Jump to content

Covenant House Texas Montrose At 1111 Lovett Blvd.


Highrise Tower

Recommended Posts

"Council members unanimously approved two separate agenda items during the council's Nov. 8 meeting.

The first item approved a restrictions and development agreement with Covenant House related to the sale of a city-owned, 12-foot-wide alley near Lovett Boulevard that runs from Mount Vernon Street on the west to Yoakum Boulevard on the east.

The second item approved the abandonment of the alley to Covenant House in exchange for services and cash installments over the next five years.

The background

The Montrose-based nonprofit Covenant House works to help homeless youth specifically in the 18-24 age bracket. Officials broke ground in March on a new facility at the southwest corner of Lovett and Yoakum boulevards that will allow for a 50% increase in the number of homeless youth who can be sheltered.

The alley that Covenant House will purchase runs through the center of the site where the new facility will be located."

https://communityimpact.com/houston/heights-river-oaks-montrose/development/2023/11/08/houston-approves-sale-of-alley-as-covenant-house-construction-advances/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2023 at 8:02 AM, Ross said:

No. Worst idea ever. Totally ridiculous, and ignores reality.

This weekend I saw somebody eating a mayonnaise, peanut butter, and jelly sandwich.

So I can say with confidence that it is certainly not the worst idea ever.

But I also am not sure the negatives of LVT outweigh the negatives of what we have now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 004n063 said:

This weekend I saw somebody eating a mayonnaise, peanut butter, and jelly sandwich.

So I can say with confidence that it is certainly not the worst idea ever.

But I also am not sure the negatives of LVT outweigh the negatives of what we have now.

LVT would likely result in the construction of unneeded buildings that serve no useful purpose. The vacant lots will get built on when it's economic to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Ross said:

LVT would likely result in the construction of unneeded buildings that serve no useful purpose. The vacant lots will get built on when it's economic to do so.

I would count both the elimination of a parking lot and the creation of shade as useful purposes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

We already have a land value tax.

Not in the sense in which the term is generally used in economics, which is to value all land in an area equally, so that maximizing the value of the land has no effect on the property tax, and leaving it as a vacant lot or a low-value use like a parking lot would be uneconomical for the owner.

There are legitimate downsides, though. Most notably that it wouldn't create the deman needed to make building economical, but it would make it really hard to sell land, which added friction could backfire on the whole idea.

I'm just not sure that backfiring would be any worse than having huge lots sit vacant for years, or as parking lots for decades, as they do now.

Certainly, implementation of a Land Value Tax would need to follow the much less controversial (here, at least, I assume) elimination of minimum parking and setback requirements.

Edited by 004n063
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, 004n063 said:

Not in the sense in which the term is generally used in economics, which is to value all land in an area equally, so that maximizing the value of the land has no effect on the property tax, and leaving it as a vacant lot or a low-value use like a parking lot would be uneconomical for the owner.

There are legitimate downsides, though. Most notably that it wouldn't create the deman needed to make building economical, but it would make it really hard to sell land, which added friction could backfire on the whole idea.

I'm just not sure that backfiring would be any worse than having huge lots sit vacant for years, or as parking lots for decades, as they do now.

Certainly, implementation of a Land Value Tax would need to follow the much less controversial (here, at least, I assume) elimination of minimum parking and setback requirements.

So what you really are advocating is to remove the tax on real estate improvements. In order to install such a tax system and maintain government revenue, you'd have to have a very large increase in the tax rate.  Then get ready for the protests about a 75-story office building occupying a full block paying roughly the same property tax as a nearby 8-story apartment building.

And that's in addition to the very real concerns you already stated. 

Edited by Houston19514
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...