The Heights Historic Districts

[Marksmu]

And until the law changes from what it is to what you want it to be, Mr. Marsh and others very much have the right to participate and speak out for what they believe is right. 

 

Well since Mr. Marsh has injected himself into the public spotlight by attending these meetings and allowing himself to be broadcast on the internet  by the council and in these "historic" meetings we should know a little bit more about him.  If he has a right to have an opinion about other people and their property, we should have a right to know about him and let other people know whether or not he is legitimate and practices what he preaches or if he is just a hypocrite. 

 

All information here is 100% publicly available through the city links to you tube, through a google search of Mr. Marsh, or through HCAD.  I have done nothing but compile it in a convenient location, so there is no chance of any invasion of privacy here.  He spoke up, he put himself out there, and the law is clear here - one who puts himself into the spotlight must accept both the positives and the negatives of his actions.

 

Mr. Marsh claimed to have lived in the Heights historic area for 37 years in the youtube video at city council which can be seen here:

(statement at about the 3 hr and 7 min)

 

He is concerned about the lack of input  the neighbors have on other peoples property and the fact that they are tearing down homes to build new ones.  Well where does Mr. Marsh live.  HCAD tells me that he lives at 15XX Arlington St.  What is funny about 15XX Arlington is that it is NEW CONSTRUCTION.  The same type of new construction which he wishes to prevent.  HCAD informs us that the house this pro-preservation anti-new construction, anti-remodel champion lives in was built in 1996 and is 2725 square feet (much larger than the remodels he opposes)  So the champion of historic shacks, is also too good to live in them.  That makes him a hypocrite in my book.  

 

But a google search provides more information.  A person by the name of Jean Steinhardt does home portraits.  She did a home portrait for Mr. Marsh along with a little bio - in this bio she states why it is that Mr Marsh moved from a bungalow into a brand new home:  "they (Mr. Marsh) lived in their Heights bungalow on Oxford Street for several years. The house began to seem too small, but adding on was not feasible"  http://www.jeansteinhardt.com/marsh.htm

 

So a bungalow is good enough for you and your family with growing kids, but not good enough for just him and his wife.  He needed more space, you, well you dont need it or deserve it!  He deserves new construction with modern amenities, but YOU do not.  You must keep your old windows and doors, your old wood siding, your old shutters, etc, etc, etc.  He gets the new, you are stuck with the old.  There is a word for this:  HYPOCRITE!  Its appalling....I am offended that someone who does not practice what he preaches would dare to go out and tell others that they can not do EXACTLY what he is doing.   His life must really be pathetic if he has the time and the energy to go out and try to ensure that others can not do exactly what he has already done.  It sickening. 

 

I feel very sorry for the Zucker's they have been denied the RIGHT to use their property in a way that they deem best, by a group of snobs, who do not practice what they preach at all.   Mr. Marsh, you sir are a hypocrite who truly needs to find something better to do than harass your neighbors. 

[JJxvi]

Every neighborhood for all time has had nutcases who stick their noses where it doesn't belong and try to run other people's lives "for the good of everybody"

 

Some neighborhoods don't give those people power and some do.

[little frau]

Harris County Clerk's site shows Mr. Marsh bought the 15xx Oxford house in 1976 and sold it in 1996.  Surprisingly, it is on it's 5th owner since then.  The 4th owner remodeled in 2007.

 

 

 

 

 

[s3mh]

Well since Mr. Marsh has injected himself into the public spotlight by attending these meetings and allowing himself to be broadcast on the internet  by the council and in these "historic" meetings we should know a little bit more about him.  If he has a right to have an opinion about other people and their property, we should have a right to know about him and let other people know whether or not he is legitimate and practices what he preaches or if he is just a hypocrite. 

 

All information here is 100% publicly available through the city links to you tube, through a google search of Mr. Marsh, or through HCAD.  I have done nothing but compile it in a convenient location, so there is no chance of any invasion of privacy here.  He spoke up, he put himself out there, and the law is clear here - one who puts himself into the spotlight must accept both the positives and the negatives of his actions.

 

Mr. Marsh claimed to have lived in the Heights historic area for 37 years in the youtube video at city council which can be seen here:

(statement at about the 3 hr and 7 min)

 

He is concerned about the lack of input  the neighbors have on other peoples property and the fact that they are tearing down homes to build new ones.  Well where does Mr. Marsh live.  HCAD tells me that he lives at 15XX Arlington St.  What is funny about 15XX Arlington is that it is NEW CONSTRUCTION.  The same type of new construction which he wishes to prevent.  HCAD informs us that the house this pro-preservation anti-new construction, anti-remodel champion lives in was built in 1996 and is 2725 square feet (much larger than the remodels he opposes)  So the champion of historic shacks, is also too good to live in them.  That makes him a hypocrite in my book.  

 

But a google search provides more information.  A person by the name of Jean Steinhardt does home portraits.  She did a home portrait for Mr. Marsh along with a little bio - in this bio she states why it is that Mr Marsh moved from a bungalow into a brand new home:  "they (Mr. Marsh) lived in their Heights bungalow on Oxford Street for several years. The house began to seem too small, but adding on was not feasible"  http://www.jeansteinhardt.com/marsh.htm

 

So a bungalow is good enough for you and your family with growing kids, but not good enough for just him and his wife.  He needed more space, you, well you dont need it or deserve it!  He deserves new construction with modern amenities, but YOU do not.  You must keep your old windows and doors, your old wood siding, your old shutters, etc, etc, etc.  He gets the new, you are stuck with the old.  There is a word for this:  HYPOCRITE!  Its appalling....I am offended that someone who does not practice what he preaches would dare to go out and tell others that they can not do EXACTLY what he is doing.   His life must really be pathetic if he has the time and the energy to go out and try to ensure that others can not do exactly what he has already done.  It sickening. 

 

I feel very sorry for the Zucker's they have been denied the RIGHT to use their property in a way that they deem best, by a group of snobs, who do not practice what they preach at all.   Mr. Marsh, you sir are a hypocrite who truly needs to find something better to do than harass your neighbors. 

 

You can call Mr. Marsh all kinds of names (that is the Modus Operandi for the anti-ordinance people when dealing with people who they do not agree with--"snobs", "hypocrite", "lives are pathetic" etc., disparaging historic architecture, "shacks").  You can make substantive counter arguments to what Mr. Marsh said at the hearing (a tactic that is in scarce supply in the rhetoric of the anti-ordinance people).  But, do not question Mr. Marsh's right to stand up in a public forum and express his views.  That right is just as fundamental and sacrosanct as any property right granted by the Constitution. 

 

And your attack on Mr. Marsh, to the extent it is slightly substantive, is woefully lacking.  It is a complete strawman argument.  People who support the ordinance are not against new construction.  In fact, we strongly support new construction when it is consistent with the historic architecture and is not at the expense of the existing historic architecture.  And new construction is great when it replaces non-conforming structures, like ranch style houses or warehouses.  Calling someone a hypocrite just because they live in new construction assumes that supporters of the ordinance are against all new construction.  They are not.  Thus, the argument is completely invalid.

 

According to the link to the portrait studio you found on the internet:

 

"[Mr. Marsh] bought a lot two blocks away on Arlington and had a new house built. In order to help preserve the ambience of the neighborhood they love so much, they chose a builder who specializes in new builds that match the style of much older houses."

 

What we do not know is whether Mr. Marsh tore down an existing structure that was contributing or whether it was a vacant lot or had a structure that could not be saved.  Before publicly calling someone a hypocrite, especially someone you do not know and who had more guts than you to stand up and speak for what he believes in a public forum, you bear the burden of proof to support your claim.  You simply assume that he must have demo-ed a contributing building and is a hypocrite as a result.  That assumption is wrong. 

 

You also fail to understand the issue with size.  There is no per se square footage that is acceptable.  The issue is scale, not square footage.  Square footage is one element of scale, but there is much more to be considered. 

 

And you wrongly assume that Mr. Marsh does not want the homeowner to do anything.  He raises issues with the application and a majority of both the Planning Commission and HAHC agrees with him.  They have not banned any work on the property.  They have just rejected one application.  It is just a fact of life that when you have a subjective approval process that some people will have to go back to the drawing board to make it work.  Builders have pushed the issue of scale by making every new project a near lot filler.  Concerned residents have pushed back.  HAHC has generally responded to resident's concerns and is pushing back on the issue of scale.  It will take some work to try to make the process more predictable, but it can be done.  And that issue will never convince the community to through the baby out with the bath water and go back to the days where there were 200+ demolitions in the Heights every year of historic buildings that could have easily been saved. 

 

[Marksmu]

I do not think he should not be able to make his statements, I support free speech - rather I think if he is going to make them, and make someone else's life suck as a result of them, his life should have to suck just as much.  Its like Obamacare, good enough for me, but not for congress.  What a crock of crap.  I maintain that Mr. Marsh is a hypocrite.  His house looks no different at all than any of the Tricon, Sullivan, Whitestone, Ansari, or Allegra homes that have been built.  Its not historic, it does not look historic, it looks like a new modern victorian, or as the snots say - a McVic.

 

And until you can prove to me that he did not remove a bungalow from that lot, I will assume that he did.  The heights was built out primarily from bungalows, so the burden of proof lies with him, not me...odds are on my side.  For all new construction, something must be removed.  I am seriously doubtful that the lot he purchased was completely vacant, more likely there was a bungalow there that was either too small or was in disrepair - and rather than comply with history and remodel a dilapidated shack or rebuild another tiny bungalow, he built a nice new big house because that was what he wanted for himself...others should not have that opportunity...nope, he is special  So special in fact he created a commission with no authority to make himself feel more special.

 

A google street view of Mr. Marsh's house sure makes that look like Hardi-siding on it....those columns sure look like a builders standard fiberglass column...and those windows are almost certainly double paned insulated glass...None of that is historic in any way and all of those things are dictated by the ordinance.  He does not comply with the ordinance, b/c it doesnt apply to him but by god, it should apply to other people....that is the definition of a hypocrite.  At least some of the supporters of this monstrosity of an ordinance actually live in these old houses. 

 

As to builders demoing old houses, oh well....Builders build what people want.  If they did not, they would not be in business.  The market is currently screaming at the top of its lungs for nice modern homes in the Heights.  People want bigger houses, not crappy glued together houses that make 1 person happy b/c there is an infinitesimally small remote chance that sometime in the year 2110 they may remove the addition and return the 2400 square foot hosue back into a 1100sq ft closet, just like old days.  Heck one day they may look out their wiindow west and see pastures and native prairie again...it could happen. 

 

The fact that the ordinance is subjective is reason enough to throw it out.  A law must be objective to be enforceable, or it is open for abuse.  This law is being abused and should be done away with.  Even your beloved Bungalow Revival is sick of it...There is no fixing this mess.   It must be thrown out....you do not compromise or try to paste together fixes for something this dysfunctional.  Toss it. 

 

[SilverJK]

Seems like it would be in Mr. Marsh's best interest to prevent anyone from adding on to their home, it makes his adequately sized newer home even more valuable.  There is a personal gain there that puts his opinions in a conflict of interest with the contributing structures owners which makes any opinion on scope/style pointless. 

 

 

 

 

[s3mh]

Seems like it would be in Mr. Marsh's best interest to prevent anyone from adding on to their home, it makes his adequately sized newer home even more valuable.  There is a personal gain there that puts his opinions in a conflict of interest with the contributing structures owners which makes any opinion on scope/style pointless. 

 

Looks like you and Marksmu need to duke it out on this one.  He seems to think that the preservationist are all a bunch of retirees who are trying to suppress property values to keep theirs low to avoid rising property taxes.  I suspect that it will be a draw between you two as neither of you is right. 

[s3mh]

I do not think he should not be able to make his statements, I support free speech - rather I think if he is going to make them, and make someone else's life suck as a result of them, his life should have to suck just as much.  Its like Obamacare, good enough for me, but not for congress.  What a crock of crap.  I maintain that Mr. Marsh is a hypocrite.  His house looks no different at all than any of the Tricon, Sullivan, Whitestone, Ansari, or Allegra homes that have been built.  Its not historic, it does not look historic, it looks like a new modern victorian, or as the snots say - a McVic.

 

And until you can prove to me that he did not remove a bungalow from that lot, I will assume that he did.  The heights was built out primarily from bungalows, so the burden of proof lies with him, not me...odds are on my side.  For all new construction, something must be removed.  I am seriously doubtful that the lot he purchased was completely vacant, more likely there was a bungalow there that was either too small or was in disrepair - and rather than comply with history and remodel a dilapidated shack or rebuild another tiny bungalow, he built a nice new big house because that was what he wanted for himself...others should not have that opportunity...nope, he is special  So special in fact he created a commission with no authority to make himself feel more special.

 

A google street view of Mr. Marsh's house sure makes that look like Hardi-siding on it....those columns sure look like a builders standard fiberglass column...and those windows are almost certainly double paned insulated glass...None of that is historic in any way and all of those things are dictated by the ordinance.  He does not comply with the ordinance, b/c it doesnt apply to him but by god, it should apply to other people....that is the definition of a hypocrite.  At least some of the supporters of this monstrosity of an ordinance actually live in these old houses. 

 

As to builders demoing old houses, oh well....Builders build what people want.  If they did not, they would not be in business.  The market is currently screaming at the top of its lungs for nice modern homes in the Heights.  People want bigger houses, not crappy glued together houses that make 1 person happy b/c there is an infinitesimally small remote chance that sometime in the year 2110 they may remove the addition and return the 2400 square foot hosue back into a 1100sq ft closet, just like old days.  Heck one day they may look out their wiindow west and see pastures and native prairie again...it could happen. 

 

The fact that the ordinance is subjective is reason enough to throw it out.  A law must be objective to be enforceable, or it is open for abuse.  This law is being abused and should be done away with.  Even your beloved Bungalow Revival is sick of it...There is no fixing this mess.   It must be thrown out....you do not compromise or try to paste together fixes for something this dysfunctional.  Toss it. 

 

Let's recap some of the arguments made above:

 

1.  You support free speech, but only if it comes with a heavy personal price to the person who takes a position that you oppose.

 

2.  You can anonymously (well, sort of) attack someone by name and address on an internet message board, but do not actually have to have the facts to back it up.  It is the burden of the victim of your attack to rebut your assumptions.

 

3.  Mr. Marsh is a hypocrite because his house does not comply with an ordinance that did not come into existence until 15 years after his home was built. 

 

4.  A law that grants a municipality subjective discretion is void or should be repealed.  So, I guess you will never seek a variance in any of your project and will begin a campaign to strip the City of Houston of the authority to grant variances?

 

And for the record, Bungalow Revival is still a supporter of the ordinance.  But they are grown ups and will work to improve the ordinance and the process before HAHC instead of letting the builders go back to knocking down 200+ bungalows a year and replacing them with an odd mess of faux architecture, pressed together like graham crackers in a box.   

[Angostura]

 

1.  You support free speech, but only if it comes with a heavy personal price to the person who takes a position that you oppose.

 

 

 

 

It is possible to both support free speech AND think someone who goes out of their way to prevent people from putting additions on their houses is kind of a jerk, or at least a busybody.

[JJxvi]

I support the right to give an opinion that someone else is a jerk and hypocrite. After all I might need it here.

[Marksmu]

Let's recap some of the arguments made above:

 

1.  You support free speech, but only if it comes with a heavy personal price to the person who takes a position that you oppose.

 

2.  You can anonymously (well, sort of) attack someone by name and address on an internet message board, but do not actually have to have the facts to back it up.  It is the burden of the victim of your attack to rebut your assumptions.

 

3.  Mr. Marsh is a hypocrite because his house does not comply with an ordinance that did not come into existence until 15 years after his home was built. 

 

4.  A law that grants a municipality subjective discretion is void or should be repealed.  So, I guess you will never seek a variance in any of your project and will begin a campaign to strip the City of Houston of the authority to grant variances?

 

And for the record, Bungalow Revival is still a supporter of the ordinance.  But they are grown ups and will work to improve the ordinance and the process before HAHC instead of letting the builders go back to knocking down 200+ bungalows a year and replacing them with an odd mess of faux architecture, pressed together like graham crackers in a box.   

 

1.  If you go out of your way to make a stranger and a neighbor's life both more difficult and more expensive, then you darn sure better be ready to take what you have coming.  The person who put themselves out there is Mr. Marsh - The Zucker's just want to be left alone to build their house, something Mr. Marsh took the liberty (unrequested) to interject his opinion into - as if ANYONE cares what the hell he says.

 

2.  I have no way of knowing what existed on the lot his built his brand new non-historic home upon.  If he does, he is welcome to share that information.  I am certain he is in a much better place to have that knowledge than I am.   His silence will do nothing other than deepen my belief that he removed a house.

 

3.  Mr. Marsh is a hypocrite b/c he is offended and deeply troubled by the removal and additions onto houses that remove the "historic" nature of the neighborhood.  He claims to have built a house that was intended to mesh with the neighborhood, but he used none of the historic materials he now requires others to use.  He used new windows, not reclaimed ones, he used (I believe) Hardi-Plank and not real wood, he used (I believe) fiberglass columns, not real wood, and he did none of the extensive trim work that is seen on the exterior of the older homes.  So - he is a hypocrite, not b/c his house does not comply with an ordinance that did not exist when it was built, but because he built a house that was supposed to look historic, but used none of the materials he now requires others to use.  He had his choice to add historic elements to the home he built, and he did not, and what I see looks exactly the same as what Tricon was building up until 2006...which you and your ilk call McVics.  

 

4.  A law that is impossible to comply with should be void.  A variance is used when the intent of the law is not met by the strict adherence to the words written.  A variance is a useful tool b/c there will always be exceptions to every rule that require a special circumstance....In the case of the ordinance, the law is so bad that its literally impossible to comply with it b/c what is required changes daily based on the mood of the HAHC, and the builder/architect selected.  Its a members only club, where the members are just know it all busy bodies who should not be in any position to have any power over others.  You cant comply with a moving target, and that is what has been established.

 

Finally - I doubt you are able to speak on the record for Bungalow Revival, unless you are an employee of them - but the owners facebook post from Nov 2 copied below seems to refute what you have written.  This message does not seem like support to me.  It seems to me that even the most historic preservation minded people have now seen that the pro-ordinance people are really just after power and control...this is long past differing reasonable opinions. 

 

"Incredibly Frustrated with the lack of consistency and guidelines we are getting from the Houston Archeological and Historic Commission!!! As owner and designer of Bungalow Revival, I have been a proponent of Historic Districts way before we had them in Houston. I was a founding member of "Save The Bungalows" a Houston based grass-root group formed to promote renovation and strongly oppose demolitions in our historic neighborhoods. I was also one of the founding members of the " Historic Districts Coalition" another group formed to unite Houston's historic neighborhoods to support the passing of the Historic Districts Ordinance. I have been "walking-the-talk" since 1996 when we purchased our first home, a rundown bungalow on the West side of the Houston Heights. In 2003 I started Bungalow Revival. Our very first project was moving and restoring an Historic Victorian Cottage that was scheduled for demolition to make room for new construction. The bungalow I currently live in, we moved to the Heights from Montrose to prevent its demolition... In total we have moved seven houses to protect them from the wrecking ball and renovated and remodeled dozens of historic homes. When we as a community went through the painstaking ordeal to pass the Protected Historic Districts Ordinance we did it in a united front as preservationist. Webster defines Historic Preservation as an endeavor that seeks to preserve, conserve, and protect buildings. That is what we fought for and that is what we propose on doing for every single one of our projects. The HAHC has taken this ordinance and our efforts in a totally different direction from what was presented to the Historic Neighborhoods Community. Our Historic Ordinance is being morphed by the HAHC into a "puritanical" ordinance. Purist is defined as one who has very strong PERSONAL ideas of what is correct or acceptable and who usually opposes changes. Many rules are being changed and/or added continuously. As a builder who practices and promotes preservation within and outside of the Historic Districts I strongly resent the direction the HAHC has been high jacking the ordinance that we as a community of preservationists not purists put in place. Many of the projects being denied by this group (many of these individuals don't even live in Historic Homes nor in Historic Neighborhoods) honor our neighborhoods past and future. Please excuse my rant, but something has to change or this Ordinance just simply and sadly needs to go away!!!"

[SmellyHoustonian]

Marlene Gafrick resigned as planning director for the COH.

 

Get your ducks in order, and lobby for a candidate to replace her that represents your views on the historic district.

[SilverJK]

Looks like you and Marksmu need to duke it out on this one.  He seems to think that the preservationist are all a bunch of retirees who are trying to suppress property values to keep theirs low to avoid rising property taxes.  I suspect that it will be a draw between you two as neither of you is right. 

 

 

I highly doubt Marksmu thinks that every ordinance supporter is a retiree trying to suppress property values.  (quit calling them preservationists as that is an intentional misdirection)

 

 

There are a lot of people that fit in to that bucket (some of them very vocal), Mr. Marsh happens to be in a different group of people.

 

 

Neither of us can be solely right because there is no argument.  I guess your wrong (for having the thought that we are so narrow minded)

 

 

 

Why don't you address what I stated though instead of trying to turn things around and dodge what I said... restricting additions makes Mr. Marsh's house more desirable as the stock of newer, modern, and larger sq. footage houses is held stagnant (or at least reducing the growth of these homes).   He has every right to say whatever he wants, but excluding the fact that he lives in a modern home (I didn't listen to the whole thing but it appeared that he was implying that he lived in a home like the one in question) was intentional as that would take a bit of wind of his sails if it was known.

[Marksmu]

I highly doubt Marksmu thinks that every ordinance supporter is a retiree trying to suppress property values.  (quit calling them preservationists as that is an intentional misdirection)

 

 

There are a lot of people that fit in to that bucket (some of them very vocal), Mr. Marsh happens to be in a different group of people.

 

 

Neither of us can be solely right because there is no argument.  I guess your wrong (for having the thought that we are so narrow minded)

 

 

 

Why don't you address what I stated though instead of trying to turn things around and dodge what I said... restricting additions makes Mr. Marsh's house more desirable as the stock of newer, modern, and larger sq. footage houses is held stagnant (or at least reducing the growth of these homes).   He has every right to say whatever he wants, but excluding the fact that he lives in a modern home (I didn't listen to the whole thing but it appeared that he was implying that he lived in a home like the one in question) was intentional as that would take a bit of wind of his sails if it was known.

 

Ya, I dont actually think that every supporter is merely trying to suppress property values.  There are some true preservationists with unreasonable utopian beliefs mixed into the group.  However, the ultra majority of people who signed the petitions were just plain tricked.  They wanted to stop the lots from being subdivided, stop the townhomes, and preserve the feel of the neighborhood.  Responsible developers like Sullivan, Bastion, Whitestone were already doing a great job and I believe the ultra majority of support was through nothing more than say one thing and do another.  Its apparently perfectly acceptable for neighborhood organizers to promise one thing, do another, and then lie when caught.   I can think of several examples in national headlines just right now.  Status quo for these folks though.  If you cant pass your position with the truth, lie, and then say it would have worked if it were not for the opposition!

 

Truth is that many wanted to suppress property values, some actually care about small houses, some are just nosy power hungry neighbors - but most were just plain tricked.

 

[s3mh]

I highly doubt Marksmu thinks that every ordinance supporter is a retiree trying to suppress property values.  (quit calling them preservationists as that is an intentional misdirection)

 

 

There are a lot of people that fit in to that bucket (some of them very vocal), Mr. Marsh happens to be in a different group of people.

 

 

Neither of us can be solely right because there is no argument.  I guess your wrong (for having the thought that we are so narrow minded)

 

 

 

Why don't you address what I stated though instead of trying to turn things around and dodge what I said... restricting additions makes Mr. Marsh's house more desirable as the stock of newer, modern, and larger sq. footage houses is held stagnant (or at least reducing the growth of these homes).   He has every right to say whatever he wants, but excluding the fact that he lives in a modern home (I didn't listen to the whole thing but it appeared that he was implying that he lived in a home like the one in question) was intentional as that would take a bit of wind of his sails if it was known.

 

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. 

[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