The Heights Information & Developments

[20thStDad]

Is the hole related to the demo or new activity? I saw it but didn't see the progression. Maybe they dug it as part of whatever they are putting there.

[Geo Mat]

Krol awhile back you posted some pictures of buildings that were slated for demo the two below have since been saved and will be renovated!!!

1333 Heights Blvd. Harry James plans to demo.

1415 Arlington In 90-day wait for demolition. Owned by Allegro Builders.

[s3mh]

Is the hole related to the demo or new activity? I saw it but didn't see the progression. Maybe they dug it as part of whatever they are putting there.

I am pretty sure the old building had some sort of basement. I recall seeing the demolition go into the hole and seeing old support beams around the walls of the basement. My guess is that they may have had hydrolic lifts or some sort of machinery under the floor of the warehouse. I do not recall seeing any digging after the demolition. Yale is my daily commute. So, I don't think I missed a dig.

[TheNiche]

It was suggested on Swamplot earlier today by Heights residents that someone like myself, who doesn't live in the same neighborhood as the new Wal-Mart but would shop there, shouldn't have a say even though someone who doesn't live in the same neighborhood as the new Wal-Mart and wouldn't shop there should have a say.

The rejection of the proposed Wal-Mart in Spring Branch was also suggested to be a precedent where a Wal-Mart was previously protested by Houston neighborhoods and rejected by Houston, even though Spring Branch is not Houston.

That's what gave me the idea to write my city councilmembers requesting that Houston try to file a sort of municipal divorce from the Houston Heights if there is a legal mechanism to do so. It strikes me as though this would be in the mutual interests of the constituents, voters, and property owners of the City of Houston and the Houston Heights. Let me know what you guys think. If there's popular support, I might start a petition and create a Facebook page.

[Firebird65]

That's what gave me the idea to write my city councilmembers requesting that Houston try to file a sort of municipal divorce from the Houston Heights if there is a legal mechanism to do so. It strikes me as though this would be in the mutual interests of the constituents, voters, and property owners of the City of Houston and the Houston Heights. Let me know what you guys think.

Nah. To be honest, their constant whining about the proposed (and soon-to-be-built) Wal-Mart is amusing. That thread is the best one I've ever seen on here. Constant chuckles.

If the Heights were to go, all we'd be left with is the teeth-gnashing from the two dozen or so overwrought listeners of soon-to-be-off-the-air KTRU.

[kylejack]

I don't think a budget crisis is a good time to cut out property taxes from expensive houses over a dispute about a retail establishment.

Edited October 15, 2010 by kylejack

[TheNiche]

I don't think a budget crisis is a good time to cut out property taxes from expensive houses over a dispute about a retail establishment.

There's a reason that the City no longer annexes residential neighborhoods in its suburban ETJ...and that's true even those neighborhoods that are quite nice with gleaming new infrastructure. Besides, have you looked at property taxes for Heights homes? On balance, HCAD does a really poor job at capturing all the value increases, but probably because it realizes that the effort is futile to bother with when there's a 10% cap on increases in assessed values on homesteads.

Nah, it'd be pretty close as a matter of fiscal policy. Besides, if the Heights is going to try to exert sweeping influence on the rest of the City, then they're just not worth having around anymore. It'd be like if I had a wife that tried to get me to go vegetarian. Divorce is really the only logical solution to that scenario.

[IronTiger]

It'd be like if I had a wife that tried to get me to go vegetarian. Divorce is really the only logical solution to that scenario.

But wouldn't that also be a bit, you know, extreme?

[20thStDad]

But wouldn't that also be a bit, you know, extreme?

No! If she tries to change you that much, it's not meant to be.

[TheNiche]

But wouldn't that also be a bit, you know, extreme?

Not in the least. Nope. It's over at that point.

[barracuda]

You're right. Petty grudges against a segment of a community you disagree with are a good basis for re-incorporating said community.

[TheNiche]

You're right. Petty grudges against a segment of a community you disagree with are a good basis for re-incorporating said community.

I'll sweeten the pot to make the idea more politically practicable. If we de-annex the Heights, we also de-annex Kingwood.

[s3mh]

Besides, if the Heights is going to try to exert sweeping influence on the rest of the City, then they're just not worth having around anymore.

So, you are offended when someone from the Heights says that you shouldn't have influence over what happens in their neighborhood, but you take offense when someone from the Heights tries to have influence over areas where they do not live. Makes sense.

[kylejack]

There's a reason that the City no longer annexes residential neighborhoods in its suburban ETJ...and that's true even those neighborhoods that are quite nice with gleaming new infrastructure. Besides, have you looked at property taxes for Heights homes? On balance, HCAD does a really poor job at capturing all the value increases, but probably because it realizes that the effort is futile to bother with when there's a 10% cap on increases in assessed values on homesteads.

Nah, it'd be pretty close as a matter of fiscal policy. Besides, if the Heights is going to try to exert sweeping influence on the rest of the City, then they're just not worth having around anymore. It'd be like if I had a wife that tried to get me to go vegetarian. Divorce is really the only logical solution to that scenario.

What is wrong with someone trying to exert influence, anyway? You realize they're going to lose this Walmart fight, right?

[TheNiche]

So, you are offended when someone from the Heights says that you shouldn't have influence over what happens in their neighborhood, but you take offense when someone from the Heights tries to have influence over areas where they do not live. Makes sense.

I did not say that. You posited something materially different and contradictory, pointed out the contradiction, and then attributed the contradiction to me. It's a straw man fallacy. The only person who is wrong in this case is you, and it was clearly intentional. I can't think of a worse argumentative position to have to be in.

Moreover, why would you commit to a straw man fallacy if you didn't think that the people on HAIF were so dumb that they might buy into it? You have committed to an implicit personal attack against any and all that might view this thread.

If straw men and ad hominems are the best you can do, maybe its time to take up a reasonable fall-back position. ...perhaps retreat into pure aestheticism, which is more defensible. Or just pick your battles better and go silent.

[TheNiche]

What is wrong with someone trying to exert influence, anyway? You realize they're going to lose this Walmart fight, right?

It's not just about Wal-Mart; it's much more about historic districts.

The Heights problem is only going to get worse over time. I say that we nip it in the bud before things get out of hand.

[samagon]

Stretch the truth much?

So, you are offended when someone from the Heights says that you shouldn't have influence over what happens in their neighborhood,

I can't imagine what other topic you could be talking about other than the Walmart.

Walmart is not going to be in your neighborhood. In fact, it will not be in any neighborhood. Just because it is closer to you doesn't mean it is more in your neighborhood than it is in mine.

You have no more say over what is done with that land than I do. You're pissed because it's a Walmart and not some random expanse of expensive boutique style places you see in your vision of the Heights, and the surrounding area.

So while you have every right to be offended by what is being put up in that retail location, that's just about the only right you do have concerning what happens there (so long as it is within the law).

You certainly shouldn't be offended that I'm asking for you to cite references for the claims you make, or pointing out that your supposed facts are wrong by providing my own facts and references to disprove what you are writing.

but you take offense when someone from the Heights tries to have influence over areas where they do not live. Makes sense.

Of course, he, I and anyone else who values the rights they have as owners of their property will take offense when you or anyone else tries to have influence over property that is not your own.

You want your block, your neighborhood, your street to fit in that vision of what the Heights is supposed to look like, that's fine, but through the course that you and others have taken, there's a strong possibility that it will effect my neighborhood in the future.

Personally, I would not be so selfish as to potentially ruin someones dreams of what homeownership is in order to fulfill my dreams of what homeownership is, but that's exactly what you've supported. That is offensive.

Now that this has been addressed, keep in mind that every time you stretch the truth, or write something that you have heard is true without verifying it first, or write what you have formulated on your own as an argument (again without basing it on facts) people will care less and less about what you write. Eventually people are just going to ignore your posts all together.

To be completely blunt, I find it offensive that even after you have been urged by myself and others to back your facts up with references and examples, you continue to not do that and just post invalidated remarks and stretched truths.

Edited October 19, 2010 by samagon

[JJxvi]

You're pissed because it's a Walmart and not some random expanse of expensive boutique style places you see in your vision of the Heights, and the surrounding area.

This development will not truly capture the spirit of the Heights until I see confirmation that the leases have been signed for an auto shop, a check cashing/cash advance place, and at least 2 laundry cleaners.

Edited October 19, 2010 by JJxvi

[barracuda]

This development will not truly capture the spirit of the Heights until I see confirmation that the leases have been signed for an auto shop, a check cashing/cash advance place, and at least 2 laundry cleaners.

You're supposed to portray the Heights as a bunch of effete elitists sipping expensive wine while scheming to exert their control and influence beyond their jurisdiction.

[totheskies]

Who says we couldn't have our cake and divorce it too??

The Houston Heights still uses all of the city's services, so just propose to them that if they want a divorce, we're just going to charge extra alimony on their water lines, roadways, police and fire services, etc. Until they develop all of that stuff independently, they get to pay us the big bucks. Personally, I don't think it's fair that our police forces maybe show their face in my side of town twice a week (for patrols... they're ALWAYS at Ninfa's) while the Heights gets to be a focal point just b/c they have more money. Let them pay for cops in Eastwood, and I'd be happy to see them hit the door.

[20thStDad]

This development will not truly capture the spirit of the Heights until I see confirmation that the leases have been signed for an auto shop, a check cashing/cash advance place, and at least 2 laundry cleaners.

And a self car wash. Gotta have lots of those in random places.

[barracuda]

Who says we couldn't have our cake and divorce it too??

The Houston Heights still uses all of the city's services, so just propose to them that if they want a divorce, we're just going to charge extra alimony on their water lines, roadways, police and fire services, etc. Until they develop all of that stuff independently, they get to pay us the big bucks. Personally, I don't think it's fair that our police forces maybe show their face in my side of town twice a week (for patrols... they're ALWAYS at Ninfa's) while the Heights gets to be a focal point just b/c they have more money. Let them pay for cops in Eastwood, and I'd be happy to see them hit the door.

They don't want a divorce. It's one of your fellow Eastwood area residents who want a divorce from the Heights because some of them opposed a Walmart Supercenter development.

[samagon]

They don't want a divorce. It's one of your fellow Eastwood area residents who want a divorce from the Heights because some of them opposed a Walmart Supercenter development.

I think it's more the historic district.

the walmart opposition from some of the heights residents was comedic at it's most intrusive.

the historic district though. As S3MH was so kind to point out, was downright offensive in that, to get what they were wanting in their neighborhood, they were willing to put a good majority of people who didn't want anything to do with their historic districts right in the path.

it's true that what passed is much more fair to homeowners who aren't currently in a HD, but they were supporting it all the way, which in its original draft was horribly intrusive. it still isn't great, since a good many people will still be squarely in the cross-hairs.

Edited October 20, 2010 by samagon

[Jesse]

Careful now... too many mentions of the "W" word and this ridiculous thread will be merged in with the other, longer, more ridiculous "W" thread.

[JJVilla]

Then we can argue about why "W" was a great President or not. It would get dirty and political so quick!

[Jesse]

Then we can argue about why "W" was a great President or not. It would get dirty and political so quick!

That'd be a first for this forum. *snort*

[totheskies]

They don't want a divorce. It's one of your fellow Eastwood area residents who want a divorce from the Heights because some of them opposed a Walmart Supercenter development.

I don't think you get my point. I don't want the Heights to be separate from Houston... nor do I want River Oaks to separate or anywhere else. It just sucks that certain areas of town get such high favor while other continue to be neglected. We should all feel safe at night, and we should all have regular police patrols. Those kinds of inequalities should not be tolerated. I hope that Prop 1 can help a bit with this (if it passes)

[barracuda]

I don't think you get my point. I don't want the Heights to be separate from Houston... nor do I want River Oaks to separate or anywhere else. It just sucks that certain areas of town get such high favor while other continue to be neglected. We should all feel safe at night, and we should all have regular police patrols. Those kinds of inequalities should not be tolerated. I hope that Prop 1 can help a bit with this (if it passes)

That's not what you said in your last post.

Some communities hire a constable to improve police patrols in their neighborhood. Mine has considered it, but it is quite expensive. I don't know what part of the Heights gets regular police patrols, but it certainly isn't happening in my neighborhood despite the property taxes. Those that do have regular patrols are probably paying for the service.

[Jesse]

That's not what you said in your last post.

Some communities hire a constable to improve police patrols in their neighborhood. Mine has considered it, but it is quite expensive. I don't know what part of the Heights gets regular police patrols, but it certainly isn't happening in my neighborhood despite the property taxes. Those that do have regular patrols are probably paying for the service.

I have friends in many different parts of the Heights. All of them with constable patrols are 100% paid for privately by residents. Neighborhoods generally need ~200+ subscribers to fund the patrol

[sidegate]

It's difficult to get everyone involved in supporting a constable, particularly in areas with higher numbers of absentee landlords who aren't as invested in the neigbourhood as owner residents. Ours had one for a while but with the small number of households contributing it became untenable.