The Heights Historic District Guidelines & Ordinances

[Marksmu]

Yes it is. That is some deprivation of due process when the historic ordinance causes your home to be flipped into a $895k, 3800 sq ft renovation/addition. At lot of people in this country wish they had their due process rights violated like this.

That house has an asking price of $895,000...which they have not gotten....its been on the market for nearly 6 months and has not sold therefore its a pretty basic conclusion that this property is not worth $895,000. Posting a house for $895,000 on HAR does not make the house worth $895,000.

Any of us who own houses that are not ugly camelback remodels could post our houses for sale on HAR too for ridiculous amounts that we would never get....could we then use them to say that we are right...look the new homes are worth more!!! As a matter of fact I have a 2007 house on a 6600sq ft lot with a private pool that is now worth $1,200,000 because I have decided that $1,200,000 is the price I want to list it at. Does not matter to me if it doesnt sell....I made my point to you...new construction is obviously worth more...its a smaller house and it costs more!

[RedScare]

I am not going to post too much on this lawsuit since I am privy to some of what went into it. I especially will not go into what I believe are the relative merits of the various causes of action However, I will say that it doesn't matter what a flipper gets for remodeling the house. The aggrieved party is the one who was forced to sell the shack because he was prohibited from doing what he wanted with it. As for judges being afraid of the City of Houston? Democrats loyal to Mayor Parker, perhaps. Republicans would love nothing more than to bury the perceived liberal den of inequity that is the City of Houston.

s3mh knows as little about politics and law as she does architecture. As for the lawsuit, I'll watch it with the rest of you.

[JJxvi]

Yes it is. That is some deprivation of due process when the historic ordinance causes your home to be flipped into a $895k, 3800 sq ft renovation/addition. At lot of people in this country wish they had their due process rights violated like this.

1) We dont know how much money the developer put into the house to know whether this "flip" is even profitable. The house has been on the market since march and we don't know what the actual selling price even is beyond that the current owner hopes someone is willing to pay 900k for it.

2) The plaintiffs sold the house in July 2011 for after they were unable (apparently) to get HAHC approval for whatever they wanted to do with the property. They sold it for maybe $250k. It doesn't appear that the house has ever been on the market beyond that, its at least a possibility that they did not "buy" the property in a conventional sense at all. I suspect they inherited it.

[JJxvi]

A quick google search confirms, that Bialas, Allen, and Sostak names who have owned the house back to the beginning of the HCAd records on the web, are all family members.

[heightslurker]

i think you're right..there is some probate activity on the former owner, around the same time that the Sostak's took possession..

so......where are you going with this...

[JJxvi]

Where I'm going is simply the idea that these people lost money or profit because they "bought at the height of the real estate bubble" and "sold at the bottom of the bust" as described here by s3mh...

I am surprised that there is no constitutional takings allegation. I can only assume that is because the plaintiffs ended up with a profit when they sold, just not as good a profit as they thought they would get with a tear down. Any claim that they lost money as a result of the ordinance will be very difficult to support as they bought at the height of the real estate bubble and sold at the bottom of the bust. A similar old bungalow on Courtlandt that needs updating is on the market for $310,000 and is already under contract within days of listing:

...is bogus. These people inherited a home, thought they could do something with, ended up having to sell it off and they feel that the city's actions regarding the ordinance caused them damages. There is no "profit" here, or timing the bubble involved.

[RedScare]

s3mh constantly parrots that argument that there is some "fair" amount (that she gets to decide) that a person may receive for a property, after which, any claims of property rights are overridden by her wish to look at bungalows as she drives past them. The law does not decide what is a fair profit, except perhaps in eminent domain cases. The fact that WE, as property owners, should get to decide what we do with our homes is a foreign concept to her. s3mh decides what we can do with our homes, how much profit is "fair" when we sell, and apparently, where we can shop when we need supplies and groceries. Her views are very much at odds with the general Texas view that our property is OURS. I hope the Texas courts uphold Texas property tradition.

[heightslurker]

Ah..ok...good catch....

Where I'm going is simply the idea that these people lost money or profit because they "bought at the height of the real estate bubble" and "sold at the bottom of the bust" as described here by s3mh...

...is bogus. These people inherited a home, thought they could do something with, ended up having to sell it off and they feel that the city's actions regarding the ordinance caused them damages. There is no "profit" here, or timing the bubble involved.

[RedScare]

You know, the idea that a woman and her husband can live almost their entire lives in a house in the Heights, attend Reagan High School during the Depression, raise their children here, die here, will their home to their children, and then a person who only moved into the Heights a couple of years ago thinks she can tell them what they can do with that home...in the name of history, history that those homeowners made...is very offensive to me. They pushed this ordinance through by demonizing developers and real estate agents. Well, look who got screwed...lifelong residents who made the Heights "historic".

And, then the best the history lovers can do is accuse the lifelong residents of being greedy. Ironic.

[JJxvi]

Dont worry Red Scare, its still possible that whoever Saphire Equity is got a heck of a deal and will make a bunch of money. I'm sure they are one of the historic friendly developers.

[JJxvi]

Well, look who got screwed...lifelong residents who made the Heights "historic".

And, then the best the history lovers can do is accuse the lifelong residents of being greedy. Ironic.

Their kids are greedy! You know those folks would want their "historic" house to stay untouched forever and all time (or if not ecomomically feasible then transformed into a 4000SF humpback whale.) Thankfully, they can rest in their graves/heaven/wherever knowing that their kids' greedy schemes have failed, and a new glorious monument to the era of working class tract housing that they lived, now shines over their block in all its 4000SF glory like a beacon. No doubt, if the home had a personality, it would vigorously be thumbing its nose at the pitiful "new" houses next door.

[s3mh]

s3mh constantly parrots that argument that there is some "fair" amount (that she gets to decide) that a person may receive for a property, after which, any claims of property rights are overridden by her wish to look at bungalows as she drives past them. The law does not decide what is a fair profit, except perhaps in eminent domain cases. The fact that WE, as property owners, should get to decide what we do with our homes is a foreign concept to her. s3mh decides what we can do with our homes, how much profit is "fair" when we sell, and apparently, where we can shop when we need supplies and groceries. Her views are very much at odds with the general Texas view that our property is OURS. I hope the Texas courts uphold Texas property tradition.

The law has been deciding what is a "fair" amount of profit since Penn Central in 1978. I can only assume that the Plaintiffs managed to get a decent profit on their sale of the property because if they had to sell for a loss, they could have brought a regulatory takings claim. But they did not make that claim. It may also be that the plaintiffs never applied for a COA to demolish. In any event, they have a big sovereign immunity mountain to climb in order to recover attorney's fees or damages, absent a constitutional claim (which is by far the weakest claim in the lawsuit).

And the lawsuit does not challenge whether the City can impose a historic preservation ordinance on real property owners. The challenge is really only as to how the City can impose a historic preservation ordinance. At the end of the day, if the ordinance is held to be invalid for procedural reasons, the City can just go back and do it again and try to fix whatever the court did not like (which will be at least three years from now if appeals are filed). But even the procedural allegations are probably going to go nowhere because the City is legally given almost absolute discretion on how it carries out its affairs. If the City claims that a "public meeting" means a session at the GRB and United Way, the court cannot tell the City how it should define a public meeting. If the City interprets the term "zoning" in its charter as not including performance standards like a historic preservation ordinance, the court will not interfere in the City's judgment. There is just too much shoe-horning (election code) and "should've/could've" (meetings, ballots) in the lawsuit to get a state court judge to slap down a municipality. They would have had a better shot in Federal court, but the constitutional claims (Federal) are the weakest.

Look for a quick MSJ and/or plea on sovereign immunity. If the plea on sovereign immunity is denied, the City can immediately appeal that decision and stay the trial court. There may even be a ruling on summary judgment or a plea before the election.

[RedScare]

We'll see. The problem for the City is that they forced the ordinance on an overwhelming majority of residents who did not want it. The ordinance is fine in the 6th Ward, Norhill and Westmoreland, where the majority of residents wanted it. The problem is in the Heights, where the districts are huge, much of the housing stock is not historic, and a majority of residents are opposed to it. The attacks on the ordinance will continue until the City gives up. It may happen with the lawsuit, especially Heights East and West, which were voted down by City Council. There is not even a valid ordinance there. But, if not, when the next mayor is elected, who most assuredly will not be a historic district nazi, the push will begin anew to either do these districts right, or get rid of them altogether.

The majority will win out. We can already see that the ordinance is a failure, in that hideous distortions are allowed, while tasteful alterations are not. The goal of the HD proponents has been thwarted by the very people they supported, the fake bungalow preservationists. As Houston pushes onward into the future, the neighborhood will continue to gentrify, and gentrification is the enemy of historic districts. These historic districts are akin to the Third Reich, in that they were imposed by force, but keeping them together will prove problematic, and ultimately, futile.

Don't kid yourself. We aren't going away, and we vastly outnumber you. Mayor Parker can only protect you for 3 more years, tops.

[Heights Homeowner]

I am surprised that there is no constitutional takings allegation. I can only assume that is because the plaintiffs ended up with a profit when they sold, just not as good a profit as they thought they would get with a tear down. Any claim that they lost money as a result of the ordinance will be very difficult to support as they bought at the height of the real estate bubble and sold at the bottom of the bust. At best, the plaintiffs were damaged more by market timing than the ordinance.

There is no substantive due process issue here. There is no right to be heard prior to the enactment of a municipal ordinance regulating residential construction.

The election code allegation is also totally off base. There was no election. The City set up a process to allow homeowners the opportunity to create and disband historic districts. The City has absolute discretion to carry out its business and cannot be challenged just because someone thinks that they have a better idea.

There is also the issue of standing. There are a lot of complaints about Heights South and other HDs, but the plaintiffs lived in the Heights East. They have no standing to complain about what happened in other districts.

Then, there is sovereign immunity. No attorney's fees or damages outside of the weak constitutional claim. Sovereign immunity is not waived.

As for the remainder, it will essentially be the City saying that their actions (notices, meetings, etc.) were sufficient, and the plaintiffs will have the burden of showing that the City's actions were completely arbitrary and a clear abuse of municipal discretion. That means that the City just has to come forward with any reason for what they did and they will win. The court can only rule against a municipality if the municipality is unable to come up with any basis for their actions. Even the City of Houston can meet that burden. Arguments that the City's reasoning was bad, unfair, etc. do not cut it. You cannot just air your greivances against the municipality in a lawsuit. And that is all this lawsuit is doing. They would do better by picking one or two issues and narrowing the lawsuit instead of throwing everything up a against the wall to see what sticks.

At the end of the day, the judge will boot this case on summary judgment because it is the easy thing to do. The court of appeals defer heavily to the judgment of municipalities and rarely interfere with municipal decision making. Thus, a trial court plays it safe by standing by the muncipality.

As usual r2d2, you are a crack lawyer! I hope the city's lawyers are as good at this as you are at all this legal stuff. While it would be fun and entertaining to slap you up side your inflated head with the real facts and a bit of instruction on a few legal points, instead I will just sit back and read your nonsense, gafawing and snorting while choking back my laughter.

[Heights Homeowner]

I may have a couple other causes of action that I could think of...I wonder if they need more properties to join the suit to have additional COA's? Ive still got a house that would fit nicely into this timeline...

Yup, join the party. I heard this was just opening the door and plenty more will be getting in on the fun. Sit back and enjoy the ride!

[SilverJK]

S3mh,

As you can see from the lawsuit, your ideal utopian distortion of our neighorhood is not the majority's view. How can you so strongly support an ordinance, knowing it was rammed in without care to proper process? I can understand supporting historic districts, wanting to create a historic district, creating rules/regulations within historic districts; but I can not understand supporting this. Why not go back to the drawing board, create an opt in district with CLEAR rules and regulations. No approval committes, no grey area, just cut and dry clear rules on what can and can't be done. Recognize the current ordinace is flawwed, don't try to justify it, use some of your anti walmart energy towards creating Historic Districts the right way.

That being said I would NEVER opt in.

[s3mh]

S3mh,

As you can see from the lawsuit, your ideal utopian distortion of our neighorhood is not the majority's view. How can you so strongly support an ordinance, knowing it was rammed in without care to proper process? I can understand supporting historic districts, wanting to create a historic district, creating rules/regulations within historic districts; but I can not understand supporting this. Why not go back to the drawing board, create an opt in district with CLEAR rules and regulations. No approval committes, no grey area, just cut and dry clear rules on what can and can't be done. Recognize the current ordinace is flawwed, don't try to justify it, use some of your anti walmart energy towards creating Historic Districts the right way.

That being said I would NEVER opt in.

So, now two people filing a lawsuit is evidence that the majority in the Heights do not like the ordinance?

And your post shows exactly why the lawsuit will fail. It is completely up to the discretion of the municipality on how a historic disctrict should be created/disbanded. Courts cannot tell a municipality that what they did wasn't fair or that the municipality's interpretation of its own ordinances and rules was incorrect. The only "proper process" is the one the City decides is proper. The court cannot tell the City what that process should be. It is a purely political question.

And I am fine with how the ordinance was amended. The City bent over backwards to create a process to allow opponents to destroy the historic districts. There were lots of compromises made in the revised ordinance that made it as fair as it could possibly be. It could have been better, but too much time was spent dealing with people who just wanted to use the amendment process as a chance to do away with the historic districts. Had these people brought legitimate concerns about the ordninance to council instead of spending all their time trying to destroy the districts, a better ordinance could have been implemented. But the one we have is a huge improvement over what was previously happening in the Heights. I am happy to work with anyone who wants to make improvements to the ordinance. But, that is not what the lawsuit is about and that is not what the opponents are about. They just want to get rid of the historic districts by any means necessary.

The people that wanted to get rid of the districts had their chance and lost, badly. They also had a chance to get candidates on council and in the Mayors office, and lost, badly. They cannot expect the court to do what they were unable to do at the ballot box, especially with a throw everything against the wall to see what sticks lawsuit.

[RedScare]

And I am fine with how the ordinance was amended. The City bent over backwards to create a process to allow opponents to destroy the historic districts. There were lots of compromises made in the revised ordinance that made it as fair as it could possibly be.

This is such an utter falsehood. The process could not have been more rigged against us. But, this is par for the course. They rig the process. They change things behind our backs. Then they simply lie about it when we complain. The HAHC is capricious and arbitrary. The entire process is a sham and undemocratic. It is a blatant example of the principles and morals of those who support it.

Working in the courts daily, I know that it is possible to get screwed there, as well. But, make no mistake. As long as I live in one of these districts, we will work to fight it, undermine it, and eventually eliminate it. The HD fans will never get a chance to enjoy it, because the majority will be constantly attacking it. The districts will die. And, I will be there to bury them.

You people have set historic preservation in Houston back 100 years. You have killed what you claimed to love.

[SilverJK]

Courts cannot tell a municipality that what they did wasn't fair or that the municipality's interpretation of its own ordinances and rules was incorrect. The only "proper process" is the one the City decides is proper. The court cannot tell the City what that process should be. It is a purely political question.

But the people can decide who is in charge of said municipality, and since by your own statements the city can essentially do whatever they want, the next mayor could simply have the districts removed.

These mental gymnastics you perform to justify the actions to get the historic districts passed are so ridiculous it baffles me. Just because you can get it done one way (and it is yet to tell if it will last), why wouldn't you want to go about creating a historic district the right way? Integrity is a characteristic that comes to mind... in order to keep the neighborhoods "integrity" (in your eyes) you give up your own.

[Marksmu]

Courts cannot tell a municipality that what they did wasn't fair or that the municipality's interpretation of its own ordinances and rules was incorrect.

And I am fine with how the ordinance was amended. The City bent over backwards to create a process to allow opponents to destroy the historic districts. There were lots of compromises made in the revised ordinance that made it as fair as it could possibly be.

The people that wanted to get rid of the districts had their chance and lost, badly. T

1) Courts actually can tell a municipality what they did was not fair (see slew of cases on condemnation), and they absolutely can tell a municipality that an ordinance was not properly followed and therefore negate the effect of the municipalities actions - this is done daily. That is the precise function of the courts - to interpret and evenly enforce the law as it is written and approved by the municipality.

2) The city did not bend over backwards to allow opponents to do anything. Read the lawsuit. The timeline in the suit is accurate. The city crammed/rammed/obstructed/ignored throughout the process. If you think that the cities actions were bending over and being accommodating to an opposition view you are out of your mind. I have never witnessed a more hostile, disingenuous, deliberately one-sided action in my life.

3) The people who wanted the districts abolished nearly accomplished in less than 30 days what took the city and the HAHC nearly 10 years to accomplish. The opposition was able to get more individuals to agree with them than the city did. The only way the ordinances passed was through improper use of city owned property to get the necessary support...

Im not just saying this to be argumentative, but your version of reality is seriously distorted and completely ignores what actually happened.

[RedScare]

The people that wanted to get rid of the districts had their chance and lost, badly.

You seem to have forgotten that City Council vote TWO Heights districts...including yours...down. We did not lose badly. We did not even lose. The City (read: the mayor) simply ignored a valid and binding vote of Council and proceeded as if nothing happened.

[Heights Homeowner]

It is completely up to the discretion of the municipality on how a historic disctrict should be created/disbanded. Courts cannot tell a municipality that what they did wasn't fair or that the municipality's interpretation of its own ordinances and rules was incorrect. The only "proper process" is the one the City decides is proper. The court cannot tell the City what that process should be. It is a purely political question.

When it was clear that Parker and Company were going to do whatever it takes, despite whatever laws there are regarding these types of actions, we asked the question "Who enforces the laws when municipalities don't follow their own laws?" The answer, in a word, is the courts. So, to say that the courts can't tell the City what to do is just plain ignorant. The courts are the ones who make any governmental body follow the law. What is at issue is whether the city followed the law and no matter how hard you try to convince yourself, I think you know that they didn't. But then again, given the crack lawyer that you are and your keen legal mind, no doubt you know more than every other lawyer who has looked at this case.

[RedScare]

The courts just threw out a vote on the redlight cameras because the City violated its own charter by holding the referendum more than 30 days after the ordinance was enacted. Clearly, the courts can, and do, tell municipalities what to do.

[Heights Homeowner]

The courts just threw out a vote on the redlight cameras because the City violated its own charter by holding the referendum more than 30 days after the ordinance was enacted. Clearly, the courts can, and do, tell municipalities what to do.

Red, I've always had the impression that s3 writes the stuff he does to calm the fears of the hysterical preservationists. He never quite gets it right. It tries to talk a good game but the rest of us actually have the ability to form logical arguments based on facts and the fact is that the courts have no problem telling municipalities that they haven't followed the law. In this case, the City (Feldman and Parker) provided a plethora of reasons to challenge their actions in a court of law. We always knew that the deck was stacked against us and that Phase 2 of this fight would be in the courts where Parker and her little minions wouldn't get to manipulate the outcome. Wishing something is so and $4.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks but it won't make something true just because you hope it is. s3 just has a hard time with that concept.

[RedScare]

Oh, she's just trying to burnish her Heights bungalow owner street cred. If you sneer that the 'developers' and 'realtors' and 'suburbanites' just don't understand that these homes live and breath and have a soul, and that they had to shove that ordinance down our throats for our own good, then the other snobby bungalow preservationists nod their heads and snap their fingers in that hip, all knowing manner that they have. Then they finish their cappuccino, collect all of their Apple products, and leave Antidote to drive their Prii over to the Boom Boom Room for a glass of wine, and complain about the Heights Walmart and a stupid tree.

[Heights Homeowner]

Oh, she's just trying to burnish her Heights bungalow owner street cred. If you sneer that the 'developers' and 'realtors' and 'suburbanites' just don't understand that these homes live and breath and have a soul, and that they had to shove that ordinance down our throats for our own good, then the other snobby bungalow preservationists nod their heads and snap their fingers in that hip, all knowing manner that they have. Then they finish their cappuccino, collect all of their Apple products, and leave Antidote to drive their Prii over to the Boom Boom Room for a glass of wine, and complain about the Heights Walmart and a stupid tree.

I stand corrected Red, it wouldn't be a Starbucks coffee. That whole group HATES anything that isn't a mom and pop shop. While I do tend to patron the local businesses, I don't try to prevent other businesses from moving into the Heights as they historically (and hysterically) have done in the past. What really irks me is how they try to tar and feather anyone who doesn't agree with them and label us anti-preservation when in fact, we are the true preservationists because we actually do things that will preserve our homes and keep them from the wrecking ball as opposed to the dilapidated structures they occupy. I don't have an ugly humpback and never will. I have tried to undo the ugly that was done as upgrades to my house in the 80's. I want a cute little bungalow but it does need maintenance and updating to make it livable for the 21st century. If you have driven by some of the homes owned by this group, you would see that they are in terrible shape and appear to be owned by people who think that keeping a home historically original also means they don’t have to maintain it. They are the eyesores of the neighborhood, not the new development.

The best way to preserve a Heights bungalow is to update the kitchen and baths, add some closets, a master suite, make it a bit more energy efficient, and replace the old rotting siding with Hardi. Instead of recognizing what truly saves these homes, they have decided the best way to preserve them is to prevent homeowners from making any changes that make sense through governmental regulation. Consequently, the bungalows get sold to developers and wa-la, you get the gigantic humpback. We were doing just dandy without their help. Now all this makes me want to do is sell my house and tear down one not in the district and NEVER have another historic anything. They turned me from a preservationist, who spent their weekends soaking door hinges in paint stripper, into someone who doesn’t give a flip about preserving a thing. I would rather live in a cardboard box than buy another house that has the potential to be limited by this type of small minded mentality particularly when they are the type of folks you so eloquently described. I guess I'm just not a "Golden Age" thinker...

[samagon]

Myself, I soak old door hinges, cause I'm cheap, not necessarily because I'm a preservationist. The old stuff looks cooler than the crap they sell at home Depot anyway.

Humpbacks, Camelbacks, and igorbacks are far uglier than Mc mansions also.

[s3mh]

The courts just threw out a vote on the redlight cameras because the City violated its own charter by holding the referendum more than 30 days after the ordinance was enacted. Clearly, the courts can, and do, tell municipalities what to do.

That was in Federal court. Big difference in what a Federal judge will do compared to what an elected state court judge will do against a municipality. And J. Hughes would have probably been reversed on appeal by the 5th Circuit because he simply substituted his notion of what was a referendum v. charter amendment for the municipality's. Courts do not have de novo review over the judgments of municipalities. J. Hughes applied the wrong standard of review. Of course, the City settled the case. So, it never went any further.

Whether the historic ordinance meets the definition of "zoning" under the City's charter is a matter of discretion for the City to decide. A court cannot interfere with the City's interpretation of its own charter unless it can be show that the City abused its discretion and acted arbitrarily. That is the highest standard of review available in the law. All the City has to do is show that they had any reason, good or bad, smart or dumb, for their interpretation and the Court cannot interfere with the City's judgment. This is municipal law 101. So, all the City has to do is say that the historic ordinance is a performance standard and is not zoning and the City will win.

All this lawsuit is about is what some people think the City should have done. People think that the City should have had a process to let them withdraw their votes for the Height South district and other districts. But the City did not and the Court has no authority to tell the City that it should have. People wanted a different process for property owners to vote on disbanding districts. The City estabished a process that was approved by council. The Court does not have the authority to tell the City that there was a better way.

Add to the extremely high standard of review the problems with sovereign immunity, standing and the weak constitutional claim (substantive due process and equal protection only require a showing of a rational basis, which is also an incredibly permissive standard of review for a municipality) and you have a lawsuit that is a big-time longshot. It is a million times easier for the court to side with the municipality and avoid interfering in the business of the City than to shoot down an ordinance passed by elected officials, especially when the main complaint is that the plaintiffs just didn't like the process and thought something else would have been better.

It is not a frivolous suit. I am all for judicial scrutiny over the legislative and executive branches of government. But, the mountain that has to be climbed is more like a wall when taking on a municipality in state court.

[SilverJK]

And your soo proud of that rediculous wall that you and your cronies have built.

[barracuda]

I stand corrected Red, it wouldn't be a Starbucks coffee. That whole group HATES anything that isn't a mom and pop shop. While I do tend to patron the local businesses, I don't try to prevent other businesses from moving into the Heights as they historically (and hysterically) have done in the past. What really irks me is how they try to tar and feather anyone who doesn't agree with them and label us anti-preservation when in fact, we are the true preservationists because we actually do things that will preserve our homes and keep them from the wrecking ball as opposed to the dilapidated structures they occupy. I don't have an ugly humpback and never will. I have tried to undo the ugly that was done as upgrades to my house in the 80's. I want a cute little bungalow but it does need maintenance and updating to make it livable for the 21st century. If you have driven by some of the homes owned by this group, you would see that they are in terrible shape and appear to be owned by people who think that keeping a home historically original also means they don’t have to maintain it. They are the eyesores of the neighborhood, not the new development.

The best way to preserve a Heights bungalow is to update the kitchen and baths, add some closets, a master suite, make it a bit more energy efficient, and replace the old rotting siding with Hardi. Instead of recognizing what truly saves these homes, they have decided the best way to preserve them is to prevent homeowners from making any changes that make sense through governmental regulation.

All of those changes should be doable under the current ordinance. I've done many of them myself to my restricted 1920's bungalow, albeit mine is listed as non-contributing (I guess because it's too well maintained and too up-to-date). If the HAHC disapproves the use of Hardi siding, I'd like to know where in the ordinance this is stated. I also wonder how many HAHC commission members could tell the difference between painted Hardi and wood siding if they had to. Well, they might notice that the Hardi siding it isn't rotting or infested with termites.

Consequently, the bungalows get sold to developers and wa-la, you get the gigantic humpback. We were doing just dandy without their help. Now all this makes me want to do is sell my house and tear down one not in the district and NEVER have another historic anything. They turned me from a preservationist, who spent their weekends soaking door hinges in paint stripper, into someone who doesn’t give a flip about preserving a thing. I would rather live in a cardboard box than buy another house that has the potential to be limited by this type of small minded mentality particularly when they are the type of folks you so eloquently described. I guess I'm just not a "Golden Age" thinker...

I agree that some of these rules only encourage bad design. I cringe every time I see a gigantic humpback, especially if it's on a corner lot where it can't be hidden. I don't see anything wrong with building up or out in a manner that maintains the consistency and flushness with the original structure and allows a modicum of backyard. Humpbacks look like someone just played Tetris with their house, and the pieces don't quite match up.