The Heights Historic Districts

[RedScare]

So, is your goal to reform the HAHC so that all bad projects can get approved? 

 

HAHA! There is no need to reform HAHC for this. Bad projects are the only ones they approve NOW. Hopefully, Brie would reform HAHC so that our good projects get approved.

[Marksmu]

I sent my email in support of the approval.  Hope it helps!

[Marksmu]

Brie

I am sorry you felt it necessary to respond to my post in such a manner. I was simply posting to help those in the neighborhood who don't necessarily feel this is good preservation practice, which is what I thought this forum was for.

I am disappointed that you have chosen a public forum to make false and slanderous accusations and assumptions about me.

 

 

I see no false or slanderous statements in her post at all.  She asked if you were the person who wrote a letter that completely mis-represented her.  

 

Perhaps living in your tiny well maintained shack has caused you to down size other aspects of your life as well...perhaps your underwear clinch too tightly around your testicles thereby creating headaches or other symptoms which may or may not contribute to your rudeness and apparent over-sensitivity issues.  In all seriousness, lighten up - the ordinance is TERRIBLE and its destroying the neighborhood.  

 

Small well maintained shacks are great for singles and old people, but the Heights is evolving into a real neighborhood again full of young, wealthy, working families....we dont need an ordinance standing in our way so that the original residents can afford to continue living here.  Im sorry your taxes will price you out of the hood, but inventing a historic ordinance for 19XX tract homes is a complete and total waste of private & public funds.  The heights was one of the original suburbs of Houston, it was full of tract homes of that era.  Change is inevitable as it is in a very desirable area of town, not prone to flooding.  Those who are in support of preservation had a method of doing so prior to the ordinance...Individual deed restrictions.  The rest of the neighborhood (the silent majority) just want to go about their lives without the intervention of the vocal minority who wish to freeze time. 

[jamesw]

I wrote a support email as well.  As a homeowner on Harvard street I find this a bit silly.  On my block alone there are at least a half dozen homes that already exist and that are larger in scale than this project.  It's WHY Harvard is one of the premiere streets to live on in the Heights, lol.

I have two young boys and I can't see living in a 2-1 or an upgraded 2-1 with a small addition on the back.  I want more young families to move to the Heights so that the schools improve and there are some kids for my sons to play with. If people are going to be denied the right to appropriately upgrade their own home I think that is an overall hindrance to the quality of our great neighborhood.

 

I also don't like the insinuation that if you support someone's appeal you are not "for historic preservation."  That is ridiculous.  I support historic preservation and keeping the character of the neighborhood feeling "old homie." I also support some amendments to the ordinance - as it should be a process of continuous improvement.

 

On a separate topic - but relevant to 1811 Harvard - this should have nothing to do with the SIZE of the homes.  That just doesn't make any sense.  Is the Glassell home historic?  You bet.  Is it a massive house on a giant lot?  You bet.  Did the massive house at 11th and Heights (the one that burned) look historic and fit in?  It certainly did - it was beautiful and contributed to the character of the neighborhood.  As does Sara's B&B and the list goes on...

 

Cheers
James

[s3mh]

I also don't like the insinuation that if you support someone's appeal you are not "for historic preservation."  That is ridiculous.  I support historic preservation and keeping the character of the neighborhood feeling "old homie." I also support some amendments to the ordinance - as it should be a process of continuous improvement.

 

 

 

My point wasn't that if you support someone's appeal you are not for "historic preservation".  My point was that people do not know whether to trust Brie or not because she has never articulated her position on the preservation ordinance.  What we do know is that she has done some things that are in line with what opponents of the ordinance have done.  That raises concerns.  I have given her an opportunity to state what her position on the ordinance is and have not concluded one way or the other about her. 

[Marksmu]

I wrote a support email as well.  As a homeowner on Harvard street I find this a bit silly.  On my block alone there are at least a half dozen homes that already exist and that are larger in scale than this project.  It's WHY Harvard is one of the premiere streets to live on in the Heights, lol.

I have two young boys and I can't see living in a 2-1 or an upgraded 2-1 with a small addition on the back.  I want more young families to move to the Heights so that the schools improve and there are some kids for my sons to play with. If people are going to be denied the right to appropriately upgrade their own home I think that is an overall hindrance to the quality of our great neighborhood.

 

I also don't like the insinuation that if you support someone's appeal you are not "for historic preservation."  That is ridiculous.  I support historic preservation and keeping the character of the neighborhood feeling "old homie." I also support some amendments to the ordinance - as it should be a process of continuous improvement.

 

On a separate topic - but relevant to 1811 Harvard - this should have nothing to do with the SIZE of the homes.  That just doesn't make any sense.  Is the Glassell home historic?  You bet.  Is it a massive house on a giant lot?  You bet.  Did the massive house at 11th and Heights (the one that burned) look historic and fit in?  It certainly did - it was beautiful and contributed to the character of the neighborhood.  As does Sara's B&B and the list goes on...

 

Cheers

James

 

But if you makes the homes bigger and nicer, the taxes will go up for the preservationists....thats been the end game the whole time.  They want to keep the neighborhood old to stop any more growth, which will prevent any more increase in taxable value.  The preservationists are not really preservationists, they are just folks who are getting priced out of their own home.

[SilverJK]

My point wasn't that if you support someone's appeal you are not for "historic preservation".  My point was that people do not know whether to trust Brie or not because she has never articulated her position on the preservation ordinance.  What we do know is that she has done some things that are in line with what opponents of the ordinance have done.  That raises concerns.  I have given her an opportunity to state what her position on the ordinance is and have not concluded one way or the other about her. 

 

I don't trust half the people on the commision's position as they approve and deny very similar projects during the same hearings, often times appearingly based on who knows who.  These last few posts from the supporters have really shown how underhanded the supporters can be.  Just because you don't like the ordinance does not mean you aren't a preservationist.  I guarantee many of us have done more than you ever will in the name of preservation, it is the power grab that angers most of us.  (and as seen in the hearings, a warranted anger)

[RedScare]

I don't trust half the people on the commision's position as they approve and deny very similar projects during the same hearings, often times appearingly based on who knows who.  These last few posts from the supporters have really shown how underhanded the supporters can be.  Just because you don't like the ordinance does not mean you aren't a preservationist.  I guarantee many of us have done more than you ever will in the name of preservation, it is the power grab that angers most of us.  (and as seen in the hearings, a warranted anger)

 

Absolutely. Ever notice that most of these "preservationists" never tell us what they are doing. They only tell us what we cannot do. The reason is that they do little or nothing.

[s3mh]

I don't trust half the people on the commision's position as they approve and deny very similar projects during the same hearings, often times appearingly based on who knows who.  These last few posts from the supporters have really shown how underhanded the supporters can be.  Just because you don't like the ordinance does not mean you aren't a preservationist.  I guarantee many of us have done more than you ever will in the name of preservation, it is the power grab that angers most of us.  (and as seen in the hearings, a warranted anger)

 

If you want to repeal the ordinance instead of working to make it better, you are not a preservationist.  The historic houses in the Heights were getting mowed down as fast as they were in Oak Forrest before the ordinance.  Without the ordinance, it would be back to losing historic housing stock by the hundreds every year.  If that is what you consider preservation, then you have a very warped concept of what it means to be a preservationist.

[RedScare]

The warped concept of preservation is held by those who believe preservation is how many laws are on the books. 

[poyea]

Absolutely. Ever notice that most of these "preservationists" never tell us what they are doing. They only tell us what we cannot do. The reason is that they do little or nothing.

Mark me down as one of those who has done a major expansion, and we are currently on our 4th project inside, for a 1915 bungalow. We did the expansion before the ordinance, but retroactively applied for and received a COA. In fact, our house is used as an EXAMPLE in the HAHC handbook as an acceptable expansion. And guess what, I hate the HAHC. It was underhanded and is over reaching and I don't understand why anyone would turn over that much power to so few individuals about something worth so much to their new worth. Am I a preservationist? Heck yeah. Love the old house, leaky windows and all. But give me the right to make decisions about my own property.

I recall a couple coming around gathering signatures a few years ago (for the ordinance). I told them as an example, that I didn't like their rims on their car, and they should change them out. Didn't belong on that car, in my opinion. And come to think of it, they were one of the main supporters of the ordinance and within a few months of approval, what did they do....moved out of the area. Thanks for that.

(Off the soap box...next man/woman up).

[RedScare]

Yeah, they used my house as an example when passing the HD ordinance, too. I felt so...dirty!

[Heights20plusyears]

If you want to repeal the ordinance instead of working to make it better, you are not a preservationist.  The historic houses in the Heights were getting mowed down as fast as they were in Oak Forrest before the ordinance.  Without the ordinance, it would be back to losing historic housing stock by the hundreds every year.  If that is what you consider preservation, then you have a very warped concept of what it means to be a preservationist.

 

I'd like the ordinance repealed ONLY due to how it was initiated.  A "Survey" was not the proper way to conduct who is for and who is against.

 

There were restrictions, albeit block by block, that prevented multi-family dwellings and homes that consumed an entire lot. (minimum lot size and setback)

 

MOST of the so-called historic houses that were torn down needed to be torn down because they were far beyond repair. 

 

Until someone is paying my mortgage and taxes, I'll put up one hell of a fight before being told what I can and cannot do to my house that I've owned for 18+ years, LONG before the Hysterical Ordinance was ever someones wet dream.  I find it extremely entertaining how some people can move into the Heights, live here for 2+ years and try and force their opinions on what is best for us that have lived here for over 20 years.

 

I too have done an expansion over 8 years ago and it is also listed in the "how it can be done book".  To me, that is what Historic Preservation is all about.  Keeping the look and feel of the existing neighborhood WITHOUT the known impass of your plans by the idiots on the review board.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Heights20plusyears

[RedScare]

Interesting that 3 historic district opponents all have their work published as how to do it right. The person most in favor of the ordinance has not remodeled.

 

Something weird about that.

[briekelman]

I have started writing a very thoughtful, thorough response to s3mh's questions. Thank you for asking; I'm happy to provide the answers. I'm sorry if my motivations weren't clear before; I wish I would have been asked earlier if that was the case...I guess I'm not one to really put out my opinions unless they have a specific purpose or are in response to something (Side-note: The Leader article was a short what-I-assumed-was-private email I wrote the writer, and I had NO clue that it would/could be published, let alone that it WAS published until a week after when I heard from an old colleague from 7 yrs ago! I learned my lesson though - 1) duh - emailing a newspaper employee is fair game for publishing 2) they don't ask you if you are ok with them publishing anything before they publish it 3) check who the editor is before you email a writer to see if the writer is in fact the editor 4) don't email a writer b/c it will get published).

 

I have been in meetings all morning and then went to the appeal. I don't know how to post from an iphone (can someone PM me how to do?), so apologies for my delayed response.

 

To be clear, I went and spoke to support the Starr's (not Creole), and the Starr's won unanimously. I'm very happy that they can stop worrying about this now and get back to the headaches of sleepless nights with their 3-mo old vs sleepless nights worrying about their life savings and ability to provide shelter for their growing family.

 

Thank you for all that wrote in for them. They had over 30 support letters, which is a much nicer welcome to the Heights, and shows them that it IS a great neighborhood, full of nice/welcoming people.

 

Again, I will post specific answers tomorrow (I promise that I am not avoiding the question). I started a detailed response, but I want to sleep on it to make sure my words are carefully chosen and mean what I want them to mean without unintentionally offending someone.

 

 

[poyea]

That is interesting Red. And really annoying.

I know there was chatter right after it passed about lawsuits that would revoke it. Does anyone know if that is still going on? Curious. My guess is it will take someone getting pinned by the HAHC and finally running it up the court system, and likely someone who is a lawyer so they could burn sweat equity instead of cash.

Oh, and thanks Brie for letting us know about the Starr's winning today. I was able to fire off a letter this morning.

[fwki]

Unanimous vote to overturn....Gafrick and the 6 hahc fools should resign after this one if they had any self respect. But I have a feeling the State AG will help them along soon. Hats off to Brie for helping out a new neighbor and introducing me to some fine new friends.

[fwki]

http://houstontx.swagit.com/play/07112013-622

Item V

Commentary to follow...sharpen your pencils.

[Marksmu]

Unanimous vote to overturn....Gafrick and the 6 hahc fools should resign after this one if they had any self respect. But I have a feeling the State AG will help them along soon. Hats off to Brie for helping out a new neighbor and introducing me to some fine new friends.

 

I think this is the end game the entire time.   Make it as hard as possible to get past the HAHC, put up road blocks right and left, but then when it gets to council allow them to do whatever they want.  I think the council, the HAHC, the Mayor, everyone, knows that this was not legally enacted and can be overturned by a court.  However, I think that the courts will dismiss any case attempting to overturn the ordinance unless they are damaged by the ordinance itself...it appears that by just approving everything at council, they are preventing any plantiff from having standing to sue...

 

I could be way off on this, as I have not done any research, but I know quite a few municipalities use this tatic to put draconian ordinances out there that are impossible to legally enforce...its just a deterrent.

[SilverJK]

If you want to repeal the ordinance instead of working to make it better, you are not a preservationist. 

 

 

This is a flat out lie.  I also want to preserve the character of the neighborhood which has been eccentric and friendly, which you and your like have destroyed by imposing your will upon your non approving neighbors.  No I don't like seeing old houses smashed that could be saved, but the lengths you are willing to go to to save them is destroying the fabric of the community in my opinion.  I have said all along that a clearly written, set of guidelines and rules for preservation is something I could likely support, but the way this was put in place and the ability of a few to allow and deny projects based on a whim is sickening.

 

By the way, I also preserve and restore antique furniture as a hobby. (I have also repurposed several destroyed pieces I picked up off the side of the road).  I enjoy doing this and enjoy keeping things that have use from going to the dump.  I am a presrvationist for many things have been for many years. 

[Marksmu]

This is a flat out lie.  I also want to preserve the character of the neighborhood which has been eccentric and friendly, which you and your like have destroyed by imposing your will upon your non approving neighbors.  No I don't like seeing old houses smashed that could be saved, but the lengths you are willing to go to to save them is destroying the fabric of the community in my opinion.  I have said all along that a clearly written, set of guidelines and rules for preservation is something I could likely support, but the way this was put in place and the ability of a few to allow and deny projects based on a whim is sickening.

 

By the way, I also preserve and restore antique furniture as a hobby. (I have also repurposed several destroyed pieces I picked up off the side of the road).  I enjoy doing this and enjoy keeping things that have use from going to the dump.  I am a presrvationist for many things have been for many years. 

 

Very well spoken!

[august948]

I think this is the end game the entire time. Make it as hard as possible to get past the HAHC, put up road blocks right and left, but then when it gets to council allow them to do whatever they want. I think the council, the HAHC, the Mayor, everyone, knows that this was not legally enacted and can be overturned by a court. However, I think that the courts will dismiss any case attempting to overturn the ordinance unless they are damaged by the ordinance itself...it appears that by just approving everything at council, they are preventing any plantiff from having standing to sue...

I could be way off on this, as I have not done any research, but I know quite a few municipalities use this tatic to put draconian ordinances out there that are impossible to legally enforce...its just a deterrent.

That might the key to dealing with this until it gets repealed. If your project is big enough in dollars to warrant the expenditure, hire a lawyer to represent you at the HAHC meeting. Maybe the implied threat of seriousness would be enough to get you the approval without having to appeal.

[DunkinNuts]

Just watched the planning commission meeting, preservationists got smoked! Question to Bree, oh sorry, Brie, what did you think of the beat down your "architect" got? Personally, gonna stay as far away from this dude for all future projects....recommend everyone else do the same. Would hate to be this homeowner.

 

If anyone is interested, you can see it for yourself at the 75:55 mark....

 

http://houstontx.swagit.com/play/07112013-622

 

 

 

[s3mh]

Interesting that 3 historic district opponents all have their work published as how to do it right. The person most in favor of the ordinance has not remodeled.

 

Something weird about that.

 

No.  What is weird is that you have to continually make ad hominem attacks in every post you make because you offer so little in the form of intelligent dialog on any issue.  It is always "I am right, everyone else is a complete retard" with you.  That is actually more sad than weird.

 

But, since you are obsessed with me, I will let you know that the addition is about 4-5 years out when I have a very good equity cushion to make financing easy.  Also, need to get schools settled, wife back into the work force and would definitely want to not build during a boom when trades are in short supply and charging top dollar.  Also hoping for a softer rental market for the time I would have to be out of the house.  No fear of the HAHC as I will be using one of the builders who has tons of experience with the HAHC and does not have to go to the planning commission to get an approval.   

[s3mh]

This is a flat out lie.  I also want to preserve the character of the neighborhood which has been eccentric and friendly, which you and your like have destroyed by imposing your will upon your non approving neighbors.  No I don't like seeing old houses smashed that could be saved, but the lengths you are willing to go to to save them is destroying the fabric of the community in my opinion.  I have said all along that a clearly written, set of guidelines and rules for preservation is something I could likely support, but the way this was put in place and the ability of a few to allow and deny projects based on a whim is sickening.

 

By the way, I also preserve and restore antique furniture as a hobby. (I have also repurposed several destroyed pieces I picked up off the side of the road).  I enjoy doing this and enjoy keeping things that have use from going to the dump.  I am a presrvationist for many things have been for many years. 

 

You can't have your cake and eat it too.  If you are going to jump up and down at the HAHC and advocate for its demise, you cannot claim to be in favor of preservation because you would be ok with some other sort of regulation.  HAHC is what we've got.  If the anti-preservationists succeed and get it repealed, nothing is going to replace it.  You know that and your claim that you can be for preservation but against the ordinance is plainly disingenuous. 

[august948]

No. What is weird is that you have to continually make ad hominem attacks in every post you make because you offer so little in the form of intelligent dialog on any issue. It is always "I am right, everyone else is a complete retard" with you. That is actually more sad than weird.

But, since you are obsessed with me, I will let you know that the addition is about 4-5 years out when I have a very good equity cushion to make financing easy. Also, need to get schools settled, wife back into the work force and would definitely want to not build during a boom when trades are in short supply and charging top dollar. Also hoping for a softer rental market for the time I would have to be out of the house. No fear of the HAHC as I will be using one of the builders who has tons of experience with the HAHC and does not have to go to the planning commission to get an approval.

Hopefully, HAHC will be gone by that time so you'll have one less thing to deal with.

[Ross]

Just watched the planning commission meeting, preservationists got smoked! Question to Bree, oh sorry, Brie, what did you think of the beat down your "architect" got? Personally, gonna stay as far away from this dude for all future projects....recommend everyone else do the same. Would hate to be this homeowner.

 

If anyone is interested, you can see it for yourself at the 75:55 mark....

 

http://houstontx.swagit.com/play/07112013-622

 

The planning Commission guy is  unmitigated jerk. He acts like he never made a mistake. For a member of a public commission to make a statement like "never do business with you" is outrageous in this context.

[august948]

You can't have your cake and eat it too.  If you are going to jump up and down at the HAHC and advocate for its demise, you cannot claim to be in favor of preservation because you would be ok with some other sort of regulation.  HAHC is what we've got.  If the anti-preservationists succeed and get it repealed, nothing is going to replace it.  You know that and your claim that you can be for preservation but against the ordinance is plainly disingenuous. 

What's the point of having cake if you can't eat it? So, if you think a lesser set of regulations (or no regulations) is sufficient and the HAHC system is arbitrary and abusive you are therefore not in favor of preservation?

[Ross]

You can't have your cake and eat it too.  If you are going to jump up and down at the HAHC and advocate for its demise, you cannot claim to be in favor of preservation because you would be ok with some other sort of regulation.  HAHC is what we've got.  If the anti-preservationists succeed and get it repealed, nothing is going to replace it.  You know that and your claim that you can be for preservation but against the ordinance is plainly disingenuous. 

 

So what, we can't wish for something better than the piece of crap we have now? Having nothing would be an improvement. At least it wouldn't waste taxpayer money if it didn't exist.

 

I'm curious as to what makes your views on architecture more valid than those of the individual property owners. Why should you get to tell your neighbor how their house should appear, absent mutually agreed deed restrictions?

[august948]

So what, we can't wish for something better than the piece of crap we have now? Having nothing would be an improvement. At least it wouldn't waste taxpayer money if it didn't exist.

Hahahaha...that's a perfect paraphrase of s3mh's argument against Walmart. Now I see what Red is saying about s3mh's schizophrenia.

Edited July 12, 2013 by august948