The Heights Historic Districts

[Marksmu]

Uh, no.

 

I don't agree with a single thing in that post, other than the idea of trying to somewhat control development.  Including the assumption that I think my bungalow is cute.  Comfortable, yes... cute, no.

 

Controlling development is what deed restrictions are all about, as well as zoning and other land use regulations.  Duh.

 

You dont have to agree with me....The pro historic people overwhelmingly want to limit the increases in their property values.  The new homes were driving that cost up so fast that they needed to assemble to stop it.  The HHA assembled to stop the demolitions so they could slow/stop the drastic increase in property values that has occurred.  They can't come right out and say that or they would have no method to achieve their goal of controlling development.  Their only option was usign the city to impose a historic ordinance b/c the majority of property owners were against them when they tried to go lot by lot block by block to get their deed restrictions imposed...most owners said no, so they had to use the city and then lie to property owners to get their ordinance passed. 

 

Whether you agree with me or not, does not change the facts.  There are people who legitamtely love the history of their own homes, unfortunately they make up the vast minority of people.  Most just want to prevent an $800,000-$1,000,000 house from making their little bungalow economically obsolete and reducing their bungalow to a lot value tear down.

[SilverJK]

I disagree Mark.  That isn't their intention, even if that is the consequence.  They think they are making a "difference" for the betterment of all.   It isn't about the economics, it is about living out their distorted ideal utopia while they think everyone else either just doesn't know better/isn't enligtened or is an evil destroyer of history.

 

 

[mollusk]

Sorry, how foolish of me to think that I might know about what my neighbors have talked about for the last 30 years.  It's only been a major topic of discussion at my voluntary HOA that worked its patootie off reinstating and renewing and modifying deed restrictions, and signing up for minimum lot size and prevailing setbacks, and yes, even put in historic designation in a couple corners of the neighborhood (all of which require super majorities to be put in place), beginning in the mid 1980s.  You might even be surprised to learn that among the reasons for doing all those things was to enhance our property values.

 

Just because some of y'all think that some brand new giant McMansion with glue on stone and fiberglass bathtubs and a really big price tag are the be all and end all, doesn't mean that everybody does, or even a majority of any group other than you and your cronies.  

 

For the record, I'm not too nuts about how the commission deals with things, either.  I'd rather have clear regulations, fairly and consistently applied.

 

Let's make a deal.  I won't try to tell you what you're thinking, if you allow the rest of us the same courtesy.

[SamHouston]

If they were trying to keep property values down/affordable when they started the Historic Districts, I can't really say it's been working. Lot value alone is up 25% in the last two years. Partially due to the overall Houston climate, but the fact is, that due to the HAHC decisions, the inventory of lots in the Heights is quite limited.

Edited August 9, 2014 by SamHouston

[Marksmu]

If they were trying to keep property values down/affordable when they started the Historic Districts, I can't really say it's been working. Lot value alone is up 25% in the last two years. Partially due to the overall Houston climate, but the fact is, that due to the HAHC decisions, the inventory of lots in the Heights is quite limited.

 

Inventory of lots in the Heights was non-existent even before the HAHC.  It became nearly impossible to buy lots in 2009, when just about every possible property south of 20th and north of 6th became gold.

 

Property values are increasing inspite of the HAHC, not because of them. 

 

And for the record, I support minimum lot size designations reasonable setbacks, and other common sense restrictions on the lots that ensure the nice residential nature of the area is protected.  I do not support requiring approval to build/remodel a house.  I certainly do not support requirements that period details be preserved, or required either. 

 

I do not personally like the 3000sqft houses on the 2800 sqft lots any more than the bungalow owners...we just have completely opposite views on how to control those things.  The problem could have been resolved easily with minimal disruption0, and the city chose to use a sledge hammer to force their views on everyone.

 

And there was never even a majoirty of support for the districts.  EVER.  That is an outright lie that is well documented.  The city and the HHA used the most dishonest process ever to achieve their results.  They, at most, had 40% support at any time, FAR less than a super majority.

[mollusk]

And there was never even a majoirty of support for the districts.  EVER.  That is an outright lie that is well documented.  The city and the HHA used the most dishonest process ever to achieve their results.  They, at most, had 40% support at any time, FAR less than a super majority.

 

The two districts that I have personal knowledge about did have well over 50% participation (actually, 67% was the minimum threshold), so, majority rules and all that.  

 

The remedy for an arbitrary process is to revise the process, not necessarily to eliminate it.  Besides, the historic districts make up a tiny fraction of even the area inside the loop.

 

(note to self - stop feeding trolls.) 

[Ross]

Super majority or not, it was never fair to change the rules on existing property owners.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Ross

[SilverJK]

mollusk,

 

I'm assuming you live in Norhill.  I thought Norhill was a true example of why the historic districts weren't needed.  That community got together, came up with their own deed restrictions and got the majority to go along with it.  That is not what happened in the East/West/South Heights districts.

[mollusk]

I do not live in a designated historic district, though I am close to several and was up close and personal with the formation of one.  I also served in a land use management capacity for my voluntary HOA until the Director of Domestic Bliss informed me that I would no longer do so.  

 

The problem with deed restrictions in older neighborhoods is that you have to have someone to enforce them.  In theory, the city attorney's office can; however, my personal experience is that unless it's something truly out there like opening up a rave club in your garage, they just don't have the resources, and in those instances where they will take the case, they are very, very slow.  Even newer areas with mandatory HOAs often have to hire an outside entity to do the job, and that's before hiring the attorneys to bring the lawsuit.

 

67% is 67%.  These are all just different ways to get to a similar goal.  The thing is, there are some people who are going to insist that nobody, nowhere, is gonna tell them what to do with their very own property, and they really don't care if they are the only person on the block that wants to have the ability to install an industrial smelter.  

 

And as I've said before, I'm not to jazzed about how the commission works, either.  But the way to address that is through the political process instead of calling for dismantling it.

[SilverJK]

I find it odd that the answer to the city's lack of involvement/enforcement, is more city involvement/things to enforce...  

 

Instead of dismantling the curent process, why not create a new (neighborhood supported) process and phase out the rediculous one for the new?   This is what the "preservationist" should be working towards.  The biggest thing needed would be any changes would need to be voted on, and require a majority.  That is the part that really pisses people off, the radical changes that took place without proper input from the stakeholders (property owners).  The ole bait and switch.

[Marksmu]

I do not live in a designated historic district, though I am close to several and was up close and personal with the formation of one.  I also served in a land use management capacity for my voluntary HOA until the Director of Domestic Bliss informed me that I would no longer do so.  

 

The problem with deed restrictions in older neighborhoods is that you have to have someone to enforce them.  In theory, the city attorney's office can; however, my personal experience is that unless it's something truly out there like opening up a rave club in your garage, they just don't have the resources, and in those instances where they will take the case, they are very, very slow.  Even newer areas with mandatory HOAs often have to hire an outside entity to do the job, and that's before hiring the attorneys to bring the lawsuit.

 

67% is 67%.  These are all just different ways to get to a similar goal.  The thing is, there are some people who are going to insist that nobody, nowhere, is gonna tell them what to do with their very own property, and they really don't care if they are the only person on the block that wants to have the ability to install an industrial smelter.  

 

And as I've said before, I'm not to jazzed about how the commission works, either.  But the way to address that is through the political process instead of calling for dismantling it.

 

You may not recall, or you may and you are just intellectually dishonest - the only way they got to 67% was by 1) utilzing city owned property in the vote, 2) preventing landowners with more than one property in the area from voting twice...Thus creating the scenario where a person could own an entire city block of rental properties save the exception of three invidivduals and the three individiduals could bind that owner as a "majority" of the votes supported restrictions.

 

The process was dishonest....so many people who supported the HHA which got the signature for the peititons, wanted to withdraw their support after the restrictions were announced, and there was no way to do so....you say the ballot allowed that, right?  Well - the ballot was an unmarked envelope from the city, mailed over Christmas, due around new Years, where you had to OPT OUT...YES, OUT....Not mailing the ballot meant you supported the historic district.....Its the only "Vote" in hisotry, where not voting, meant you supported something.

 

Can you imagine what would happen if not voting meant you actually voted FOR something.....I could pass anything I could ever think of...Heck I could get half this city to vote for giving me their houses for free if not mailing in the ballot was a  honest means of voting for something.

 

I support everyones right to organize and  if there really was overwhelming support for this, I would back down, but  there is not.  This was a dishonest bait/switch, and the city and the organizers knew it, and resorted to lieing, cheating, and eventually stealing to win.  It was dishonest.  Period.  There is no debate about that point.

[mollusk]

You may not recall, or you may and you are just intellectually dishonest

 

Starting a post with a gratuitous insult is rarely a good debate tactic.  

 

I've already said more than once that I was NOT commenting on Heights proper, because I did not participate in that process; instead, I was discussing other districts where I do have personal knowledge of the hows and whys of their creation.

 

If I choose not to respond to a future post of yours, please don't take that as agreement.  More likely, it will be a desire to not engage with someone apparently unwilling to acknowledge any viewpoint other than their own.

 

-- 30 --

[SilverJK]

Well maybe it did make more sense for your district... but i seem to remember people even in Norhill (who had the strictist deed restrictions already in place) that were apprehensive to the change. 

 

I'm more concerned about the process and how it went down for the whole thing vs. any specific district.

 

 

[Marksmu]

 

Starting a post with a gratuitous insult is rarely a good debate tactic.  

 

I've already said more than once that I was NOT commenting on Heights proper, because I did not participate in that process; instead, I was discussing other districts where I do have personal knowledge of the hows and whys of their creation.

 

If I choose not to respond to a future post of yours, please don't take that as agreement.  More likely, it will be a desire to not engage with someone apparently unwilling to acknowledge any viewpoint other than their own.

 

-- 30 --

 

I was not insulting you - I clearly stated that maybe you do not recall the process that was used to create the Heights districts, many people have short memories...if you did not, I was telling you how it was done, if you did and you still thought it was fair, then you were being dishonest...which is not an insult -  its an observation. 

 

There are lots of people who are willfully ignorant on this subject, and it has a direct effect on those who do care, on both sides of the argument.  I can't imagine the pro-historic crowd is proud of how low they had to stoop to win....victory at all cost is no victory at all.

 

 

The two districts that I have personal knowledge about did have well over 50% participation (actually, 67% was the minimum threshold), so, majority rules and all that.

 

You said you had personal knowledge of two districts that had well over 50% -  You did not state which, so I was forced to reply with the districts to which this thread is devoted...you know the HEIGHTS...Last I checked you were reading & responding to a thread about historic districts found entirely housed inside of Houston Neighborhoods --  The Heights forum -- forgive me for assuming you were talking about the HEIGHTS.  The Heights only has 3 districts in it, and 2 were part of the most fraudulent formation ever.

 

If I choose not to respond to a future post of yours, please don't take that as agreement.  More likely, it will be a desire to not engage with someone apparently unwilling to acknowledge any viewpoint other than their own.

I do acknowledge others viewpoints regularly - I was basing my comments off of your comments above on the assumption you were talking about the Heights.  I have no knowledge of the areas which did not effect me - so I can't offer any insight at all into how they were formed.

 

In my opinion, the Heights districts were formed in such a manner that it amounted to outright fraud -  They should be dismantled and put to a true vote - Yes or No - where not voting means nothing.  If the pro-historic people can gather 67% of the votes of all home owners, including people with more than one property then they win, and there is not much to argue about...but it needs to be legit - 67% of all homes, not including city property, not just 67% of returned ballots.

 

I am very reasonable - I just want it to be legit.

[MrFubbles]

Hello - does anyone know what the process looks like to turn a residential building into retail along Heights Boulevard? Can any non-contributing building be listed as retail, or do you have to submit a variance?

Thanks!

[hindesky]

38 minutes ago, MrFubbles said:

Hello - does anyone know what the process looks like to turn a residential building into retail along Heights Boulevard? Can any non-contributing building be listed as retail, or do you have to submit a variance?

Thanks!

Might want to start here.....

https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Commissions/HAHC.html

https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Forms/

[s3mh]

Preservation Ordinance does not govern building use.  You will need to follow the requirements for non-contributing buildings.  

[Texasota]

But also - any contributing building can change use as well. Physical changes are of course regulated but you can put a little cafe or whatever into a bungalow no problem. 

[MrFubbles]

19 hours ago, Texasota said:

But also - any contributing building can change use as well. Physical changes are of course regulated but you can put a little cafe or whatever into a bungalow no problem. 

I found this on the permitting website:

A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained before a commercial building or an individual lease space within a commercial building may be occupied, or if changes to an existing occupancy classification are made. 
https://www.houstonpermittingcenter.org/hpwcode1106

If the building is currently used only as residential, does that mean I have to apply for a change in "occupancy classification"? The wording is a bit vague, makes it seem like the certificate is only needed for a currently commercial building to be re-classified. My use case would be residential unit to retail.

Edited August 29, 2023 by MrFubbles

[Texasota]

I think you would probably need to re-plat, but that would be true outside of a historic district as well. 

The code requirements do change based on use unfortunately. 

[mollusk]

Needing a certificate of occupancy (or CO for short) for commercial use isn't linked to whether you need to replat AFAIK.  The point of the CO is to make sure that the facility buildout meets all the requirements for the proposed use - parking, fire suppression, ventilation, etc., etc.  What a restaurant needs to have in place is different from what a boutique would need, which in turn would be different from office. 

I'd get a design professional involved before dropping any serious bucks into anything beyond planning.

[Texasota]

I am 100% confident in my understanding of the historic ordinance. Anything else I make no promises.

[s3mh]

17 hours ago, mollusk said:

 

I'd get a design professional involved before dropping any serious bucks into anything beyond planning.

This.  The City of Houston's permitting department can be very difficult to deal with when you are doing something that is outside the usual box of strip mall pads and other typical commercial spaces.  There are many horror stories about the City approving plans but then an inspector comes out during construction and wants to change everything.  Even if you need only minimal changes to the interior, going from a residential space to a commercial space may require a lot of changes and updates.  Better to spend a bit extra to get the project properly planned out at the beginning than face lengthy delays getting permits approved and then having to go back and redo things for whatever reason.  

[MrFubbles]

Thanks for all the advice everyone! Will keep yall posted. Hopefully something exciting in the works 👀