no architectural value because they are out of a Sears catalog. Then there are the arguments about diversity of housing being something that is better for the Heights than preserving historic structures. And tons of talk about how new construction in the Heights is the reason the Heights has been successful instead of the work of preservationists. The argument that people who are anti-ordinance are actually pro-preservation is based on the fake argument that deed restrictions are all you need to preserve the historic character of the Heights. That is like saying that regulating emmissions from the ship channel is a bad way to control air pollution in Houston because people who want clean air should just drive less and use fewer petroleum products. And as I have said numerous times, if the people who were against the ordinance were really for preservation, they would have come forward with ways to make a better revised ordinance rather than sending fliers out trying to kill off the historic districts altogether. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing extreme about the ordinance. There is no great imposition on property rights. People are still building in the Heights. People are still selling their homes for a nice profit in the Heights (although there is a bit of a glut of high-end overbuilt houses). People are still rennovating their housing in the Heights. Thus, the anti-preservationists are forced to make outlandish claims about due process and constitutional law, and find themselves in the company of CM Jones and her extremely ignorant Gestappo comment.

As is so typical of your posts, you are full of inaccuracies and lies.

First, there are very few Sears catalog houses. Mine wasn’t. Get informed. And they are too small for most modern families. One of my good friends just put their house on the market for that reason – it’s even a 3 bedroom, 2 baths but the rooms are small and there is no storage. They have toddler and want another soon. They are busting at the seams…their words, not mine.

Second, the reason people are now willing to sink big bucks into renovations is because the builders got rid of so many of the structures that would never get renovated and the property values went up enough to warrant the extra costs in renovation vs. new build. But again, you know nothing about that industry. And clearly you know nothing about the Heights. I was around when very few wanted to live here – you weren’t. You are clueless and just believe the nonsense the extremists spew constantly.

Third, plenty of people involved advocated for many changes to the ordinance that made it better and were called anti-preservation. And it is a bold faced lie that we didn’t want the changes to the ordinance. We want it where there is support for it. Broad Acres loves it and we are happy for them. They also have huge houses which makes it easy to love. And not a single person has made the argument that deed restrictions preserve the historic character but they do prevent townhouses and condos and high rises that were the proponent’s lies about why we needed the city to control our property.

And lastly, every single lawyer we talk to, involved in this or not, thinks this won’t hold up for a second in a courtroom, particularly in Texas and most especially in Houston. And Parker is risking your precious ordinance over some bungalows – not all – that should be demolished. The process that she used is going to get overturned in court and it will open the door to killing the whole thing. If she had any sense, she would let these contested districts go and not run the risk of losing it all – but clearly she doesn’t. And council is so furious with her that she might just lose a lot more over this.

[heights]

No, anti-preservation is accurate. [more crap here]

I haven't read the rules of this forum in a while, but I'm quite sure that name calling is at least frowned upon.

That being said, s3mh is an idiot.

[Heights Homeowner]

Thus, the anti-preservationists are forced to make outlandish claims about due process and constitutional law, and find themselves in the company of CM Jones and her extremely ignorant Gestappo comment.

I hate to sound like a broken record but remember my admonition that it is better to remain silent and appear ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt? But you can't remember it so I will once have to point out another fine example. Here goes...

When you call someone "extremely ignorant" it is best not to follow it with a word you misspell. Gestapo has one "p" not two. Perhaps you have confused the word Gestapo with Geppetto? After all, they both start with a "G" and mostly have the same letters, right?

Definition of IGNORANT

1a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>

2: unaware, uninformed

— ig·no·rant·ly adverb

— ig·no·rant·ness noun

See ignorant defined for English-language learners »

[crunchtastic]

And as I have said numerous times, if the people who were against the ordinance were really for preservation, they would have come forward with ways to make a better revised ordinance rather than sending fliers out trying to kill off the historic districts altogether. ]

no, some of us against the ordinance want to see the city focus on the actual issue of preservation, starting with commercial properties in highly visible districts. Unlike you, I actually know firsthand of what it takes to actually keep a 100 year old frame house standing. It may look nice on the outside, but underneath the granite counter, it's $10s of thousands of a commitment for a 2-1. You and your short-timer urban adventurer friends will leave the Heights for West U or the suburbs soon enough for your latent gated-community dreams, meanwhile I'll still be here, in my old house. My old house that's been pictured in the Chron next to the headline "preserving a piece of history" -- no thanks to you or the ordinance, of course.

[Marksmu]

Here's one for you. I live in a historic district (HW), live in a historic bungalow which we renovated 4 years ago (before the stupidity). I even signed the original petition once our work was done, and went back to get a COA after the fact to qualify for the tax break. And I hate what has been done to me and to others who were duped. Heck, they even used our house as an EXAMPLE of what an acceptable addition is in their advertising during the debate. So, S3MH, am I anti-preservation??? Nope, anti-ordinance.

Did not mean to neg rep your post....

[SilverJK]

No, anti-preservation is accurate. This thread alone is full of posts bashing on bungalows as not being deserving of preservation because they are too small for modern families and have no architectural value because they are out of a Sears catalog. Then there are the arguments about diversity of housing being something that is better for the Heights than preserving historic structures. And tons of talk about how new construction in the Heights is the reason the Heights has been successful instead of the work of preservationists. The argument that people who are anti-ordinance are actually pro-preservation is based on the fake argument that deed restrictions are all you need to preserve the historic character of the Heights. That is like saying that regulating emmissions from the ship channel is a bad way to control air pollution in Houston because people who want clean air should just drive less and use fewer petroleum products. And as I have said numerous times, if the people who were against the ordinance were really for preservation, they would have come forward with ways to make a better revised ordinance rather than sending fliers out trying to kill off the historic districts altogether. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing extreme about the ordinance. There is no great imposition on property rights. People are still building in the Heights. People are still selling their homes for a nice profit in the Heights (although there is a bit of a glut of high-end overbuilt houses). People are still rennovating their housing in the Heights. Thus, the anti-preservationists are forced to make outlandish claims about due process and constitutional law, and find themselves in the company of CM Jones and her extremely ignorant Gestappo comment.

Ok... lets just pretend your right, and all anti-ordinance people hate bungalows and want them all smashed. Preservation isn't limited to houses. I personally have spent a lot of time and money on preserving other artifacts, allowing future generations to enjoy them. Art, writings, furniture, vehicles, photographs, these are just some examples of things i've painstakingly worked to preserve. So even if everything in your post was accurate (which it couldn't be farther from) it still is a gross generalization to call anti-ordinance people anti-preservation.

Maybe you chewed on the window seals of a bungalow as a kid?

[s3mh]

Ok... lets just pretend your right, and all anti-ordinance people hate bungalows and want them all smashed. Preservation isn't limited to houses. I personally have spent a lot of time and money on preserving other artifacts, allowing future generations to enjoy them. Art, writings, furniture, vehicles, photographs, these are just some examples of things i've painstakingly worked to preserve. So even if everything in your post was accurate (which it couldn't be farther from) it still is a gross generalization to call anti-ordinance people anti-preservation.

Maybe you chewed on the window seals of a bungalow as a kid?

Lame, lame, lame. What in the world would let you take the logical leap that my reference to "anti-preservation" was anything other than historic homes in the Houston Heights? You don't refute someone's argument by taking their argument completely out of context and beyond all logical limits in order to manufacture a point. It is plainly obvious that I am taking issue with the blue sign people who claim to be pro-preservation but anti-ordinance. As evidenced by many of the posts in this thread bashing historic preservation in the Heights, I have more than enough evidence to call out the claim that these people are just anti-ordinance. If they had problems with the ordinance, they would have worked with the preservation coalition to craft a better ordinance. But from the get go, it was about trying to kill off the districts and not about inventing a better mouse trap. The anti-preservationists were even given the opportunity to kill of the districts and failed miserably, for the very reason I call them anti-preservationists--it was clear to everyone in the Heights that their goal was NOT preservation.

[RedScare]

Actually, my district is still pending. It has not been approved yet, so your celebration is premature. As for being a bungalow hater, MY bungalow is used in the Historic District staff report as an example of a "contributing structure".

Is YOURS?

Didn't think so.

[Heights Homeowner]

I call them anti-preservationists--it was clear to everyone in the Heights that their goal was NOT preservation.

A little like the pot calling the kettle black, n'est pas? No one from the hysterical preservationist coalition cares a hoot about preservation. There is NO effort to raise funds to preserve anything. The GHPA, a joke of a preservation organization, TURNS DOWN donated buildings, truly historic ones, because it costs too much to maintain and renovate them. Historic preservation groups all over the country actually SAVE historic structures and raise money to do it. This group is about one thing and one thing only - controlling development. It has NOTHING to do with preserving anything. 99% of them have never lifted a finger beyond regulation and restriction of their neighbors. If you want to restrict development, them work towards that end but to do it under the guise of preservation is hypocritcal and demeans true preservation efforts.

As far as working to get a better ordinance, if it weren't for the efforts of those opposed to the ordinance, the ordinance would have been absolutely dreadful. Even the mayor has said it is better due to some of the problems WE pointed out in the original draft. So, stop lying about that issue. We worked hard to get changes. Just because you weren't privy to the changes we were asking for or that they didn't make it into the final draft doesn't mean that we didn't try. Some of our most important changes were not even considered. Why? Because there was ZERO cooperation on the part of Lovell. Gafrick wasn't much better. Those at city hall have had a certain mindset for years and years and there was no talking to them about any of the details. Clearly, as evidenced by your postings, you again have no expertise about what the reality of the process was. Always the uninformed expert on the forum...

[dbigtex56]

A little like the pot calling the kettle black, n'est pas? No one from the hysterical preservationist coalition cares a hoot about preservation. There is NO effort to raise funds to preserve anything. The GHPA, a joke of a preservation organization, TURNS DOWN donated buildings, truly historic ones, because it costs too much to maintain and renovate them. Historic preservation groups all over the country actually SAVE historic structures and raise money to do it. This group is about one thing and one thing only - controlling development. It has NOTHING to do with preserving anything. 99% of them have never lifted a finger beyond regulation and restriction of their neighbors. If you want to restrict development, them work towards that end but to do it under the guise of preservation is hypocritcal and demeans true preservation efforts.

As far as working to get a better ordinance, if it weren't for the efforts of those opposed to the ordinance, the ordinance would have been absolutely dreadful. Even the mayor has said it is better due to some of the problems WE pointed out in the original draft. So, stop lying about that issue. We worked hard to get changes. Just because you weren't privy to the changes we were asking for or that they didn't make it into the final draft doesn't mean that we didn't try. Some of our most important changes were not even considered. Why? Because there was ZERO cooperation on the part of Lovell. Gafrick wasn't much better. Those at city hall have had a certain mindset for years and years and there was no talking to them about any of the details. Clearly, as evidenced by your postings, you again have no expertise about what the reality of the process was. Always the uninformed expert on the forum...

Just curious - have you made any posts which do not include the words 'lie' 'liar' 'lying' 'lies', etc?

Your point could better be made by quoting chapter and verse of the ordinance, and citing specific examples (quotes) of the inconsistencies - or lies, if you must - of those you accuse.

I really want to believe you.

{edit - double post]

Edited March 8, 2011 by dbigtex56

[Heights Homeowner]

Just curious - have you made any posts which do not include the words 'lie' 'liar' 'lying' 'lies', etc?

Your point could better be made by quoting chapter and verse of the ordinance, and citing specific examples (quotes) of the inconsistencies - or lies, if you must - of those you accuse.

I really want to believe you.

{edit - double post]

I've made plenty of postings that don't address this dude's lies. But when he makes them, I point out what they are and why. In this one specifically, he claims we made no effort to make the ordinance better. This is patently false. If you read the first draft of the ordinance posted July 19th, you will find there is no exclusion for minor exterior changes (paint, light fixtures, HVAC). I can't provide you the specific section of the ordinance that it pertains to because it wasn't in it. However, the language of the ordinance has not changed which allowed regulation of everything. So, if you read the first you won't find it, if you read the final, you will. The language of the ordinance, Sec. 33-236. Prohibited activities; offense says: "No person shal alter, rehabilitate, restore or construct ANY exgterior feature of any building, structure or object within an historic district without a certificate of appropriateness." In legal terms, ANY means ANY.

That all encompassing language is one of the many things we fought to change. The solution was to exclude the things we specifically mentioned. I am not going to retype the entire ordinace to prove it to you nor am I going to go through each section. One place this exlusion is mentioned is Sec. 33-201. Sec. 33-237. Exemptions (relates SPECIFICALLY the the issues we brought up). Section a) itemizes the exempted maintenance and repairs, and addresses the issue of the reconstruction of a non-contributing structure if destroyed by a natural disaster.

Both of those things we fought for - any many more, including the requirement that these restrictions be consented to by a 67% majority. The good news is that 67% SUPPORT is what was included in the final draft for new districts. That was a huge fight we won. The bad news is that in a last ditch switcheroo, the mayor changed 67% support for the existing districts to 51% opposition, thereby allowing a minority to prevail by the flawed process. That is too long to go into but if you want to see city council in action on that and see that they only had 5 minutes to consider it, go to http://houstontx.city.swagit.com/ and view the fight over it. It's on October 13th.

I can't normally take this much time to find this stuff for you on every post. Read the ordinance. Then ask specific questions, if you really want to know. Quoting ordinance sections won't be high on my posting priorities though as it is time consuming. Those of us involved from the beginning know the truth, are very well educated on the issue, and regularly call that guy on the lies he tells. But the best thing you can do if you "really want to believe" me is read the ordinance. Read the memos by council members. Watch the council meetings where this issue is discussed. You don't need me to inform you. It is all out there in the public domain if you want more information.

And just curious, do you really want to know truth or are you simply complaining that I regularly point out the lies of this poster who threatened those who oppose his point of view?

[samagon]

Just curious - have you made any posts which do not include the words 'lie' 'liar' 'lying' 'lies', etc?

Your point could better be made by quoting chapter and verse of the ordinance, and citing specific examples (quotes) of the inconsistencies - or lies, if you must - of those you accuse.

I really want to believe you.

{edit - double post]

A lot of people are tired of showing s3mh facts, because s3mh doesn't appear to acknowledge any of it, despite the credibility of the source.

At this point though, it feels like Mark Twain was wrong....

"There's lies, there's damn lies, and there's what s3mh says"

but that is just what it feels like, I'm sure that's not the case.

I'm sure if you asked for specific data of someone as to why s3mh is lying, they would provide that to you.

And just curious, do you really want to know truth or are you simply complaining that I regularly point out the lies of this poster who threatened those who oppose his point of view?

Just in case it is the former, and not the latter...

http://www.houstontx...ed_20101013.pdf

Edited March 8, 2011 by samagon

[RedScare]

Just curious - have you made any posts which do not include the words 'lie' 'liar' 'lying' 'lies', etc?

Your point could better be made by quoting chapter and verse of the ordinance, and citing specific examples (quotes) of the inconsistencies - or lies, if you must - of those you accuse.

I really want to believe you.

{edit - double post]

I don't think you really do. We have piles of evidence of the Mayor and Lovell and Gaffrick ramming this ordinance through. We have piles of documents showing the 3 Heights districts were improperly created using city owned property to achieve their "51%". We have dozens of examples that the city can and already has used the ordinance to prevent reasonable renovations to homes. We have evidence that the ordinance has stunted property values, and further, that this is what a core group of "preservationists" want. If you really wanted to believe us, you would. s3mh has never presented a shred of evidence in this or the Walmart thread to support her outlandish and manufactured claims.

Watch the council videos. Show up to the meetings. You will see the charade. I will not post specifics here, since the South Heights district is still pending and I don't want to give away any strategy, but remember that I own a 91 year old bungalow. I signed the original historic district petition long before s3mh ever moved to the Heights. Ask yourself why a bungalow owner who is renovating his home and signed the original petition is now so vehemently against the new ordinance. I am told that my proposed future renovations (most of them, anyway) would actually fit within the new ordinance. Why do you think I am still opposed? If you guessed that the new ordinance is gutting property values so that the money invested in preserving my bungalow will never be recouped, you'd be correct.

[SilverJK]

Lame, lame, lame. What in the world would let you take the logical leap that my reference to "anti-preservation" was anything other than historic homes in the Houston Heights? You don't refute someone's argument by taking their argument completely out of context and beyond all logical limits in order to manufacture a point. It is plainly obvious that I am taking issue with the blue sign people who claim to be pro-preservation but anti-ordinance. As evidenced by many of the posts in this thread bashing historic preservation in the Heights, I have more than enough evidence to call out the claim that these people are just anti-ordinance. If they had problems with the ordinance, they would have worked with the preservation coalition to craft a better ordinance. But from the get go, it was about trying to kill off the districts and not about inventing a better mouse trap. The anti-preservationists were even given the opportunity to kill of the districts and failed miserably, for the very reason I call them anti-preservationists--it was clear to everyone in the Heights that their goal was NOT preservation.

what in the world would let me take the logical leap... hmmm... maybe the blanketing term of "anti-preservationist". You only prove my point that anti-ordinance is more accurate. I guess you could say "anti-preservation-ordinance" if you just have to use the word.

We did work with the preservation coalition and that is the only reason some specifics were addressed in to the ordinance. But from the get go, your cronies were going to jam this preservation ordinance through with or without a majority of public support (which they have been quoted as saying). That doesn't sound like a group that is willing to work with anyone to me.

Failed miserably... how can you vehemently deny that the card process was anything more than a show. Do you honestly think it would have won a straight vote?

[Marksmu]

what in the world would let me take the logical leap... hmmm... maybe the blanketing term of "anti-preservationist". You only prove my point that anti-ordinance is more accurate. I guess you could say "anti-preservation-ordinance" if you just have to use the word.

We did work with the preservation coalition and that is the only reason some specifics were addressed in to the ordinance. But from the get go, your cronies were going to jam this preservation ordinance through with or without a majority of public support (which they have been quoted as saying). That doesn't sound like a group that is willing to work with anyone to me.

Failed miserably... how can you vehemently deny that the card process was anything more than a show. Do you honestly think it would have won a straight vote?

There is absolutely no legitimate argument that can be made in support of the "survey" process for purposes of repeal.

Anyone who says that the "survey" process was legitimate is a liar...period.

Facts:

1. It took supporters of the ordinance YEARS to get to 51% and they cheated by using city owned property to do it.

2. It took opponents less than 30 days to get 10% to agree with them

3. An intentionally confusing "survey" was mailed during the holidays with a very short period of time for return still got nearly 25% in all districts

4. The "survey" was offered only in English, even though there is a substantial spanish speaking population

5. An un-returned survey counted as a vote in favor of the historic district (By far the most egregious insult to democracy I have ever witnessed)

6. Owners of more than 1 contiguous tract, did not get equal voting rights as a percentage of their land ownership.

7. The City used the Mayor and other taxpayer funded employees to fight the taxpayers.

8. No vote was ever taken to determine how many taxpayers actually Supported the districts.

9. No resurvey was ever conducted to determine if the signatures on the original petition still owned the property the city was counting as a vote in their favor.

That is not a legitimate process. It is the most illegitimate process I can even think of.

There is more, and if people can add to the list, I would like to compile as many problems with the survey process as possible....We can just re-post the list in response to the illegitimate arguments of S3MH....He/She will not be able to refute them with facts...only emotional arguments.

[dbigtex56]

I've made plenty of postings that don't address this dude's lies. But when he makes them, I point out what they are and why. In this one specifically, he claims we made no effort to make the ordinance better. This is patently false. If you read the first draft of the ordinance posted July 19th, you will find there is no exclusion for minor exterior changes (paint, light fixtures, HVAC). I can't provide you the specific section of the ordinance that it pertains to because it wasn't in it. However, the language of the ordinance has not changed which allowed regulation of everything. So, if you read the first you won't find it, if you read the final, you will. The language of the ordinance, Sec. 33-236. Prohibited activities; offense says: "No person shal alter, rehabilitate, restore or construct ANY exgterior feature of any building, structure or object within an historic district without a certificate of appropriateness." In legal terms, ANY means ANY.

That all encompassing language is one of the many things we fought to change. The solution was to exclude the things we specifically mentioned. I am not going to retype the entire ordinace to prove it to you nor am I going to go through each section. One place this exlusion is mentioned is Sec. 33-201. Sec. 33-237. Exemptions (relates SPECIFICALLY the the issues we brought up). Section a) itemizes the exempted maintenance and repairs, and addresses the issue of the reconstruction of a non-contributing structure if destroyed by a natural disaster.

Both of those things we fought for - any many more, including the requirement that these restrictions be consented to by a 67% majority. The good news is that 67% SUPPORT is what was included in the final draft for new districts. That was a huge fight we won. The bad news is that in a last ditch switcheroo, the mayor changed 67% support for the existing districts to 51% opposition, thereby allowing a minority to prevail by the flawed process. That is too long to go into but if you want to see city council in action on that and see that they only had 5 minutes to consider it, go to http://houstontx.city.swagit.com/ and view the fight over it. It's on October 13th.

I can't normally take this much time to find this stuff for you on every post. Read the ordinance. Then ask specific questions, if you really want to know. Quoting ordinance sections won't be high on my posting priorities though as it is time consuming. Those of us involved from the beginning know the truth, are very well educated on the issue, and regularly call that guy on the lies he tells. But the best thing you can do if you "really want to believe" me is read the ordinance. Read the memos by council members. Watch the council meetings where this issue is discussed. You don't need me to inform you. It is all out there in the public domain if you want more information.

And just curious, do you really want to know truth or are you simply complaining that I regularly point out the lies of this poster who threatened those who oppose his point of view?

I appreciate that you took the time to point out aspects of the ordinance to which you object. No, I have not read the ordinance, and it seems likely that I'd misunderstand it even if I did. I do see your point that the language used in the ordinance grants powers which may be abused. This, among other posts, leads me to believe that it is overreaching and poorly written.

Yes, I'd like to know the truth - truth being a relative term. Not everyone agrees as to what this ordinance truly means, or should mean. If someone's arguments are inconsistent, pointing out these inconsistencies weakens their stance. While I understand your frustration when you believe the truth has been misrepresented, please understand that calling someone a liar isn't a persuasive rebuttal.

I thank you for your thoughtful reply to my post.

[RedScare]

BigTex...

All of Marksmu's points have been proven to be true. They have been discussed by Council. Marlene Gaffrick has admitted that city properties were counted in approving 2 of the 3 Heights districts (We do not even know about the 3rd one yet). The mayor's reply was that it was "too late" to do anything about the mistake, even though Council could simply nullify the result and start over, so that any support is fairly gauged.

Here's the main thing. When all forms of opposition are counted, there is at least 65% opposition to the ordinance. That is, 65% of property owners in each of the districts has actually signed some form of document signifying their opposition to the ordinance. Of the remaining 35%, many of those have never indicated what position they take, meaning that ACTUAL support for the ordinance may well be far less than 35%. So, when s3mh claims Heights residents support this ordinance, remember that what she is saying is that less than a third actually do.

That is the travesty here. They are trying to disguise 65% as the minority.

Edited March 8, 2011 by RedScare