The Heights Historic Districts

[s3mh]

Its not a straw man argument. You said that the new builders and building the cheapest houses to make a quick buck and get out. Its not true. It is a lie. The quality is identical, the building materials are identical, the craftsman ship is identical. What you do not like is the look of them. It's your right not to like the look of everyone's property...its not your right to force them to change their house to meet your approval.

I personally do not like the smaller lot sizes and I would never own one...I live on a 6600 sq ft lot and it is way too small...I think the subdividing of lots smaller than the original platted 4400sqft should be stopped...The streets really can't handle the density in their current widths - especially across most of the west side of the Heights where the streets are extremely narrow....So I reckon we can agree on one point. Too many houses tucked in together does not look bad - but all those cars parked on the street does look bad. So we will agree on one point. - Subdividing lots is bad.

The price discrepancy between the two homes you have posted there are quite simple when viewed with an open mind and without the mental gymnastics of your personal preferences...1) Lot size. The dirt value alone represents approximately $140,000 in price difference (3300sqft lot vs 6600sqft)...$550 vs. $799 --(add $140K for dirt) were now at $690 vs $799. 2) square footage....2400 sqft vs 2900 sqft....average cost of new construction $140-$160/ft (avg $150 *500 sqft) = $75,000 so now were at $765,000 vs $799K....3) - a remodel costs more than new construction...there is demolition and then the cost of bringing old up to new standards. 4) Location. The Columbia house is zoned to the better schools and in the more developed (less transitional) side of the Heights....easily making up the $30K remaining difference in asking price.

When its all said and done the two houses actual value are nearly identical...the differences are not architecture, or preference, they are PURELY economic. One has more yard, more square footage, and a better location. You prefer the look of the awful McCamelback, and I prefer the look of the other....Why should your preference win over mine? That seems VERY selfish.

Show me where I said that the construction was cheap. You can't. That is because I never said that. You had to construct that argument for me because you cannot make a good argument that bad architecure is a good thing. Believe it or not, the vast majority of people in our society appreciate things like architecture, art, music, theater, etc. and do not sit in their house all day listening to talk radio and watching the ticker on their investments. If you have no appreciation for architecture and only see dollar signs when walking through a neighborhood, that is too bad. But that does not mean that historic preservation ordinances are invalid. People do have a right to restrict construction in order to preserve historic architecture. They do it all the time all over the United States.

As for the price comparison, the point is that without the demos of historic homes, lots are being kept in tact and are not being divided. That means that each lot gets built out with more value (750k to 1 mil plus) rather than chopped up into smaller and less valuable faux Italianate boxes (400-600k) that will only see real appreication when builders run out of room to build more. Also, no one is going to pay $550k for those houses. They have been listed for weeks. That is a builder pie in the sky price. They will probably sell for 450-500k. The columbia house is zoned to Field. Tulane is zoned to Love. No one paying 500-700k is going to send their kid to Field or Love. School zones are just a bonus in the Heights. Anyone with the money to get into the Harvard or Travis zone can afford private school anyway.

And what is really selfish is the practice of destroying the historic architure of the Heights just so a few builders can make a few extra bucks by building the same box with a different set of ornaments on the front rather than taking a little more time to do a quality renovation/addition to the historic houses (face it, after the ordinance passed, the builders and realtors in the Heights are still making big money). That is what it boils down to. Despite all the cries of doom, the HDs are getting built out with very expensive houses at a pace that has not slowed at all since the ordinance passed. That is because the burden of the ordinance is negligible and is outweighed by the value it brings to the Heights. The market has spoken and it is not bothered at all by the ordinance.

[Heights20plusyears]

"Hardy plank all over an old bungalow with block and beam foundation will just mean foundation problems for the foreseeable future. Hardy plank is too heavy for block and beam."

Hardie siding weighs approximately 1-1.5lbs more per sq ft than traditional wood lap siding. I would like to see a bungalow in the Heights that has never had issues with it's piers, specially brick and mortar ones (which most are).

And about all of this this Histerical District Vote nonsense...how could the COH ever consider what they did as a vote when the envelope said SURVEY and any SURVEY that was NOT returned was an automatic YES?

[SilverJK]

telling people that a majority appreciate architecture/art/etc on a forum with the word architecture in it... where you are consistently the minority view, is humorous.

Also nearly your entire post is your opinion, quit trying to pass off your opinions as facts, at least try to take some of the cold hard facts out there and distort them to make your point. Just because you say "the market has spoken", "burden of the ordinance is negligible" etc, doesn't make it so (others will strongly argue the opposite).

Let me give you an example... I'm just going to make something up to rebuttle your statement about hardie plank...

- although hardie plank weighs more, real wood has a higher absorbtion rate so in humid wet houston the wood will often weigh more than its hardie plank counterpart.

Now I have no clue if this is true or false.. but I want it to be true so I said it with absolutely no support.

You are right about one thing for sure, people definitely have a right to restrict construction for historic preservation. The word that your not really paying attention to in this sentence is "People". The "people" have NOT spoken (I know your going to say there was a fair chance but that is a blatant fabrication). The only way to see if the "People" want to restrict contruction would be to have a fair vote, why is it that the "preservationist" don't want to have a straight vote? Norhill is a great example of people (the majority) who got together and put in Deed Restrictions to restrict contstruction. How can you not see the difference in those two approaches and why one really angers people and the other is okay?

Edited January 8, 2013 by SilverJK

[samagon]

What you are seeing in the HDs is a lot of very high end redevelopment. Outside the HDs, you are seeing the add water Italiante-ish boxes that make a quick buck for a builder, but provide no lasting value for the neighborhood.

You presume that a camelback has lasting value?

You presume that highly inefficient houses built 80-100 has lasting value in a world that is increasingly about being more efficient?

How can you presume to know what will be valued 10, 15, 20 or farther in the future?

"Hardy plank all over an old bungalow with block and beam foundation will just mean foundation problems for the foreseeable future. Hardy plank is too heavy for block and beam."

Hardie siding weighs approximately 1-1.5lbs more per sq ft than traditional wood lap siding. I would like to see a bungalow in the Heights that has never had issues with it's piers, specially brick and mortar ones (which most are).

And about all of this this Histerical District Vote nonsense...how could the COH ever consider what they did as a vote when the envelope said SURVEY and any SURVEY that was NOT returned was an automatic YES?

I didn't want to respond to that comment, cause when you think about it, it doesn't make any sense. as you point out, you're talking 1-1.5 lbs/sf difference in weight. How much exterior surface does a typical bungalow have? I don't even know, but I imagine a big honking piece of granite stuff in the kitchen (over one specific spot in the foundation, rather than evenly distributed around the house) is probably a bit worse on the foundation. How many old block and beam foundation houses in the heights have granite counter tops? Hell, most of the houses built 90-100 years ago were never built to hold a washer/dryer, or a refrigerator, it's not like those are feathers. These days refrigerators weigh about 200lbs on the light end and 450 on the heavy side, I can promise you that over the years they've gotten lighter than they used to be. My parents had a refrigerator from 1939 that my parents maintained up until last year when it broke (imagine that, a refrigerator working for 73 years!). I helped them move it, let me tell you, it was probably the heaviest appliance I've ever moved. I was shocked at how heavy it was.

It's pretty ludicrous when you think of the argument that siding evenly distributed around the exterior of a house would ruin a foundation, if that were true every house in the heights would have a caved in kitchen.

Regarding brick veneer on the older houses, if the houses in the Heights with brick are like mine over in Eastwood, the brick is on its own foundation.

Edited January 8, 2013 by samagon

[Angostura]

As for the price comparison, the point is that without the demos of historic homes, lots are being kept in tact and are not being divided. That means that each lot gets built out with more value (750k to 1 mil plus) rather than chopped up into smaller and less valuable faux Italianate boxes (400-600k) that will only see real appreication when builders run out of room to build more.

This is a fine argument, but there was already a mechanism in place to ensure lots were not further subdivided and current setbacks were maintained. Many blocks in the Heights already had MLS and MBL restrictions (voluntarily entered into), and the process to establish MLS and MBL restrictions is not overly cumbersome, requiring signatures from only 51% of the property owners.

The HD's accomplish very little that couldn't be accomplished more democratically and more amicably by MLS and MBL.

[s3mh]

telling people that a majority appreciate architecture/art/etc on a forum with the word architecture in it... where you are consistently the minority view, is humorous.

Also nearly your entire post is your opinion, quit trying to pass off your opinions as facts, at least try to take some of the cold hard facts out there and distort them to make your point. Just because you say "the market has spoken", "burden of the ordinance is negligible" etc, doesn't make it so (others will strongly argue the opposite).

Let me give you an example... I'm just going to make something up to rebuttle your statement about hardie plank...

- although hardie plank weighs more, real wood has a higher absorbtion rate so in humid wet houston the wood will often weigh more than its hardie plank counterpart.

Now I have no clue if this is true or false.. but I want it to be true so I said it with absolutely no support.

You are right about one thing for sure, people definitely have a right to restrict construction for historic preservation. The word that your not really paying attention to in this sentence is "People". The "people" have NOT spoken (I know your going to say there was a fair chance but that is a blatant fabrication). The only way to see if the "People" want to restrict contruction would be to have a fair vote, why is it that the "preservationist" don't want to have a straight vote? Norhill is a great example of people (the majority) who got together and put in Deed Restrictions to restrict contstruction. How can you not see the difference in those two approaches and why one really angers people and the other is okay?

If internet message boards were an accurate representative sampling of the population, Mitt Romney would have won the election 86% to 14%. This forum, at least the Heights section, is much more about development than architecture. And I am very much willing to stipulate that among developers, the HD ordiance and historic preservation are disfavored by 86% to 14%. But to claim that this message board is evidence of any broader pulse of the community is very funny as most people are afraid to come on here because of the lack of civility of many of the frequent posters. I have seen on other real estate message boards where people who got into it over something were told to "take it to HAIF".

Anything said about a market is opinion based on facts. The facts are that builders are doing very expensive renovations/additions and new construction in the HDs. If the ordinance was such a burden, the markets would reject these properties and let them sit vacant until someone put a few bucks into them to make them habitable for a rental. But that is not what is happening. Real estate in the HDs is gold. It is just a different kind of gold that is not as easy as knocking down and building an Italiante box. But, that is just a benefit to the neighborhood.

And as for the quantum of proof challenge, no one on here has ever met your standard. In fact, according to some of your allies, you cannot even opine on the HDs because you do not live in one. But if you want to pretend that the listings on HAR and all the port-a-cans and dumpsters lining the streets in the HDs do not exist, then that is fine with me.

As for the last point, we live in a representative democracy. When you buy land, you do not become a super citizen who is entitled to direct democracy whenever a government seeks to regulate historic preservation. There is a huge difference between historic preservation and deed restrictions. Historic preservation is an ordinance passed by an elected representative municipal government. Deed restrictions are covenants between land owners that cannot be enacted or repealed by the municpal government. The historic preservation ordinance could be repealed by City council tomorrow if they wanted. City council does not have the power to void deed restrictions just because they think they are a bad idea.

[SilverJK]

Real estate in the HDs is gold. It is just a different kind of gold that is not as easy as knocking down and building an Italiante box.

You mean... Less valuable gold?

And your last statement is just classic S3mh. Basically you are saying that it is okay for the government to tell you how to use your property...but from everything you have said in the past on here... it is clear that you only feel this way when it supports your cause. The government (the one you support so strongly on this) is the same one that "gave" walmart all that money that you are so angry about. Its okay for them to tell me how to modify/restore/preserve my house that I OWN... but

it isn't okay for them to allow a walmart to be built on land that you DON'T own? Classic S3mh.

[fwki]

.....I have seen on other real estate message boards where people who got into it over something were told to "take it to HAIF"....

Another s3mh fabrication or have you found another Heights forum on this scale? More likely you wandered into one of those community hen boards with 3 posts per month or one primarliy used by real estate agents with agendas.

EDIT:

Here ya go, this one is perfect for you......http://www.ultimateheights.com/forums

Edited January 8, 2013 by fwki

[samagon]

As for the last point, we live in a representative democracy. When you buy land, you do not become a super citizen who is entitled to direct democracy whenever a government seeks to regulate historic preservation.

You don't know what rights a person does or doesn't have, additionally, you've displayed that you really don't care about the rights of others.

When you buy land, you are protected by the Texas Constitution.

[s3mh]

You mean... Less valuable gold?

And your last statement is just classic S3mh. Basically you are saying that it is okay for the government to tell you how to use your property...but from everything you have said in the past on here... it is clear that you only feel this way when it supports your cause. The government (the one you support so strongly on this) is the same one that "gave" walmart all that money that you are so angry about. Its okay for them to tell me how to modify/restore/preserve my house that I OWN... but

it isn't okay for them to allow a walmart to be built on land that you DON'T own? Classic S3mh.

That makes no sense at all. It is entirely consistent to want some sort of land use restrictions to keep Walmart and Ainbinder from building suburban strip malls in an urban neighborhood and to also want the City to have a strong historic preservation ordinance. The city of houston is a huge and complex governmental entity. There is a long list of things they do that I like and a long list that I don't like. I am not precluded from having one list because I have another.

[s3mh]

Another s3mh fabrication or have you found another Heights forum on this scale? More likely you wandered into one of those community hen boards with 3 posts per month or one primarliy used by real estate agents with agendas.

EDIT:

Here ya go, this one is perfect for you......http://www.ultimateheights.com/forums

There are maybe a dozen active posters on this message board and about a half dozen that keep posting about historic preservation over and over. And the post I saw was from a comment from someone on swamplot, which has . It was very funny to see how others view this message board. And there are way more than 3 posts per month on boards like Heights Kids Groups and some of the new "my block", or whatever it is called, neighborhood message boards. All of which have way more participation than the half dozen who have claimed HAIF's Heights message board as their private anti-historic ordinance chat room.

[s3mh]

You don't know what rights a person does or doesn't have, additionally, you've displayed that you really don't care about the rights of others.

When you buy land, you are protected by the Texas Constitution.

Sure, just because I say some one has or doesn't have rights doesn't make it so. The courts determine what people's rights are:

"A municipality has the constitutional power to regulate the use of private property in the interest of historic preservation." Mayes v. City of Dallas, 747 F.2d 323, 324 (5th Cir. 1984); Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 132–34, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 2662–64, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978);

Edited January 8, 2013 by s3mh

[Heights20plusyears]

Geez...now I feel horrible about having all the knob and tube electrical lines removed from my house and that has now taken away part of it's historical importance. Maybe I should have it all reinstalled, as it still is up to code, but I'd have hell finding an insurance company that would be willing to sell me a homeowners policy.

[samagon]

Sure, just because I say some one has or doesn't have rights doesn't make it so. The courts determine what people's rights are:

"A municipality has the constitutional power to regulate the use of private property in the interest of historic preservation." Mayes v. City of Dallas, 747 F.2d 323, 324 (5th Cir. 1984); Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 132–34, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 2662–64, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978);

I don't pretend to know law, you do, among other things, I really don't care to get into a discussion where I know nothing, and you know nothing about the topic.

So I'll say, only time will really tell whether those are applicable.

Edited January 9, 2013 by samagon

[s3mh]

I don't pretend to know law, you do, among other things, I really don't care to get into a discussion where I know nothing, and you know nothing about the topic.

So I'll say, only time will really tell whether those are applicable.

Ok. You don't pretend to know the law and don't want to get into a discussion about the law, but post about the Texas constitution and are a sufficient authority to tell me that I know nothing about the law. That sounds fair.

[TGM]

Good News!

Meth Labs are now considered HD compliant. This one even has a plaque

.

http://www.chron.com/news/articleComments/Traffic-stop-leads-to-meth-lab-in-historic-home-4178992.php

[SilverJK]

That makes no sense at all. It is entirely consistent to want some sort of land use restrictions to keep Walmart and Ainbinder from building suburban strip malls in an urban neighborhood and to also want the City to have a strong historic preservation ordinance. The city of houston is a huge and complex governmental entity. There is a long list of things they do that I like and a long list that I don't like. I am not precluded from having one list because I have another.

You still don't get it. You are saying "government has the right" when something meets your needs, but for the ainbinder deal, where the government was doing what they thought best you said it was an aweful/evil/destructive/devaluing/uneven tire wear causing thing... so which is it, does the government have the right to tell people how to use land or not? You and your cronies faught tooth and nail to stop walmart... that the government supported, but you don't like people fighting to stop a historic ordinance (that was never fairly voted for).

[samagon]

Ok. You don't pretend to know the law and don't want to get into a discussion about the law, but post about the Texas constitution and are a sufficient authority to tell me that I know nothing about the law. That sounds fair.

Unlike you, I know my limits. I posted my simple thoughts on the subject, you pretend to be able to dig deeper into it.

I don't believe you know squat about law, you have demonstrated in many subjects which you opine that you don't know as much as you think you know. I refuse to enter a discussion where I know I am unarmed, and I feel strongly that you are equally, if not less armed.

You can think of it what you will (just as I have done), it's no skin off my back.

Or perhaps, we can go a different direction, and you can explain why those references have any direct impact.

Edited January 9, 2013 by samagon

[s3mh]

You still don't get it. You are saying "government has the right" when something meets your needs, but for the ainbinder deal, where the government was doing what they thought best you said it was an aweful/evil/destructive/devaluing/uneven tire wear causing thing... so which is it, does the government have the right to tell people how to use land or not? You and your cronies faught tooth and nail to stop walmart... that the government supported, but you don't like people fighting to stop a historic ordinance (that was never fairly voted for).

So, the principle is that you can either always think that government knows best when it comes to land use decisions or that government never knows what is best when it comes to land use decisions? Or is it that you always have to side with people who are fighting against the government? Or is it that you have no good argument, but are valiantly trying to find one?

I am all for government being involved in land use decisions. I am for government being involved in Historic Preservation. I am for zoning and for strong application of the existing land use restrictions under chap 42 and the design manual. I support the historic ordinance, but think that the city did not enforce chap 42 and the design manual on Walmart and should have better land use restrictions on the books to keep developers from turning choice real estate into cheap strip malls with insufficient infrastructure. And I am against 380 agreements that reward a developer for taking down apartments and replacing them with single story retail when the rental rates in the city of houston have gone up 18-19% in the past year. None of that is inconsistent. It is entirely consistent.

[s3mh]

Unlike you, I know my limits. I posted my simple thoughts on the subject, you pretend to be able to dig deeper into it.

I don't believe you know squat about law, you have demonstrated in many subjects which you opine that you don't know as much as you think you know. I refuse to enter a discussion where I know I am unarmed, and I feel strongly that you are equally, if not less armed.

You can think of it what you will (just as I have done), it's no skin off my back.

Or perhaps, we can go a different direction, and you can explain why those references have any direct impact.

You can't have it both ways. You can't tell me that I do not know what I am talking about but refuse to back it up. All you are doing at that point is making a personal attack, which is weak.

The case law I posted shows that it is well settled law that historic preservation laws enforced by municipalities satisfies constitutional substantive due process. In the simplest of terms, it means that a municipality does have the right to enact and enforce historic preservation laws. It is possible for historic preservation laws to be a regulatory taking, requiring the municipality to provide compensation to an affected land owner. But, that has not been alleged by anyone against the historic ordinance. the lawsuit has some argument about procedural due process that is more directed at the formation of the districts. That is really an argument that ends up asking a judge to second guess how a municipality enacts its laws and runs afoul of separation of powers. So, you can't just hold up a copy of the constitution and get rid of historic preservation laws.

[Ross]

Sure, just because I say some one has or doesn't have rights doesn't make it so. The courts determine what people's rights are:

"A municipality has the constitutional power to regulate the use of private property in the interest of historic preservation." Mayes v. City of Dallas, 747 F.2d 323, 324 (5th Cir. 1984); Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 132–34, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 2662–64, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978);

That just means a city CAN regulate land use. It doesn't mean a city should, or that a city will fo a good job of land regulation. In fact, it's my view that city regulation should be avoided entirely for esthetic items, and should be restricted to life safety and infrastructure issues. Want to preserve an old building? Great! But don't try to force your neighbor to fit your idea of what a building ought to look like, especially if you do it after the fact.

[fwki]

That just means a city CAN regulate land use. It doesn't mean a city should, or that a city will fo a good job of land regulation. In fact, it's my view that city regulation should be avoided entirely for esthetic items, and should be restricted to life safety and infrastructure issues. Want to preserve an old building? Great! But don't try to force your neighbor to fit your idea of what a building ought to look like, especially if you do it after the fact.

Spot on. And if the political class desires to get up your butt retroactively wrt your domicile aesthetics, nothing is sacred.

Edited January 10, 2013 by fwki

[s3mh]

You set your own precedent of speaking on subjects with which you have no knowledge, why should I assume this any different?

So, you ask for an explanation, and I give you one. You just go back to your childish insults instead of actually taking on the topic. If you are not comfortable discussing the subject matter, just step aside. But, you do not get to void everything I say just because you disagree with other things I have said. That is weak and is just harrassment and internet bullying to try to get someone who holds a fundamentally different viewpoint from you and the others who have claimed this forum as their anti-historic ordinance echo chamber from posting. If you disagree with me, step up to the plate and take a swing. I can take it. But this "you are always wrong, so we don't have to respond to you" stuff is just pathetic.

[s3mh]

That just means a city CAN regulate land use. It doesn't mean a city should, or that a city will fo a good job of land regulation. In fact, it's my view that city regulation should be avoided entirely for esthetic items, and should be restricted to life safety and infrastructure issues. Want to preserve an old building? Great! But don't try to force your neighbor to fit your idea of what a building ought to look like, especially if you do it after the fact.

Exactly my point. Historic preservation ordinances are a political issue. The debates over them are policy debates that are tied to one's political views of the role of government. But, there is no constitutional prohibition. The so-called "coercion" of historic preservation is not a violation of constitutional property rights (absent a takings, but then the issue is only that the municipality has to provide compensation), but the same kind of "coercion" that exists in every other land use regulation from set backs to building codes to noise restrictions and so on. These are all within a municipality's police powers. The real issue is the political one of how much power should the municipality have, not a constitutional one. That ship has long sailed.

[samagon]

it means that a municipality does have the right to enact and enforce historic preservation laws. It is possible for historic preservation laws to be a regulatory taking, requiring the municipality to provide compensation to an affected land owner. But, that has not been alleged by anyone against the historic ordinance. the lawsuit has some argument about procedural due process that is more directed at the formation of the districts. That is really an argument that ends up asking a judge to second guess how a municipality enacts its laws and runs afoul of separation of powers. So, you can't just hold up a copy of the constitution and get rid of historic preservation laws.

This is why I don't think the rulings you provided are good references of precedence, the rulings you provided seemed to be with not the process of creating the districts, but with the process of making changes to a property once the district is established.

As you state (bolded) the current lawsuit is with the formation of a HD, it's pretty clear in the Texas Constitution what's required for a historic district to be created (it's part of the restrictive covenant), or for changes to be made to a current HD. Municipal laws cannot do things that the state law doesn't allow, just as the state law cannot do things that the national law allows. So really, since the state law has specific statutes that go over how to create a restrictive covenant, a city must follow that.

Now, can you provide a reference from the US law that allows the creation of a HD different from how the state allows it? and specifically, that shows that the way Houston did it to be within that US law? or perhaps a ruling that sets precedence with creation of a HD the way that Houston did it?

[s3mh]

This is why I don't think the rulings you provided are good references of precedence, the rulings you provided seemed to be with not the process of creating the districts, but with the process of making changes to a property once the district is established.

As you state (bolded) the current lawsuit is with the formation of a HD, it's pretty clear in the Texas Constitution what's required for a historic district to be created (it's part of the restrictive covenant), or for changes to be made to a current HD. Municipal laws cannot do things that the state law doesn't allow, just as the state law cannot do things that the national law allows. So really, since the state law has specific statutes that go over how to create a restrictive covenant, a city must follow that.

Now, can you provide a reference from the US law that allows the creation of a HD different from how the state allows it? and specifically, that shows that the way Houston did it to be within that US law? or perhaps a ruling that sets precedence with creation of a HD the way that Houston did it?

The HDs are not restrictive covenants. They are just the function of the historic preservation ordinances. Restrictive covenants are promises between land owners that can be enforced by one land owner against another (or by an association or municipality, depending on how drafted). Restrictive covenants are recorded in the chain of title and "run with the land". They are private agreements created by landowners. The historic ordinance is an ordinance created by the legislative body of the municipality. All that is required to create a historic ordinance is a vote of city council. The ordinance then set forth how to create and destroy a historic districts.

I think you probably saw HD opponents argue that the vote for the HDs should require a 75% majority of each block because that is what is required in order to get an entire block to be subject to a restriction. But that was a political argument, not a legal one. The 75% rule does not apply to historic districts and no one has argued that it does.

Looking at the lawsuit again, I am really not sure exactly what the constitutional argument is. It is actually set up in terms of an equal protection argument ("The City's enforcement of the aforementioned municipal ordinances resulted in Plaintiffs being treated differently from other similarly situtated landowners without any reasonable basis"). The rest of it is about the election code, which is probably inapplicable and filed untimely. If there claim is that they were denied equal protection under the law, the municipality only has to show that it had a reasonable basis for treating the plaintiffs differently from other homeowners. Penn Central establishes historic preservation as something that is within the police powers of a municipality, which would establish a reasonable basis as a matter of law. So, Penn Central should be on point, to the extent the plaintiffs are arguing what I think they are.

[Subdude]

Off-topic and name-calling posts deleted.

[fwki]

Ok, now where were we? O yeah, the Historic Preservation Ordinance is an affront to the history, culture and Charter of Houston, Texas.

History: see the photo of the sawed-off house herein.

Culture: “Zoning goes down for third time” read the morning headline of The Houston Post last November 3, 1993. As they had in 1948 and 1962, Houstonians voted once more to remain America’s largest city without a zoning ordinance….Yet, the vast majority of Houstonians were not crying out for zoning. Hispanics and low-income blacks voted overwhelmingly, 58 percent and 71 percent, against a measure touted as the way to “save” their neighborhoods.

Charter: “There are other laws that affect land use, such as the new historical preservation ordinance, which allows citizens to petition the council for designation as a historic area, which comes with additional restrictions. These are all government measures that, in my opinion, operate as “de facto zoning”— they prescribe different land use rules based partly on geographic location.” Professor Matthew Festa - South Texas College of Law

[s3mh]

Ok, now where were we? O yeah, the Historic Preservation Ordinance is an affront to the history, culture and Charter of Houston, Texas.

History: see the photo of the sawed-off house herein.

Culture: “Zoning goes down for third time” read the morning headline of The Houston Post last November 3, 1993. As they had in 1948 and 1962, Houstonians voted once more to remain America’s largest city without a zoning ordinance….Yet, the vast majority of Houstonians were not crying out for zoning. Hispanics and low-income blacks voted overwhelmingly, 58 percent and 71 percent, against a measure touted as the way to “save” their neighborhoods.

Charter: “There are other laws that affect land use, such as the new historical preservation ordinance, which allows citizens to petition the council for designation as a historic area, which comes with additional restrictions. These are all government measures that, in my opinion, operate as “de facto zoning”— they prescribe different land use rules based partly on geographic location.” Professor Matthew Festa - South Texas College of Law

The vote in 1993 was 52% to 48%, which was remarkably close considering the gross disparity in funding between the pro-zoning camp and anti-zoning camp, which had tons of money from the real estate/construction community. Minorities and low income residents were targeted by anti-zoning groups with ad campaigns claiming that zoning would mean a rise in rents. Minorities were also wary of the days when Jim Crow zoning would define a "family" for single family residential neighborhoods as excluding minorities, gays, and so on. Middle class voters were overwhelmingly for the measure as they saw it as a way to preserve their neighborhoods.

Houston has tons of de facto zoning laws. Setbacks, parking requirements, minimum lot size, drainage, and the new height limitation are all arguably de facto zoning laws set up as "performance standards". Some developers consider Houston's "performance standards" to be more onerous than actual zoning (probably because they can usually grease the wheels and get a variance on zoning laws). But, if you really compare the historic ordinance with the many different flavors of zoning laws in effect across the US, calling the historic ordinance de facto zoning goes too far.

[samagon]

Houston has tons of de facto zoning laws. Setbacks, parking requirements, minimum lot size, drainage, and the new height limitation are all arguably de facto zoning laws set up as "performance standards". Some developers consider Houston's "performance standards" to be more onerous than actual zoning (probably because they can usually grease the wheels and get a variance on zoning laws). But, if you really compare the historic ordinance with the many different flavors of zoning laws in effect across the US, calling the historic ordinance de facto zoning goes too far.

apples and tennis rackets comparison.

The 'de facto zoning laws' you mention are a very clear set of instructions that every building that might fit specific criteria has to fit within, unless they get a specific variance, and outside of the minimum lot size (a few years back they removed the minimum lot size from inside the loop developments, which ironically is one of the main factors that led to the heights becoming so popular for knockdowns), there are no restrictions based on a specific location.

The other is a very subjective set of outlines that govern land use in very specific areas.

based on the what zoning is (and even discounting the clear set of instructions vs subjective outlines), your 'de facto zoning laws' do not fit, which unless you misunderstand the definition of de facto, is why they are apples and tennis rackets comparison to historic districts.