The Heights Historic District Guidelines & Ordinances

[Heights Homeowner]

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.

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.

Those changes are allowed under the ordinance but it doesn't meet the needs of today's homebuyer nor it is profitable for the investor/renovator. Consequently we see the result of the ordinance. As you said, humbacks that look like someone just played Tetris. And that is on purpose, by the commission, so that someone someday can come along and tear of the improvements and the original structure will remain. It is by far the stupidest thing that comes out of their mouths.

[Heights Homeowner]

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.

Like I said, it is going to be very entertaining to sit back and read (laughing the whole time) your crack legal analysis of the case. The funniest in this post was that the city can't be challenged in the way the interpret their own charter. Too bad that the red light camera lawyers and Feldman didn't have your legal advice to guide them. Maybe the city wouldn't have gotten their behinds handed to them. Clearly the flood zone case could have been won by the city if you had been on their legal team but since you weren't, they lost, badly. Given all your vast legal experience, it is amazing that you aren't a 5 million dollar a year lawyer with clients beating down your door for help but then again, if you were, you wouldn't be wasting time on this board, would you?

Thanks for explaining municipal law 101 to all of us. We aren't worthy!

[LTAWACS]

Ok, I see how this is playing out. The path of least reisistance is to make "friends" with certain members of the HAHC since it was set up that way. Then make sure that they "feel good" on the day of your hearing. This is a Louisiana-style commission with certain "Napoleonic Code" rules. What will really help us with our Hardi problem is to find out exactly who on the HAHC is needing a little friendship. Then have a "friend of the court" contractor work it out for us. Let's start naming names and play the game.

Let's say I want to put up a convention center hotel in Norhill, with whom should I make contact? Bring pressure on these hooligans with sunlight disinfectant. Or is this just random abuse foisted by idiots pretending to be historians?

Yes it is.

[LTAWACS]

so... anyone know the outcome?

[s3mh]

so... anyone know the outcome?

Check back in about four to five years, assuming that the plaintiff can afford to fight that long (City gets to use the plaintiff's taxes to fund the fight against them).

The City did file an answer setting forth a number of the defenses I discussed above and a few others. The City will probably move to abate or for summary judgment soon. The issue of Kirkland being the judge has not come up yet. It will probably take at least 3-4 months to get through the first few motions from the City, maybe longer. If it actually goes to trial, it won't be for at least a year before they get a trial setting. More likely two. Then, an appeal could take another 2-3 years. If the City moves for summary judgment on sovereing immunity and the motion is denied, the City can appeal that interlocutory order. That could add another year or two if upheld on appeal. I saw another case where an interlocutory appeal took almost two years. The issue was the interpretation of a statute with two or three cases for the court to read. Should have taken two months.

[RedScare]

Yeah, it will take awhile, but the historic district days are numbered, whether through the courts or through City Council. Of the two strongest supporters, one is gone, and the other has 3 years or less. No one else really cared, other than to suck up to the mayor. If the next mayor is not a supporter, it is history...so to speak.

[Heights Homeowner]

Hey Red, is there a way for you to post the city's response?

[Heights Homeowner]

Check back in about four to five years, assuming that the plaintiff can afford to fight that long (City gets to use the plaintiff's taxes to fund the fight against them).

The City did file an answer setting forth a number of the defenses I discussed above and a few others. The City will probably move to abate or for summary judgment soon. The issue of Kirkland being the judge has not come up yet. It will probably take at least 3-4 months to get through the first few motions from the City, maybe longer. If it actually goes to trial, it won't be for at least a year before they get a trial setting. More likely two. Then, an appeal could take another 2-3 years. If the City moves for summary judgment on sovereing immunity and the motion is denied, the City can appeal that interlocutory order. That could add another year or two if upheld on appeal. I saw another case where an interlocutory appeal took almost two years. The issue was the interpretation of a statute with two or three cases for the court to read. Should have taken two months.

I really do enjoy your posts s3. I always appreciate a good laugh in the morning...sort of starts the day right. Do you imagine that the plaintiffs didn't understand that this case will take years? Did you think the lawyers didn't know that too? It most certainly will go to trial but everyone knows it will take a long time. It isn't just this suit but all of them take forever due to our system. This case is no different. But I know that you think these lawyers, plaintiffs and those opposed to the city's actions are all bunch of idiots and have no basis for their objections and the suit has no merit so your opinion isn't relevant but it is quite amusing that you continue to post the nonsense that you do. In actuality, I think you are scared because you know the city screwed up in their implementation of the changes to the ordinance and it put the whole thing at risk. Readers of your posts need to know that soveriegn immunity doesn't allow the city to do whatever they want and violate their own laws or that of other levels of the government. Even your pal Parker has to follow the law!

[RedScare]

Pretty boilerplate stuff. Hardly the crushing blow that s3mh claims.

City Original Answer.pdf

Edited July 31, 2012 by RedScare

[s3mh]

Pretty boilerplate stuff. Hardly the crushing blow that s3mh claims.

Section 233.006 of the Texas Election Code is boilerplate? It requires an election contest to be filed within 30 days of the election. All of the claims under the election code can be thrown out as untimely. That is a crushing blow by any standard.

[RedScare]

Except that the Mayor and her flunkies said that it was not an election. They said it was not even a poll. Now they claim it was? If they do now want to claim it was an election, it was the most undemocratic and unconstitutional election in history.

Again, the district's days are numbered. Be sure to take some pictures of the street signs.

[TGM]

Again, the district's days are numbered. Be sure to take some pictures of the street signs.

I've been meaning to report these to the HAHC, as the use of modern aluminum rather than cast iron for the street signs is a violation of historic standards. The reflective nature of the signs is also not representative of period visibility standards. The galvanized post also appears to use a modern zinc-based coating. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

[fwki]

I've been meaning to report these to the HAHC.....

Did you see the Woodland Heights newsletter? They are crying because the city doesn't have the cash to give them their non-conforming street signs....hypocrites should be happy to not have those aluminum eyesores betraying our true, one-and-only February 2, 1922 biblical creation. But cash talks, BS walks.

IMO, the end of the historical districts will come from the collapse of municipal funding; it's happening across the country. Houston is insolvent once municipal pensions are considered. Even our liberal democrat mayor is going after pensions with a vengeance. Mandatory staff cuts are ubiquitous even in the police department. For the last fiscal year, "life and safety" services such as police, fire, municipal courts and solid waste took department cuts of 5 percent. Most departments — including the mayor and council offices - cut spending by more than 27 percent.

We cannot even fund the operations of a new skate park planned up north resulting in a halted project. She has closed the pools, forced the Little League to take over maintenance of our Stude Park baseball fields and unless you kill somebody with WNV, forget about mosquito spraying. This fiscal year starting July 1 thankfully will not require further cuts, but forget about restoring what's been lost. Meanwhile we have a Confederacy of Dunces setting the city up for a legal onslaught it cannot afford.

Want to patch a hole with Hardy, file a suit. New insulated windows, file a suit. Prop a sagging roofline with columns, file a suit. Sell your property unencumbered by city zoning, file suit. Standardize it, find some interested attorneys willing to do some pro bono or subsidized work, and don't even bother paying a contractor to face the High Priestess, let the market rule.

[s3mh]

Except that the Mayor and her flunkies said that it was not an election. They said it was not even a poll. Now they claim it was? If they do now want to claim it was an election, it was the most undemocratic and unconstitutional election in history.

Again, the district's days are numbered. Be sure to take some pictures of the street signs.

Ever heard of an affirmative defense? The City isn't claiming that it was an election. They are simply saying that IF the Plaintiff tries to assert a contest under the Texas elections code, they failed to file their petition timely. An affirmative defense of limitations is never an admission of the underlying facts alleged by the plaintiff.

[Marksmu]

Section 233.006 of the Texas Election Code is boilerplate? It requires an election contest to be filed within 30 days of the election. All of the claims under the election code can be thrown out as untimely. That is a crushing blow by any standard.

It is not in any way possible that what was done was an election. NOBODY, not even the dumbest historical preservation crazy, can claim with any intellectual integrity of any kind that any election took place.

I know of no election in the history of elections where NOT VOTING means you agree anything....S3MH even you cant honestly believe that was an election...

No election ever took place, thus the election code has no bearing on this lawsuit.

[s3mh]

It is not in any way possible that what was done was an election. NOBODY, not even the dumbest historical preservation crazy, can claim with any intellectual integrity of any kind that any election took place.

I know of no election in the history of elections where NOT VOTING means you agree anything....S3MH even you cant honestly believe that was an election...

No election ever took place, thus the election code has no bearing on this lawsuit.

Donkeys are flying! I agree 100%! There was no election. The City set up a process to decertify districts. It was not an election.

But, if you read the lawsuit, you will see that the plaintiff alleges there was a special election that violated several provisions of the Texas Elections Code. Wasn't my idea. Wasn't the City's idea. It is the plaintiff's allegation.

The claims under the elections code appear to be an untimely election contest that can be dismissed by the court.

[TGM]

S3mh,

Quick question. I'm looking at a potential property in the district to purchase and remodel into a quaint little cafe. A good percentage of the architecture is a hodge-podge from different eras. Can I replace the period-specific water fountain with a modern unit or will I be forced to purchase two vintage Jim Crow-era units? I just want to make sure that my fixtures meet the discriminating tastes of the HAHC board.

Edited August 1, 2012 by TGM

[RedScare]

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.

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.

Weird. When RUDH filed suit against the City, you went on and on about how the City is toast. Now, the City cannot lose. Yet, both suits claim the City did something unconstitutional, and both are filed in state court.

Guess it depends on which side s3mh is on whether the City can be sued or not.

Or maybe, because RUDH got summaried out, s3mh thinks the same will happen here. We'll see.

[samagon]

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.

S3MH when the city does shady things in favor of Walmart:

This is unconscionable, this is a breach of contract and the city is horrible!

S3MH when the city does shady things in favor of Historic Districts:

Deal with it, the city can do whatever it wants!

Nothing more than just funny to watch.

[s3mh]

Weird. When RUDH filed suit against the City, you went on and on about how the City is toast. Now, the City cannot lose. Yet, both suits claim the City did something unconstitutional, and both are filed in state court.

Guess it depends on which side s3mh is on whether the City can be sued or not.

Or maybe, because RUDH got summaried out, s3mh thinks the same will happen here. We'll see.

At least RUDH filed their claims timely. RUDH's lawsuit attacked the intepretation of a specific statute in light of the Texas constitution's prohibition on loans and grants from municipalities to private interests. They had some good arguments about section 380. The historic district lawsuit just broadly claims that anything opponents thought was unfair must somooow be unconstitutional.

[s3mh]

S3MH when the city does shady things in favor of Walmart:

This is unconscionable, this is a breach of contract and the city is horrible!

S3MH when the city does shady things in favor of Historic Districts:

Deal with it, the city can do whatever it wants!

Nothing more than just funny to watch.

Never said anything about breach of contract.

The majority of the gripes from opponents about the amendment process arise from the City trying its best to bend over backwards and please opponents. Opponents wanted a decertification process. They got it. But when they could not come anywhere close to getting the support needed to decertify, they suddenly were against the very process they asked for.

[kylejack]

It is not in any way possible that what was done was an election. NOBODY, not even the dumbest historical preservation crazy, can claim with any intellectual integrity of any kind that any election took place.

I know of no election in the history of elections where NOT VOTING means you agree anything....S3MH even you cant honestly believe that was an election...

No election ever took place, thus the election code has no bearing on this lawsuit.

Then all of the Texas Election Code violations are dismissed. That leaves only the Federal Civil Rights violations under 42 USC 1983.

IANAL

Edited August 1, 2012 by kylejack

[RedScare]

At least RUDH filed their claims timely. RUDH's lawsuit attacked the intepretation of a specific statute in light of the Texas constitution's prohibition on loans and grants from municipalities to private interests. They had some good arguments about section 380. The historic district lawsuit just broadly claims that anything opponents thought was unfair must somooow be unconstitutional.

Good arguments do not lead to summary judgments. Or so I am told. Is there an award for good arguments that still result in a summary judgment? Kind of a 1st place loser award? In the Olympics it is known as the Silver Medal. In the courtroom, I think it is known as "go forth without day".

[Marksmu]

Never said anything about breach of contract.

Opponents wanted a decertification process. They got it. But when they could not come anywhere close to getting the support needed to decertify, they suddenly were against the very process they asked for.

I would not call what was done not anywhere close. That is 100% dishonest. Usually you are just wrong or stretching the truth...here you have outright lied. You are a liar.

The opposition came extremely close and did it in a very short period of time during the Christmas holiday when have the home owners are traveling.

Your argument above is a total and complete fabrication of the truth.

[RedScare]

Actually, not only did the opponents come close, they actually WON DECERTIFICATION in two Heights Districts. Coincidentally, one of those districts is the one s3mh lives in. In spite of the fact that City Council voted out two districts, Mayor Parker instructed the Planning and Development Department to continue treating these two districts as if nothing had changed. The plaintiff's house is also in one of the decertified districts.

The third Heights district, Heights South, was a sure thing until the day of the council vote, when two councilmembers succumbed to Parker's arm twisting and changed their vote. Interestingly, South Heights has the most opposition to the districts.

So, s3mh is somewhat correct. It was not anywhere close. Two of the districts were outright repealed. But, the City ignored the vote of its own council. Hence, the lawsuit. I wonder why s3mh never acknowledges that his own historic district does not even legally exist?

[Heights Homeowner]

Actually, not only did the opponents come close, they actually WON DECERTIFICATION in two Heights Districts. Coincidentally, one of those districts is the one s3mh lives in. In spite of the fact that City Council voted out two districts, Mayor Parker instructed the Planning and Development Department to continue treating these two districts as if nothing had changed. The plaintiff's house is also in one of the decertified districts.

The third Heights district, Heights South, was a sure thing until the day of the council vote, when two councilmembers succumbed to Parker's arm twisting and changed their vote. Interestingly, South Heights has the most opposition to the districts.

So, s3mh is somewhat correct. It was not anywhere close. Two of the districts were outright repealed. But, the City ignored the vote of its own council. Hence, the lawsuit. I wonder why s3mh never acknowledges that his own historic district does not even legally exist?

Red, we must remember that s3, like Parker, ignores the fact that there was never a vote of support for the districts. There is a whole lot more in the suit than the election code violations, which he also ignores. Like all trolls, he is on this board to exercise his moral superiority and his egocentric opinions in hopes that someone who isn't as familiar with the case might buy his nonsense. After 14 years of involvement on varior Internet discussion boards, I can say that every one of them has a troll and s3 is ours. The only thing to do with a troll is to beat them with a thorned club while yelling "back troll, back" although this never does much good. Trolls are very stupid creatures who disguise themselves as a human informed on every subject.

The City's response reminds me of the memo Feldman sent in response to Bradford's scathing commentary on the process were were served up (you know, the one s3 says we asked for). It got a big chuckle from a number of council members and staff. It essentially said it was all legal and on the up and up because he said it was. The response to the suit is more of the "we can do whatever we want because we say we can" type of mentality. Maybe that works...but maybe it doesn't. It will be interesting to see whose court this finally lands in. It isn't going to be dismissed as easily as s3 thinks (or Feldman for that matter) so once the depositions start and the details come out, there will be a whole lot more to talk about.

[Heights Homeowner]

Never said anything about breach of contract.

The majority of the gripes from opponents about the amendment process arise from the City trying its best to bend over backwards and please opponents. Opponents wanted a decertification process. They got it. But when they could not come anywhere close to getting the support needed to decertify, they suddenly were against the very process they asked for.

Your buddy Janice (the Mayor’s comm director) announced at a civic association meeting for one of the Montrose area districts, when she thought she was among only the like-minded hysterical preservationists, that the vote and the ballot were going to be skewed in a way that would assure that the opposition would never get enough votes to overturn the district. She was trying to calm them down because they were all in a tizzie about the Transition Ordinance and the sky was falling (you were probably there.) The problem was that she wasn’t only among the like-minded. And one of the attendees was HORRIFIED at her comments and called the opposition the next day to relate the previous evening’s events. Furthermore, the Mayor stated publicly that she was going to do everything possible to prevent losing any districts. She sent out a postcard saying people shouldn’t vote. Then she IGNORED the vote of her own council. In the same vein as Jeff Daniels on The Newroom…when you say the city bent over backwards, I don’t know what the “ef” you are talking about!

The city bent over backwards to assure the outcome they wanted.

Edited August 2, 2012 by editor
Removed personal attack

[s3mh]

Actually, not only did the opponents come close, they actually WON DECERTIFICATION in two Heights Districts. Coincidentally, one of those districts is the one s3mh lives in. In spite of the fact that City Council voted out two districts, Mayor Parker instructed the Planning and Development Department to continue treating these two districts as if nothing had changed. The plaintiff's house is also in one of the decertified districts.

The third Heights district, Heights South, was a sure thing until the day of the council vote, when two councilmembers succumbed to Parker's arm twisting and changed their vote. Interestingly, South Heights has the most opposition to the districts.

So, s3mh is somewhat correct. It was not anywhere close. Two of the districts were outright repealed. But, the City ignored the vote of its own council. Hence, the lawsuit. I wonder why s3mh never acknowledges that his own historic district does not even legally exist?

The results of the votes are public record. Heights W and E opposition was @25-30%. Barely more than half of what was needed to decertify. Again, opponents just cannot accept the fact that they had their chance and the opposition just is not there. It is just a figment of opponents imagination.

[s3mh]

Your buddy Janice (the Mayor’s comm director) announced at a civic association meeting for one of the Montrose area districts, when she thought she was among only the like-minded hysterical preservationists, that the vote and the ballot were going to be skewed in a way that would assure that the opposition would never get enough votes to overturn the district. She was trying to calm them down because they were all in a tizzie about the Transition Ordinance and the sky was falling (you were probably there.) The problem was that she wasn’t only among the like-minded. And one of the attendees was HORRIFIED at her comments and called the opposition the next day to relate the previous evening’s events. Furthermore, the Mayor stated publicly that she was going to do everything possible to prevent losing any districts. She sent out a postcard saying people shouldn’t vote. Then she IGNORED the vote of her own council. In the same vein as Jeff Daniels on The Newroom…when you say the city bent over backwards, I don’t know what the “ef” you are talking about!

The city bent over backwards to assure the outcome they wanted.

Funny how you always have to resort to name calling. Very telling.

The city had no obligation to provide any special process to decertify a district as part of the amendment process. The opponents demanded the process and got it. The timing of the vote was based on when petitions were submitted. Opponents controlled that process. Opponents were well funded and sent out multiple fliers to every house in the Heights telling people about the ballots and spreading lies about the future real estate apocalypse if the ordinance was amended. Despite a long campaign full of lies (house paint color and HVAC placement controlled by the ordinance), there was not enough opposition to decertify the districts.

What you are talking about above is just another example of opponents taking every word from the city and twisting it into some evil conspiracy. The city tried to work with opponents by offering to carve out portions of districts if there were clusters of opposition. The city did that in the Heights SD. Of course, opponents jump all over this and think shows an intent to skew the vote by getting rid of opponents.

Having come up short on organizing opposition and on the political front, now opponents are filing what appear to be untimely claims and claims that call for a constitutional intervention on the political process of a municipality, which is a nearly impossible standard to meet. And all of this in the face of the reality that the ordinance is actually working well. Builders are building. Real estate prices keep rising. People are renovating. The guy in the lawsuit could not even allege a constitutional takings, which is what I always thought would be the basis for a legal challenge. Instead, it is a throw anything against the wall to see what sticks lawsuit.

Edited August 2, 2012 by editor
Removed quoted personal attack

[editor]

I have removed a few personal attacks from this thread.

Keep it on topic, and keep it respectful. If you can't disagree without name calling then you will have your posting privileges suspended.

If you're unsure, re-read the Terms of Service you agreed to when you signed up with HAIF.