The Heights Historic Districts

[SilverJK]

And there is absolutely no stagnation in the number of large homes and additions going up in the Heights.  If anything, the market is getting a bit too top heavy.  There are currently 21 properties on the market for 800k plus just in Houston Heights proper with at least nine new single families approved for the Heights WD that are not even on the market yet.  Face it, the idea of the HAHC causing stagnation in the Heights is an anti-ordinance argument that has long sailed away. 

 

Uhm... every addition that is denied by the commission is by definition stagnating the growth of larger homes... no to mention projects that are being delayed because of the HD.  You also don't get to decide for the neighborhood that it is getting too top heavy.   (are you saying you want lower property values?) 

 

Face it, Mr. Marsh has a obvious conflict of interested and no real basis for his argument other than he just doesn't want it.  Like I said.. he has every right to make his opinion known, but others should have the right to call him out on his opinion since he doesn't even live in a historic property himself. 

 

When Bungalow Revival projects are being delayed that is a pretty clear indication of the HAHC causing stagnation or in the very least delay (more expensive).  As many have mentioned, we expect the power mongers of the HAHC to continually be more restrictive and unpredictable, so what is currently on the market and approved doesn't really mean crap to those who want to rennovate in the future. 

[Marksmu]

Mr. Marsh is not showing up to oppose everything that is going up in the Heights.  In fact he has spoken in support of several projects at commission hearings and has spoken against only a tiny fraction of the applications that go before the commission. 

 

And there is absolutely no stagnation in the number of large homes and additions going up in the Heights.  If anything, the market is getting a bit too top heavy.  There are currently 21 properties on the market for 800k plus just in Houston Heights proper with at least nine new single families approved for the Heights WD that are not even on the market yet.  Face it, the idea of the HAHC causing stagnation in the Heights is an anti-ordinance argument that has long sailed away. 

 

Marksmu is trying to back pedal, but his posts are unambiguous.  He believes that the supporters of the ordinance are all retirees that want to use the ordinance to keep their property values down (isn't working out so well).  Of course, I have no interest in seeing you two argue it out.  I am just pointing out the fact that both arguments have absolutely no basis in reality. 

 

I am not trying to backpedal anywhere...there are 47 pages of history on this thread....you do not get to create your own history.  My current belief is that a majority of the people who STILL support the ordinance are doing so for tax reasons or outright greed.  Original supporters were quite simply tricked by lying community organizers.  I have been active on this topic since BEFORE the ordinance was law. 

 

The original support for this thing is long gone.  The supporters got their signatures dishonestly by telling everyone it would stop townhomes and subdividing of lots....there was never any real support for what was passed...it was just say one thing do another.  Now that the support is DEAD the only people still supporting it fall in one of four categories.  1)  Suppress property values for tax reasons 2)  Crazy utopian nutjobs who want to control their neighbors 3) People with a life who have not been affected yet, 4) Idiots who do not know better.

[Angostura]

And there is absolutely no stagnation in the number of large homes and additions going up in the Heights.  If anything, the market is getting a bit too top heavy.  There are currently 21 properties on the market for 800k plus just in Houston Heights proper with at least nine new single families approved for the Heights WD that are not even on the market yet.  Face it, the idea of the HAHC causing stagnation in the Heights is an anti-ordinance argument that has long sailed away. 

 

 

 

New construction, even very large new construction, is having a much easier time getting through the HAHC than additions. With the exception of one developer who got push-back on eave height last month, virtually every new construction application has received a CoA, even projects close to 4000 s.f.

 

The incentive, therefore, is for people who have $800k to spend on a house to spend it on a new-build rather than on adding on to an existing house.

 

(Now that the eave height survey is complete, there may be more trouble getting CoA's for pier-and-beam houses with ceiling heights typical for new-builds.)

[s3mh]

Uhm... every addition that is denied by the commission is by definition stagnating the growth of larger homes... no to mention projects that are being delayed because of the HD.  You also don't get to decide for the neighborhood that it is getting too top heavy.   (are you saying you want lower property values?) 

 

Face it, Mr. Marsh has a obvious conflict of interested and no real basis for his argument other than he just doesn't want it.  Like I said.. he has every right to make his opinion known, but others should have the right to call him out on his opinion since he doesn't even live in a historic property himself. 

 

When Bungalow Revival projects are being delayed that is a pretty clear indication of the HAHC causing stagnation or in the very least delay (more expensive).  As many have mentioned, we expect the power mongers of the HAHC to continually be more restrictive and unpredictable, so what is currently on the market and approved doesn't really mean crap to those who want to rennovate in the future. 

 

Face it, a guy who speaks out FOR and against a tiny fraction of HAHC applications has not silly agenda to try to increase his property values by inhibiting the construction of large additions to existing homes.  But you refuse to actually address what Mr. Marsh actually said and instead attack him personally.  He could be the biggest hypocrite in the world and have a crazed agenda of trying to destroy the property market in the Heights.  But that doesn't mean what he said is wrong.  It is just a cheap attack on his credibility that is typical of the anti-ordinance movement.  You all know that no one in the Heights wants to go back to the days when 200+ bungalows a year were being demolished and have to instead make it seem like everyone who supports the ordinance is a bad person with an improper motive. 

 

And you might want to look up the definition of the word "stagnant".  The denial of less than 1% of applications to HAHC has hardly lead to stagnation.  In fact, it would be a very difficult task to quantify any sort of very slight drag on the market as prices keep climbing and inventory remains historically low (although I think that the inventory on the high end of 800k+ homes is pretty healthy).  It is just another fiction of the anti-ordinance argument that has absolutely no basis in reality.

[s3mh]

I am not trying to backpedal anywhere...there are 47 pages of history on this thread....you do not get to create your own history.  My current belief is that a majority of the people who STILL support the ordinance are doing so for tax reasons or outright greed.  Original supporters were quite simply tricked by lying community organizers.  I have been active on this topic since BEFORE the ordinance was law. 

 

The original support for this thing is long gone.  The supporters got their signatures dishonestly by telling everyone it would stop townhomes and subdividing of lots....there was never any real support for what was passed...it was just say one thing do another.  Now that the support is DEAD the only people still supporting it fall in one of four categories.  1)  Suppress property values for tax reasons 2)  Crazy utopian nutjobs who want to control their neighbors 3) People with a life who have not been affected yet, 4) Idiots who do not know better.

 

The main reason for the ordinance was to stop demolitions.  People were already aware of and very actively pursuing minimum lot size in the Heights at the time the HDs were forming.  And no one in the Heights wanted to see their property values restricted.  People wanted the ordinance because they were tired of seeing all of the original historic architecture getting demoed.  At the height of the drive to get petitions signed, there were in excess of 200 original historic homes being demolished by builders in a year.  The yard signs even said "No to demolitions".  But of course, the anti-ordinance groups have to invent a different narrative to explain why they were unable to get anyone to join their agenda, even after there have been issues with HAHC.

 

And the main reason the anti-ordinance people have failed to get any support is that they cannot resist insulting people who disagree with them.  It is a constant on this board and has popped up every now and then on other neighborhood forums.  Anyone who is on the fence sees these posts and is repulsed by the rhetoric.  But that is fine with me.  The benefit of anonymous message boards is that we can see people's true colors and not be fooled by a public façade.

[SilverJK]

The benefit of anonymous message boards is that we can see people's true colors and not be fooled by a public façade.

 

 

LIke when people gloat about the HD's and threaten those who opposed it.  True Colors indeed.

 

 

You still fail to acknowledge that Mr. Marsh's opinions are baseless as he himself lives in a newer large sq. ft home.  At least the retiree people trying to keep property taxes down live in the old houses they are trying to "protect".  I know a few of those types... and although they agree with you on supporting the HDs (most of them admit it is for selfish reasons), I've heard them say how much they really hate all these people who have recently moved in to the neighborhood and act like they own the place. 

[s3mh]

LIke when people gloat about the HD's and threaten those who opposed it.  True Colors indeed.

 

 

You still fail to acknowledge that Mr. Marsh's opinions are baseless as he himself lives in a newer large sq. ft home.  At least the retiree people trying to keep property taxes down live in the old houses they are trying to "protect".  I know a few of those types... and although they agree with you on supporting the HDs (most of them admit it is for selfish reasons), I've heard them say how much they really hate all these people who have recently moved in to the neighborhood and act like they own the place. 

 

I said that people who support the HDs will remember those who made misrepresentations and fought dirty to try to defeat the HDs.  People who tried to scare people into opposing HDs by claiming that property values would crash and the neighborhood will turn ghetto should not just get everyone's business who cared about the HDs.  It is called voting with your dollars and is as fundamental to capitalism as anything.

 

Ok.  I will stipulate that residency is a fundamental requirement for being able to make arguments about the ordinance.  You and Marksmu are hereby banned from discussing the HDs as neither of you actually live in one. 

 

Actually, I won't stipulate to any home ownership requirement.  It is entirely irrelevant.  Whether an application is appropriate and should be approved stands on the merits of the application.  If you make a good argument to reject the application (Mr. Marsh does make good arguments which you refuse to address), it doesn't matter whether you live in a cave, apartment, new construction in Pearland or 100% original 1920s bungalow.

 

And I have heard people on this message board talk about how they hate long time residents who worked for almost a decade to get the HDs because they act like they own the place. 

[SilverJK]

i don't live in one... but that doesn't mean I don't own a property in one...

[s3mh]

i don't live in one... but that doesn't mean I don't own a property in one...

 

 

If owning new construction disqualifies Mr. Marsh, then not actually living in one disqualifies you.  Both are equally arbitrary and irrelevant reasons to disqualify someone's opinion without addressing the merits.

 

And I also must add that the anti-ordinance folks shouldn't be complaining that I advocated voting with dollars after they went nuts slamming the Sash Guy on this board and on next door after he candidly explained why he turned down a job.  He was attacked merely for having an opinion and expressing it with candor.  He did not try to coerce anyone with misrepresentations.

[SilverJK]

That makes no sense.  I live in and own a historic home(s), so my opinion on historic homes would hold a lot more clout than Mr. Marsh's.  Owning a home in an HD gives you plenty of reason to be concerned about the HDs.  Your trying to make a connection between the two that isn't there.  (also you don't see me going in front of the commission to sway them either)

 

With sashguy... you know good and well thats not what happened.

 

 

 

 

[Marksmu]

I lived in the heights up until a couple months ago (when i moved for better schools to memorial) and I still own a home in the west historic district. My opinion on the HD ordinance affects me directly. I owned the property I have on Ashland long before the ordinance was even written.

At least the ordinance has a direct affect on me, something mr marsh and his new construction can't claim.

[Morrison]

So people treating the Heights as an investment tool want more say than people who actually live there. Fabulous concept. How's that shadow commission coming along? You guys just aren't doing a good enough job getting your very important message out.

[Morrison]

Also, I'm shocked by the libel on these boards. I sure hope everyone on here knows what they are doing.

[SmellyHoustonian]

http://blog.chron.com/houstonpolitics/2013/11/interactive-maps-who-doomed-the-dome-and-pushed-parker/

 

This is a very interesting map regarding the recent Mayoral election. I would assume the historic district drama would've affected Parker more negatively, but she still received between 70-90% of the vote in the Heights.

 

Maybe the HD pushed her total from 85% (like it was in Montrose) to 70%, but that's it.

 

My takeaway is that no one really cares about this issue except the four of you that post on this thread attacking each other (or ganging up on the one pro preservation person)

[JJxvi]

Also, I'm shocked by the libel on these boards. I sure hope everyone on here knows what they are doing.

Lol

[Marksmu]

So people treating the Heights as an investment tool want more say than people who actually live there. Fabulous concept. How's that shadow commission coming along? You guys just aren't doing a good enough job getting your very important message out.

 

When I became active over the historic ordinance, I both lived in the Heights, and owned a rental property there.  I bought the rental b/c I fully intended to build a new house there once my kids got a little bit older.  The historic ordinance came along after I bought my rental...I moved for schools...as my kids got older, it was clear to me that the schools in the Heights are still completely unacceptable...Could they get an education there?  Sure, but its far from what I deem acceptable, I will even say substantially below acceptable - outright bad.   I sold the house I was living in and moved for better schools.  Rather than sell the rental, which has been a very good rental, I changed my plans to keep it and hopefully tear it to the ground 15-18 years from now once my kids are gone again and I don't need as much house as I do now.

 

To say that I, an owner vested in the prosperity of the neighborhood, with friends peppered all throughout the heights, am an "investor" is absurd.  I care about the neighborhood and what is best for it.  The ordinance is terrible and needs to be repealed.  I fight the ordinance b/c it is terrible....It does not have a huge effect on my rental, I have a non-contributing structure so I will get the right to tear it down....I am not worried about that...I fight it b/c its a terrible abuse of the governments power, its not good for the neighborhood's prosperity and growth, its downright bad for young families, and its the perfect example of why power should never be ceded to others who will abuse it.

 

I make  no qualms or apologies for my disdain for the ordinance, I do not pretend I want to fix it or improve it.  My only goal is outright repeal and the return of property rights to the owners. 

 

Also, Mr. Morrison, you may want to read up on the definition of Libel - I have not read, or written any statements about a single individual that are not true.  Truth is an absolute defense to libel....When a person interjects themselves into the public sphere they open themselves up for critique. 

[Marksmu]

http://blog.chron.com/houstonpolitics/2013/11/interactive-maps-who-doomed-the-dome-and-pushed-parker/

 

This is a very interesting map regarding the recent Mayoral election. I would assume the historic district drama would've affected Parker more negatively, but she still received between 70-90% of the vote in the Heights.

 

Maybe the HD pushed her total from 85% (like it was in Montrose) to 70%, but that's it.

 

My takeaway is that no one really cares about this issue except the four of you that post on this thread attacking each other (or ganging up on the one pro preservation person)

 

The Heights as a whole tends to be very liberal.  Do you really think that a liberal is going to vote against Parker, an openly gay woman mayor of Houston?  The ordinance had absolutely zero effect on the mayorial election - heck it was not even an issue for her opponents...it impacts such a negligble number of people in this city that to devote time to it would be

 

Your takeaway is reading way too much into something that is not there. 

[SilverJK]

I have my qualms with Mayor Parker, but I also really support some of her ideas too.  Since this is her final term and no real suitable opponent... I was actually considering voting for her even as against the HDs as I am.  (I came down with the flu on election day unfortunately)

[Morrison]

That the four anti-preservation people voted or intended to vote for Parker is all I need to know.

[Marksmu]

That the four anti-preservation people voted or intended to vote for Parker is all I need to know.

 

Woah - I did not vote for Parker.  I am politically very conservative, more libertarian than conservative....I merely stated that the Heights as a whole is very liberal, and a single issue like the Historic Ordinance that effects so few people in a city of our size, did not carry any political weight at all. 

[SilverJK]

That the four anti-preservation people voted or intended to vote for Parker is all I need to know.

 

 

Who's anti-preservation?  I've saved 2 bungalows (one here and one in Louisiana) from the bulldozers and I'm about to restore a late 40s or early 50s car that has likely been rusting in a field somewhere.  I'm all about preservation.   I am however anti ordinance.

 

 

I would have liked to vote for someone else, but Parker was the only candidate that I think will be able to do anything positive  (she has momentum already and I fully support all of her push for bicycle friendliness and parks).  If there was a suitable opponent I would gladly have thrown my support their way, but there wasn't.

[samagon]

That the four anti-preservation people voted or intended to vote for Parker is all I need to know.

Two logical fallacies (the same logical fallacy though, so no extra points for you) in one post, and no real content. Kudos.

I live in a house as old as those as are in the heights. I do not live in a historic district. I will fight to preserve my house as long as I own it. I will fight against the historic ordinance if it comes to my neighborhood.

I'm sure you can figure out the logical fallacy regarding mayor Parker.

[Morrison]

Lols.

[SmellyHoustonian]

The Heights as a whole tends to be very liberal.  Do you really think that a liberal is going to vote against Parker, an openly gay woman mayor of Houston?  The ordinance had absolutely zero effect on the mayorial election - heck it was not even an issue for her opponents...it impacts such a negligble number of people in this city that to devote time to it would be

 

Your takeaway is reading way too much into something that is not there. 

 

I agree that in the city as a whole it had little effect, the surprising thing to me is that it had little to no effect in Heights specific precincts that are almost entirely contained within a historic district (with the Woodland Heights, entirely contained), she received between 70 and 90% of the vote in Heights precincts that are affected by the historic district.

 

My takeaway is that even Heights residents don't care, and the ordinance does not bother them one bit. It's just the people on this thread and maybe a few others that actually care about the ordinance. No one else gives a damn, and y'all are wasting your time on this message board fighting among yourselves and having the same tired hashed out discussions over and over again.

 

That takeaway seems correct.

[JJxvi]

Sue him for libel!

[SilverJK]

I agree that in the city as a whole it had little effect, the surprising thing to me is that it had little to no effect in Heights specific precincts that are almost entirely contained within a historic district (with the Woodland Heights, entirely contained), she received between 70 and 90% of the vote in Heights precincts that are affected by the historic district.

 

My takeaway is that even Heights residents don't care, and the ordinance does not bother them one bit. It's just the people on this thread and maybe a few others that actually care about the ordinance. No one else gives a damn, and y'all are wasting your time on this message board fighting among yourselves and having the same tired hashed out discussions over and over again.

 

That takeaway seems correct.

 

 

It is completely foolish to think because of the mayoral voting people don't care.  It isn't a one or the other issue.

 

 

A lot of your people that aren't speaking against are ones that it hasn't impacted.  If you just live in HD and are happy living there and don't plan on any renovations why would you care?  It is people who are renovating or planning to rennovate that are the ones coming out against the ordinance.  I live outside of the district... so my personal dwelling isn't impacted.  I speak against the HD because I don't want it coming to block.   No one gives a damn until it impacts them...  (as you can see from several people coming to this site to gain support in regards to their renovations being denied). 

[Heights20plusyears]

 You all know that no one in the Heights wants to go back to the days when 200+ bungalows a year were being demolished and have to instead make it seem like everyone who supports the ordinance is a bad person with an improper motive. 

 

Show me 200 addresses that bungalows were demolished in 1 year in The Heights.

I'm tired of reading this untrue statement.

[s3mh]

Show me 200 addresses that bungalows were demolished in 1 year in The Heights.

I'm tired of reading this untrue statement.

http://www.houstonheights.org/newsletter/2006-08/hha200608.pdf

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20061222203514/http://www.houstonheights.org/newsletter/2006-12/hha200612.pdf

http://web.archive.org/web/20080419030300/http://www.houstonheights.org/newsletter/index.htm

Back in 2006, the Houston Heights Association documented 170 demolitions in a year and a half in the Heights and a rate of 2.4 homes a week being demolished.  By March of 2008, the count was 324 since June of 2005, but the rate began to slow late in 2007 into 2008 as the first historic districts came together.  This was just in the traditional boundaries of the Heights and did not include Woodland Heights, Norhill or other areas considered to be part of the "Greater Heights" (Brookesmith, E. Sunset Heights, etc.).  Add in those areas and you easily have a period during the housing bubble where 200+ were going down in a year.   

[SilverJK]

Wasn't this myth busted back when it was brought up last time?  Those are demolition permits which include garages and other outlying buildings and maybe even partial demolitons.  So your 170 is a bit exaggerated for homes... and of those likely many of them weren't really even demo... more like picking up the pile of former house that sits on a lot.  I remember people making a fuss back in 06 about a house getting a demo permit but it was actually for the old carriage house that had burned down in like the 70s.  It was litterally a pile of rubble with a few walls of framing still standing. 

 

Were a lot of homes that could have easily been saved knocked down, definitely, and many of them bummed me out as back then I was looking to buy a home and a lot of those would have been perfect for me but they never even got listed.  The 90+90 day waiting/holding period for demos slowed them dramatically and a few other small changes could have been made to prevent even more of them.  This is what everyone wanted and was sold when they signed up for the original historic district.   That is a far cry from what the HDs are today.  (the original goal was to stop demolition of livable/saveable bungalows, it was told to everyone a million times).  Current HD ordinance and Saving Bungalows are about as similar as crap and chocalate.

[Heights20plusyears]

Back in 2006, the Houston Heights Association documented 170 demolitions in a year and a half in the Heights and a rate of 2.4 homes a week being demolished.  By March of 2008, the count was 324 since June of 2005, but the rate began to slow late in 2007 into 2008 as the first historic districts came together.  This was just in the traditional boundaries of the Heights and did not include Woodland Heights, Norhill or other areas considered to be part of the "Greater Heights" (Brookesmith, E. Sunset Heights, etc.).  Add in those areas and you easily have a period during the housing bubble where 200+ were going down in a year.   

 

Your math doesn't support your claim.  You state The Heights, so lets review The Heights numbers.  I could care less about other neighborhoods as I do not live there and am only concerned with where I have called home for a VERY long time.

 

170 houses in 18 months does not equal 200 per year.  That works out to be 9.44 houses per month.  Over a 24 month period that equals 226.66 homes, or 173.34 homes short of your 200 home per year claim.

 

Going forward, If you take the 324 total as you state in March 2008 and subtrace the 170 in 2006, that equals 154.  146 short of your 200 per year claim.