The Heights Historic Districts

[TGM]

We have long since rejected Locke's flawed theory of property rights. Locke believed that property rights were obtained not by taking a bag of money earned from other endeavors and buying land, but by combining one's labor with the land to take the land from a state of nature to a state to be used for a dwelling, crops and other purposes. What Locke did not recognize was that ownership of land intrinsically affected the rights of the community. Thus, in the earliest recognition of real property law in England that is the basis for our system, you immediately see the recognition of a superior right of the community to an easement across a freehold estate in order to access another parcel of land or to be able to travel on established roads. Thus from the very beginnings of real property law it was recognized that the right to exclude was subject to a greater right of the welfare of the community.

So according to you if my committee viewed your surrounding area as deficient in any particular amenity that would be beneficial to the welfare of the community, say for instance cheap groceries, diapers, etc, I could exclaim that the communities needs and access to these goods and services trump your right to remain whole and undisturbed on your property. Got it. So based on this "greater good" philosophy, and strengthened by Kelo v. City of New London I could seize your property through eminent domain on the behalf of say...Walmart, so that the less fortunate in your "food desert" can benefit. Right... But you would be okay with that because you hold an enlightened, rather than an "extremist libertarian" view.

If the needs of the community are paramount over the individual right to property please tell me again why you are opposed to Walmart? You should be happy if they opened in the neighborhood, and even more ecstatic if they seized your property to do so.

Edited July 31, 2013 by TGM

[s3mh]

So according to you if my committee viewed your surrounding area as deficient in any particular amenity that would be beneficial to the welfare of the community, say for instance cheap groceries, diapers, etc, I could exclaim that the communities needs and access to these goods and services trump your right to remain whole and undisturbed on your property. Got it. So based on this "greater good" philosophy, and strengthened by Kelo v. City of New London I could seize your property through eminent domain on the behalf of say...Walmart, so that the less fortunate in your "food desert" can benefit. Right... But you would be okay with that because you hold an enlightened, rather than an "extremist libertarian" view.

If the needs of the community are paramount over the individual right to property please tell me again why you are opposed to Walmart? You should be happy if they opened in the neighborhood, and even more ecstatic if they seized your property to do so.

 

 

No one needed a Walmart in the Heights.  There were already two within a short drive of the Heights. 

 

Kelo is interesting because it shows how constitutional democracy can work so much better than fictional libertarian utopias.  I agree with the supreme court that the constitution does not restrict the eminent domain rights of government to only public use.  That has actually been the rule long before Kelo.  Eminent domain has been a hugely valuable tool in breaking down barriers to development due to land owners who refuse to sell in blighted areas.  The issue in Kelo was to what extent the government has to show public benefit.  The court basically left that to the political process, but J. Kennedy's concurrence leaves open the possibility of an analysis of whether the benefit is primarily to the private entity with only a marginal benefit to the public. 

 

But, here is the part that smashes your paranoid "committee" ramblings.  We have a system of government that has a messy, but ultimately effective system to deal with these issues.  Many states enacted legislation in response to Kelo.  Most states have limited takings to instances where eminent domain is needed to clear blighted property.  Texas is pretty strict about the public use requirement, so much so that pipe line companies are going nuts trying to figure out how to get past the courts on the common carrier public use exception (the biggest irony is that Koch Industries has been a party to lawsuits seeking to make use of the common carrier exception--serious hypocrisy from the poster children of libertarianism).  So, adults can deal with these issues and work them out in a free democratic country without having to put on a tin foil hat and rant about how gubment gonna git yuh propity. 

 

Of course, I would oppose takings for purely private use.  But I would not want to take away all eminent domain rights and make landowners micro-monarchs in society. 

[RedScare]

No one needed a Walmart in the Heights.  

 

Not your decision to make.

[SilverJK]

I have someone in my family who has restored 57 thunderbirds for over 30 years.  I could care less about those cars, but have heard endless stories about the cars and the 57 thunderbird community for years and years and years.  I am not an expert, but my relative is.  He makes a good living at it and has piles of awards from his work.  57 thunderbirds are one of the most collectable vehicles on the road.  The vast majority of the 57s on the market are restored to as close to original condition as possible.  If you swap out an engine, you would be cutting the value in half (a new stereo or AC is about all you can get away with in terms of aftermarket upgrades).  Some redneck might do that, but the VAST MAJORITY do not.  I wish I didn't know this stuff as I end up getting several hours of talk about 57s from my family at every family event.  But I do and I am right.  You are just making up stuff about 57s.  Just look at the listings for 57s on the internet.  Original engines are a must and details about how the vehicles were rebuilt are hugely important.

 

All that you say is for collectors.  A original 57 in great condition is worth around 35-45 thousand (which is not very expensive for a collector car), but a ratted out project car would be worth less than 5k.  I would say a vast majority of 57 thunderbirds don't even run.   I know a guy who has like 15 first gen thunderbirds and most of them dont run.  (he does have one with a 427 swap that most definitely runs). 

 

Your probably thinking the 57 thunderbirds with stock paxton supercharger and etc.  Those are rare and very collectable (these are the ones you see going at auctions for big bucks) but they are rare... the majority of them were just the stock 312 y-block and most people don't car about keeping them original... they just want a cool 50s cruiser.

 

 

Again you take your niche knowledge about 5% of an industry and try to pass it off as the majority. 

 

57 thunderbirds are not even close to what any collector would consider most collectable on the road... not even top 50.  There were a good bunch of them made, making them available if you want one.  I mean a 57 vette would go for at least 5 times as much.  I would never own either.

[barracuda]

No one needed a Walmart in the Heights.  There were already two within a short drive of the Heights. 

 

The only problem with that line of argument is that it can be applied across pretty much any establishment. The Heights is in the middle of a large city filled with redundant businesses. No one needs more retailers or restaurants, but many people will be happy to have them close by. 

[august948]

You will need to leave the United States if you want to find a place where your extremist libertarian views are shared by others. It has long been decided in this country that the police powers of the state to preserve the welfare, safety, health and morals of the public. We have long since rejected Locke's flawed theory of property rights. Locke believed that property rights were obtained not by taking a bag of money earned from other endeavors and buying land, but by combining one's labor with the land to take the land from a state of nature to a state to be used for a dwelling, crops and other purposes. What Locke did not recognize was that ownership of land intrinsically affected the rights of the community. Thus, in the earliest recognition of real property law in England that is the basis for our system, you immediately see the recognition of a superior right of the community to an easement across a freehold estate in order to access another parcel of land or to be able to travel on established roads. Thus from the very beginnings of real property law it was recognized that the right to exclude was subject to a greater right of the welfare of the community.

Your hyperbole about people the tyrrany of the majority knowing better than the poor little land owner is always the rhetorical tool used to try to make a very reasonable and beneficial restriction on property rights seem more ownerous than it really is. Historic preservation laws are ubiquitous in the United States. Just about every municipality from New York to Waxahachie has laws protecting historic architecture that restrict property rights. These laws recognize the value that has been created by the community by preserving historic buildings and protects that value from the momentary whims of the guy with a big bag of money. That is because it has never been the case in our real property jurisprudence that real property ownership granted an exemption from the democratically established rights of the community. Your claim of the tyrrany of the majority is really a call for a society where rights are a commodity reserved to the highest bidder. You believe that your rights are superior to over 200 years of constitutional democracy and 500 years of common law just because you had one dollar more to bid for a piece of land. That is truly arbitrary and a concept that has never existed in civilized society outside the musings of message boards and Ron Paul newsletters.

It's a bit of a stretch to equate right-of-way easements with preservation laws. We have a long and well established method for including easements via property deed. I'm sure if you look at deeds to property in the Heights you will find such easements existing. Did the historic ordinance change the deeds of any of the contributing properties?

[TGM]

But, here is the part that smashes your paranoid "committee" ramblings.

I suggest you walk a few miles in the shoes of those that have gone before the HAHC seeking their approval to improve their property. Kafka comes to mind.

adults can deal with these issues and work them out in a free democratic country without having to put on a tin foil hat and rant about how gubment gonna git yuh propity.

I agree, let's put the HAHC to an honest vote.

Of course, I would oppose takings for purely private use. But I would not want to take away all eminent domain rights and make landowners micro-monarchs in society.

The only micro-monarchs are those that sit on the HAHC.

[RedScare]

I agree, let's put the HAHC to an honest vote.

 

 

He will NEVER agree to that. He will mumble something about already having a fair chance, but ignores that the mayor intentionally left out an opt out mechanism. If there were an ounce of integrity to his words, he'd agree and support an opt out provision.

 

Watch him squirm.

[samagon]

 

All that you say is for collectors.  A original 57 in great condition is worth around 35-45 thousand (which is not very expensive for a collector car), but a ratted out project car would be worth less than 5k.  I would say a vast majority of 57 thunderbirds don't even run.   I know a guy who has like 15 first gen thunderbirds and most of them dont run.  (he does have one with a 427 swap that most definitely runs). 

 

Your probably thinking the 57 thunderbirds with stock paxton supercharger and etc.  Those are rare and very collectable (these are the ones you see going at auctions for big bucks) but they are rare... the majority of them were just the stock 312 y-block and most people don't car about keeping them original... they just want a cool 50s cruiser.

 

 

Again you take your niche knowledge about 5% of an industry and try to pass it off as the majority. 

 

57 thunderbirds are not even close to what any collector would consider most collectable on the road... not even top 50.  There were a good bunch of them made, making them available if you want one.  I mean a 57 vette would go for at least 5 times as much.  I would never own either.

Well, someone would have to pass a law that said if you own a tbird, if you want to do anything with it, you have to take your design to the tbird restoration organization and get it approved.

[TGM]

Again you take your niche knowledge about 5% of an industry and try to pass it off as the majority.

I'm sure his knowledge of the Lada, GAZ, ZIL, and the Trabby vehicles borders on the encyclopedic.

A life was lost obtaining the video below. In it RUDH is frantically preparing for the next evil capitalist builder protest.

Edited August 1, 2013 by TGM

[s3mh]

It's a bit of a stretch to equate right-of-way easements with preservation laws. We have a long and well established method for including easements via property deed. I'm sure if you look at deeds to property in the Heights you will find such easements existing. Did the historic ordinance change the deeds of any of the contributing properties?

 

Common law access easements have existed for hundreds of years and are not voluntary.  They are imposed by law to prevent a property owner from unreasonably blocking access to another property by refusing to allow the adjoining property owner to cross their land.  The entire bundle of property rights is summed up as the right to exclude.  My point is that the ultra libertarian idea that all government regulation of land use is nothing more than an illegitimate "committee" foisting their ideas onto a landowner is completely foreign to the most basic and fundamental concepts of property rights.  From the very beginning of English property law, landowners were required to concede sticks from the bundle for the greater good of the community. 

[s3mh]

All that you say is for collectors.  A original 57 in great condition is worth around 35-45 thousand (which is not very expensive for a collector car), but a ratted out project car would be worth less than 5k.  I would say a vast majority of 57 thunderbirds don't even run.   I know a guy who has like 15 first gen thunderbirds and most of them dont run.  (he does have one with a 427 swap that most definitely runs). 

 

Your probably thinking the 57 thunderbirds with stock paxton supercharger and etc.  Those are rare and very collectable (these are the ones you see going at auctions for big bucks) but they are rare... the majority of them were just the stock 312 y-block and most people don't car about keeping them original... they just want a cool 50s cruiser.

 

 

Again you take your niche knowledge about 5% of an industry and try to pass it off as the majority. 

 

57 thunderbirds are not even close to what any collector would consider most collectable on the road... not even top 50.  There were a good bunch of them made, making them available if you want one.  I mean a 57 vette would go for at least 5 times as much.  I would never own either.

 

I never said that 57s were the most collectible cars on the road.  That is you just trying to change the subject after you looked foolish claiming that everyone rips out the engine and turns 57s into hot rods.  That may be what you thought when you read hot rod magazines when you were a kid, but 57s are valued for being restored to as close to original condition as possible.  Put anything aftermarket in them and the value plummets.  That info comes from someone who has restored over a hundred t-birds, goes to t-bird shows, is in t-bird clubs and bores their relatives with talk about t-birds at every family function. 

[SilverJK]

57 thunderbirds are one of the most collectable vehicles on the road. 

 

 

Uhm,  you said precisely that.  I didn't claim you said they were the most collectable vehicle ever... I said you claimed they were one of the most collectable vehicles on the road.  I guess I read too much into your post which stated that EXACT thing.

 

 

Again you've shown that think you know everything about a subject and only know a small niche of second hand information.

 

Lots of people swap in the 302/351/390...   these are people who actually drive the cars and enjoy them for what they are.  There are also whole kits designed for IRS conversions of the first gen thunderbirds... thats not very original now is it... yet there is demand enough to necessitate a KIT to convert them. 

 

 

A friend of mine owned a Tucker... now that is a collectable car.  (he sold it to a museum)

 

 

Maybe you should buy a Model T, so even your car looks historically appropriate for your house.  Then you can tell us all about the color options you would have had when it was new.

[august948]

Common law access easements have existed for hundreds of years and are not voluntary. They are imposed by law to prevent a property owner from unreasonably blocking access to another property by refusing to allow the adjoining property owner to cross their land. The entire bundle of property rights is summed up as the right to exclude. My point is that the ultra libertarian idea that all government regulation of land use is nothing more than an illegitimate "committee" foisting their ideas onto a landowner is completely foreign to the most basic and fundamental concepts of property rights. From the very beginning of English property law, landowners were required to concede sticks from the bundle for the greater good of the community.

Easements of this sort have existed and stood the test of time (and court cases) for hundreds of years because they provide for fair use of property that might not otherwise be usable by the owner. Fair use of one's own property is a fundamental concept in property law. A preservation ordinance does not provide for fair use of one's property, it restricts it. As such, it's completely legitimate to resist it via the political process by which it was imposed. You are reverting to a straw man argument when you attempt to equate the removal of the preservation ordinance with an "ultra libertarian" stance on removal of all restrictions on property use.

[s3mh]

Easements of this sort have existed and stood the test of time (and court cases) for hundreds of years because they provide for fair use of property that might not otherwise be usable by the owner. Fair use of one's own property is a fundamental concept in property law. A preservation ordinance does not provide for fair use of one's property, it restricts it. As such, it's completely legitimate to resist it via the political process by which it was imposed. You are reverting to a straw man argument when you attempt to equate the removal of the preservation ordinance with an "ultra libertarian" stance on removal of all restrictions on property use.

 

I am responding to TGM.  Blame him for having crazed libertarian views.  But, it is interesting to apply commonly held arguments against historic district to the right of access easement.  For example, a popular one is "if you want to save a house, buy it with your own money".  Same argument could go for implied easements.  If you wanted to have access to the road, you should have also bought the property that is in the way.  Why should government be able to force me to allow someone to put a road across my property when they knew there was no access when they bought the property? 

 

And the idea that the ordinance does not allow for "fair use" (that is not a legal concept) of your property is silly.  If the ordinance was really such an imposition, you would see property values plummet.  The exact opposite has happened.  That is because the restrictions are minimal and manageable.  And there are real benefits that come with the restrictions that many people desire (just ask the folks who live near Morrison Heights if they would pay more to be in a HD).

[SilverJK]

I am responding to TGM.  Blame him for having crazed libertarian views.  But, it is interesting to apply commonly held arguments against historic district to the right of access easement.  For example, a popular one is "if you want to save a house, buy it with your own money".  Same argument could go for implied easements.  If you wanted to have access to the road, you should have also bought the property that is in the way.  Why should government be able to force me to allow someone to put a road across my property when they knew there was no access when they bought the property? 

 

 

Everyone knew about those laws/regulations long before they bought the property...  can't say the same for people living in the HDs.

[august948]

I am responding to TGM.  Blame him for having crazed libertarian views.  But, it is interesting to apply commonly held arguments against historic district to the right of access easement.  For example, a popular one is "if you want to save a house, buy it with your own money".  Same argument could go for implied easements.  If you wanted to have access to the road, you should have also bought the property that is in the way.  Why should government be able to force me to allow someone to put a road across my property when they knew there was no access when they bought the property? 

 

And the idea that the ordinance does not allow for "fair use" (that is not a legal concept) of your property is silly.  If the ordinance was really such an imposition, you would see property values plummet.  The exact opposite has happened.  That is because the restrictions are minimal and manageable.  And there are real benefits that come with the restrictions that many people desire (just ask the folks who live near Morrison Heights if they would pay more to be in a HD).

 

Implied and/or explicit easements of this type exist so that a property owner can access his land.  Without them the property owner can't have fair use of his land, legal concept or not.  How does this equate to a preservation ordinance?  The type of windows and architectural features that one landowner uses doesn't prevent another landowner from using his own property.

[s3mh]

Implied and/or explicit easements of this type exist so that a property owner can access his land.  Without them the property owner can't have fair use of his land, legal concept or not.  How does this equate to a preservation ordinance?  The type of windows and architectural features that one landowner uses doesn't prevent another landowner from using his own property.

 

You have jumped into the middle of an argument with TGM.  TGM resents any interference on the rights of real property owners for the greater good of the community and equates such efforts with all things evil.  I was pointing out that from the beginning of the English system of real property law up to today, the bundle of real property rights has always been subject to what the judiciary and legislature has considered necessary for the greater good.  I picked implied easements because they are one of the oldest concepts of real property law.  I was not intended to equate them with historic preservation rules.  I was merely demonstrating that there has never a time when the community had no right to interfere with the quiet use and enjoyment of land (that is the legal concept) for the greater good of the community.  Thus, TGM's argument of "what right do you have to tell me what to do with my propity" flies in the face of 500+ years of real property law.  It is a legitimate question to ask whether the interference goes too far or is not necessary for the greater good of the community.  And that question was certainly put to the political process and debated many times.  But, TGM wants a world were that question never even gets debated because landowner's rights are superior to any interference for the greater good of the community.  That is an ultra-libertarian view that is so far out there that it has never been adopted anywhere aside from places where any form of government authority has completely broken down (Somalia?).

[Ross]

You have jumped into the middle of an argument with TGM.  TGM resents any interference on the rights of real property owners for the greater good of the community and equates such efforts with all things evil.  I was pointing out that from the beginning of the English system of real property law up to today, the bundle of real property rights has always been subject to what the judiciary and legislature has considered necessary for the greater good.  I picked implied easements because they are one of the oldest concepts of real property law.  I was not intended to equate them with historic preservation rules.  I was merely demonstrating that there has never a time when the community had no right to interfere with the quiet use and enjoyment of land (that is the legal concept) for the greater good of the community.  Thus, TGM's argument of "what right do you have to tell me what to do with my propity" flies in the face of 500+ years of real property law.  It is a legitimate question to ask whether the interference goes too far or is not necessary for the greater good of the community.  And that question was certainly put to the political process and debated many times.  But, TGM wants a world were that question never even gets debated because landowner's rights are superior to any interference for the greater good of the community.  That is an ultra-libertarian view that is so far out there that it has never been adopted anywhere aside from places where any form of government authority has completely broken down (Somalia?).

 

Whatever. But it's a fact that there is not a single compelling public interest argument in favor of restricting what people can do to the appearance of their houses. I can't think of a compelling public interest argument to force someone to keep their house looking just like it did 100 years ago. Or any reason why  the City of Houston ought to be able to tell someone which windows to use. Or which siding, or which architectural style. None of those is a compelling public interest. Sewers, construction and life safety standards, yes. Anything else, no. I am still waiting for a reasoned argument as to why it matters at all that every bungalow be preserved instead of being replaced with something more to the liking and needs of the owner.

[TGM]

I am responding to TGM. Blame him for having crazed libertarian views.

I'll take the blame on that one, but I feel obligated to assign some of the responsibility/blame to those before me that also held the crazy view that less governmental intrusion be it Federal, State, or Municipal is actually a good thing.

Busy-body tyrants like s3mh are always at the front of any march or protest with a big sign exclaiming how they want government out of their bedroom. Now when it comes to any other room, structure, or building material s3mh is all about government telling you what you can and cannot do.

I guess the only way to win in his twisted world is to declare every room a bedroom.

I await your long response typed from your soon-to-be carpal-tunneled hands.

Edited August 2, 2013 by TGM

[samagon]

Whatever. But it's a fact that there is not a single compelling public interest argument in favor of restricting what people can do to the appearance of their houses. I can't think of a compelling public interest argument to force someone to keep their house looking just like it did 100 years ago. Or any reason why  the City of Houston ought to be able to tell someone which windows to use. Or which siding, or which architectural style. None of those is a compelling public interest. Sewers, construction and life safety standards, yes. Anything else, no. I am still waiting for a reasoned argument as to why it matters at all that every bungalow be preserved instead of being replaced with something more to the liking and needs of the owner.

 

Indeed there is in fact compelling public interest argument against restricting what people can do to the appearance of their houses.

 

If S3MH had his way, the house we all know of called affectionately "The Beer Can House" would never exist. I can only imagine now how the COA at the HAHC would go now.

 

HAHC: Excuse me, you want to do what?

John M: Yes, beer cans, I drink them, then tack them on my exterior walls.

HAHC: I'm very sorry, but you can't do that, this is against all of the existing structures and the beer cans you've chosen are all of a non-conforming nature.

 

Or imagine the orange show, S3MH would have that art installation not exist either. One is in a neighborhood with structures that would be contributing structures in a historic district, one is in a neighborhood where the old houses have been removed in favor of townhomes.

 

Neither would be legal to do in a world driven by S3MH, yet both have become part of the fabric of what makes Houston unique, and in some ways it puts us on the forefront of culture.

[s3mh]

Indeed there is in fact compelling public interest argument against restricting what people can do to the appearance of their houses.

 

If S3MH had his way, the house we all know of called affectionately "The Beer Can House" would never exist. I can only imagine now how the COA at the HAHC would go now.

 

HAHC: Excuse me, you want to do what?

John M: Yes, beer cans, I drink them, then tack them on my exterior walls.

HAHC: I'm very sorry, but you can't do that, this is against all of the existing structures and the beer cans you've chosen are all of a non-conforming nature.

 

Or imagine the orange show, S3MH would have that art installation not exist either. One is in a neighborhood with structures that would be contributing structures in a historic district, one is in a neighborhood where the old houses have been removed in favor of townhomes.

 

Neither would be legal to do in a world driven by S3MH, yet both have become part of the fabric of what makes Houston unique, and in some ways it puts us on the forefront of culture.

 

I think I am going to now call posts like this "HAIFing".  I support the very limited historic districts that take up a fraction of the land mass in the City of Houston.  I have even said in the past that I thought the Glennbrook HD was too big and was just a way to try to keep people from doing low quality DIY improvements that would reduce property values.  The wonderful mods in Glennbrook are in a much smaller area than the 1200 home HD.  But when the argument actually gets down to the real issue, it becomes necessary for some HAIFing.  It is well settled law in the US that historic preservation is part of the government police powers.  It is also beyond dispute that raftsman and Victorian residential architecture is prized and appreciated.  So, instead of arguing those points and sounding foolish (like Ross), you have to make absurd extrapolations of my position to try to make a point.  I would never want an HD in Rice Military.  There are a few small pockets in the Heights that might work as a new HD.  But, generally, I think the city has all the HDs it needs to preserve historic architecture.  Eastwood has some excellent craftsmen homes, but too much damage has been done to the neighborhood from demos and bad renovations.  But the only way to mount a compelling attack on historic preservation is to inflate it into something it isn't.  That has been the MO from the beginning for opponents with their flyers warning about crumbling houses and paint color. 

[SilverJK]

Except for the one area that has the most significant architecturally interesting Historic homes... River Oaks.   But for some reason they were bypassed?   Oh yeah, don't bite the hand that feeds you.

 

 

You kinda of explain my problem with you in your own post... you want to micro control your immediate neighbhors whetehr they are okay with it or not. 

 

For the billionth time... it isn't about preservation, it is about the Ordinance.  Non democratically assigned overbearing control mongering doesn't bode well even for those that are for preservation. 

 

 

 

[TGM]

But the only way to mount a compelling attack on historic preservation is to inflate it into something it isn't. That has been the MO from the beginning for opponents with their flyers warning about crumbling houses and paint color.

I am 100% in favor of historic preservation. Shocking huh?

The difference is that I think the free market does a better job of rewarding historic preservation than a group of ever changing committee members whose only real goal is climbing up the next step of the political ladder.

Since we're using the classic car analogy it is easy to see that a vehicle in demand, even if its a basket case example can still command a decent amount of money for someone willing to restore it. Take for instance this 1957 Porsche Speedster that was up to $80k at the time the article was written. http://bringatrailer.com/2013/07/08/socal-yard-find-1957-porsche-speedster/ The 1990s Ford Probe that was in front of me this morning, not so much.

At times perfection is the enemy of good enough, and when you have someone cash in hand willing to spend their money to rehab a house you don't quibble over something stupid like windows, doors, and additional rooms.

When I grew up in the 1980's I remember always seeing cars with "Question Authority" bumper stickers. I think we need more of that today, because I see abuse all the way down to the "petty power" levels of government we see in the HAHC. I jest with comments like politburo, and workers parties, but saying the historic character of the neighborhood (community interest) trumps a private property owners right to modify his home fits into the framework of the collective over the individual. Add to this the roving bands of busy bodies on their snitch patrols, filling the role of modern day party block captains reporting on their neighbors anti-state activities.

Edited August 2, 2013 by TGM

[samagon]

 

I think I am going to now call posts like this "HAIFing". 

Call it whatever you like.

It was a logical fallacy on my part, no less than you do in just about every thread on this forum.

[Ross]

 It is well settled law in the US that historic preservation is part of the government police powers.  It is also beyond dispute that raftsman and Victorian residential architecture is prized and appreciated.  So, instead of arguing those points and sounding foolish (like Ross), you have to make absurd extrapolations of my position to try to make a point.

 

I don't think I am the one sounding foolish here, but, you are entitled to your opinion. Or, as I like to say, I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.

 

What is beyond dispute is that some craftsman and Victorian architecture is prized by some people., but not by everyone. Those who prize the style will preserve it. Those who don't ought to be able to build what they want, absent mutually agreed deed restrictions to the contrary. If the HD ordinance had included an opt out clause, we would not be having this conversation.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Ross

[fwki]

Except for the one area that has the most significant architecturally interesting Historic homes... River Oaks.   But for some reason they were bypassed?   Oh yeah, don't bite the hand that feeds you......

 

This is the smoking gun that it's not about history or architecture even in the least.  The Ordinance and the preservation movement itself is about power and control.  Parker owed a political debt and served up this power to her political supporters from the Tudor clique to the GLBT's. 

 

River Oaks has more declared historical "landmarks" than any other neighborhood.  Council was asking serious questions about the ethics of giving property tax breaks to these people at recent vote because they know the scam.  River Oaks will never fall victim to this Ordinance....as it stands the landmark "Preservationists" from River Oaks run their remodels through HAHC to see if they can slip it by with their "friends" in City Hall, if so, tax breaks for the rich, if not, no biggie, wait 90 days and do it anyway, the best of both worlds and you get a plaque to show off.  Meanwhile back in the Heights, wannabe collaborators are playing the game; families and regular Joes get hosed.

 

Wake up Heightstonians and take back your rights and political power.

[Angostura]

Two more appeals of CoA denials on the Planning Commission agenda for Thursday:

 

- 446 Arlington

- 1537 Ashland

 

Both are 2-story additions to 1-story bungalows that will roughly double the square footage of each.

 

The HAHC has clearly decided that you won't be able to turn your 1300-s.f. bungalow into a 2700-s.f. camel-back without a fight. From an aesthetic perspective, they're right (both of these additions come across as oddly proportioned), but this will sharply limit the universe of people willing to purchase and remodel smaller houses in the HD's.

 

 

[briekelman]

Wow. I looked at the Planning Commission Agenda online, and it appears that both projects had Staff's recommendation for approval, but they still got denied! The July HAHC meeting is still not posted online, so I have not seen it yet....did anyone see it and/or know what the Commission said as the basis for denial?

 

It looks like 2nd story additions are no longer allowed if someone starts it at the rear wall of the original structure and still gets denied.

 

Here is what this looks like to me (please correct me if I'm wrong):

• The Ordinance says you can start a 2nd story 50% back.
• One of the Historic Commissioners always says that he prefers to see the 2nd story begin 67% or 75% back.
• The Preservation staff encourages applicants to begin their 2nd story at the rear wall to get them through the process easily (alas ridiculous looking houses like 163X Cortland shown in a previous post with zero back yard) because it will preserve 100% of the original structure.
• The HAHC still denies additions that begin at the rear wall.

If you can't add a 2nd story addition on any portion of the original house, nor at the rear wall, does this mean that you just simply cannot have a 2nd story addition? Unfortunately the actual Ordinance and countless examples of precedent-setting houses disagree (right, all you lawyers?).

 

This is very disappointing and disheartening. It is the first time that I have started to question my investment (which by the way is my life savings plus, plus, plus), which is a bit scary for me. Most people I know that either have kids or want kids eventually want/need a 2nd story (yes people can do it without it e.g. me right now in my 1300 sqft 1-story cottage while waiting for construction on the "new" house to be complete, but very few choose to). If they can't have this (and other things that might be important to them like replacing rotten windows with energy efficient windows), then they will say: forget looking in Historic neighborhoods, we are moving to another neighborhood or the burbs!

 

 

 

[barracuda]

I'm still baffled by these decisions. The ordinance clearly states that HAHC shall issue a certificate of appropriateness for additions taller than the existing roof structure so long as:

 

a. The addition does not encroach into the front half of the existing structure, measured from the front facade of the existing structure to the farthest point of the rear of the existing structure from the front facade 

b. The plate height of the addition does not exceed 1.25 times the plate height of the existing structure; and 

c. The roof of the new addition does not deviate from the roof pitch of the existing structure. 

 

There are other requirements regarding materials, etc., but nowhere does it state a 67% or 75% setback from the front. It's as if the HAHC is imagining new rules on the fly rather than following their own rulebook. If they want to change the ordinance, they should put it to a real vote. It's not as if drawing up architectural plans is cheap; people need to know exactly what to expect to ensure a smooth and quick approval process. Otherwise, let's nullify this ordinance and disband the HAHC.