The Heights Historic District Guidelines & Ordinances

[Heights Homeowner]

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.

Let's examine the facts:

1. The mayor agreed to a special process because she didn't have the votes on council to pass the ordinance otherwise. She didn't care what the opponents wanted.

2. The timing of the votes was very calculated and some districts voted AFTER the holidays. It had NOTHING to do with when the petitions came in. They all had the same deadline.

3. The opposition never sent a single flier after Nov 1st.

4. The opposition never claimed that paint and hvac were part of the ordinance. They claimed that an ordinance with zero exclusions meant they COULD regulate everything, which was the case with the first draft. That complaint turned out to be 100% true, which is why exclusions ended up in the final draft because with no exclusions, there would be very little support by anyone in the community because it was going too far.

5. Your constant claims that there was a fair process isn't born out by the facts. No one (except the hysterical preservationists) including most of the council, thought the process was fair. Noriega, Stardig, Huang, etc., all said that the mayor screwed up the process and that it was an absolute disaster. Even Gonzo admitted it was a flawed process. Watch the meeting where Pennington takes him to task for making that comment!

6. No one I know ever thought that carving out a block or two of the south district was to get rid of opponents. The FACT is that the actual opposition left the district full of holes and key people, like Janice, Jonathan and even Bart would have been out and no way would they have let that happen. There was never any intention to carve out parts with opposition. That was lip service to council members, something they also acknowledge.

7. When you say the ordinance is working, you ignore the fact that the properties that the opponents said would be most affected have suffered a significant drop in value. No one in the opposition ever said the overall value of property would decline. No one ever said that new construction would cease. What the opposition said was property that previously would and should have been demolished would lose value and that has happened.

You are going to have to face FACTS someday. The fact is that the hysteria to keep all districts in tact led the mayor and company to make big mistakes and those mistakes have put the whole thing at risk. Had they done things the right way by getting support in the community, having the vote they promised and not used dirty, underhanded tactics, we wouldn't be discussing a lawsuit. Your accusal that we twist the facts is unfounded and you never address any of the facts that people present. It didn't escape my notice that you didn't comment on Janice's indiscretion at the civic association meeting. You didn't address the mayor doing everything possible to get her way. As long as you want to distort the facts, we will be out here telling it like it is. You cannot make this stuff up and not get called out for it. And like the true support for the ordinance, we outnumber you.

[fwki]

…Lastly, don't think that people are going to foregive and forget. We know who was funding the fight against our community. We will remember who you are when it is time to do an addition. We will remember when we sell our homes and buy another. We will remember when we renovate. The Heights is a small town in a big city. We have fought for years to protect our historic neighborhoods and have won. We will remember who was with us and who was against us.

Let's examine the antithesis of civil discourse also.

[RedScare]

Perhaps the most amusing part of that threat was the use of the term "we" and the statement that "we" have fought for years to protect the neighborhood. The poster writing that has only lived in the Heights a couple of years, and has had no part of the years of protecting the Heights. He is what is known in the South as a carpetbagger. He came in late and supported changing the rules on those of us who really have been here for years. I cannot hide my disgust for people who have no respect for those who came here before him. He probably actually thinks his Heights neighbors like him.

I implore the editor not to remove that post. It is a reminder to others what this poster is all about.

[Heights Homeowner]

Perhaps the most amusing part of that threat was the use of the term "we" and the statement that "we" have fought for years to protect the neighborhood. The poster writing that has only lived in the Heights a couple of years, and has had no part of the years of protecting the Heights. He is what is known in the South as a carpetbagger. He came in late and supported changing the rules on those of us who really have been here for years. I cannot hide my disgust for people who have no respect for those who came here before him. He probably actually thinks his Heights neighbors like him.

I implore the editor not to remove that post. It is a reminder to others what this poster is all about.

Honestly, I had forgotten why I started going after s3 in the first place. I appreciate the reminder that he/she threatened those of us who post on this board who oppose the ordinance. It wasn't that the poster grossly distorted the truth all the time. It wasn't that I disagree with their position. It was the threat. The mentality of these folks and the "we will go to any length to get our way and we will punish those who disagree with us" attitude is beyond the pale and much worse than any name calling. Those folks have an extremist position and like any extremist position, there is no hold barred. I'm actually pretty tolerant of differing opinions but when you go too far, I'm like a grizzly. That whole group conducted themselves very badly throughout the whole ordeal and when they got their way, they gloated like spoiled children.

As you said, the days of this ordinance are numbered, whether it is in the courts or the hands of the next mayor. If the current political climate remains, we will likely see a much more conservative legitimate mayoral candidate and if we do, the ordinance is toast. But we won't threaten them as s3 threatened us on this board. We are much too civil for that.

[fwki]

http://www.hcdistric...lic/Search.aspx

Sostak v. City of Houston

Cause #2012-36113

215th District Court

So Kirkland is out and Judge Elaine H. Palmer now presides over the 215th Civil Court. The theory is that Kirkland crossed the wrong plaintiff attorney who went on to fund Palmer's campaign. She is a relative unknown from Houston, went to Lamar, etc. very Christian (check out her facebook) democrat. Having not held a judgeship before, she will be learning the ropes as she goes, so this could take a while.

[s3mh]

So Kirkland is out and Judge Elaine H. Palmer now presides over the 215th Civil Court. The theory is that Kirkland crossed the wrong plaintiff attorney who went on to fund Palmer's campaign. She is a relative unknown from Houston, went to Lamar, etc. very Christian (check out her facebook) democrat. Having not held a judgeship before, she will be learning the ropes as she goes, so this could take a while.

http://www.khou.com/news/Allegations-of-dirty-politics-arise-in-civil-court-judge-race-152105915.html

This is why judicial elections are such a farce and need to go away. I always thought J. Kirkland seemed much more at home in municipal court than district court. I never understood why he moved up. Not saying that he wasn't a capable district court judge. It just seemed that the fast pace of municipal court and a lot more time in front of regular folks in municipal court suited him better than lots of time with lawyers and never ending battles in district court.

All I know about J. Palmer is that she was a typical solo practitioner/jack of all trades attorney. Lots of family law, some PI, some consumer debt and so on. After a long period of an all Republican judiciary, I was pretty freaked out in 2008 when a bunch of unkown Democrats took the bench. I am 100% Democrat, but will readily concede that the talent level on the Republican side for judicial candidates has generally been way better than what Democrats have come up with in 2008 and 2012. However, I was very surprised at how well many of the new Democrats from 2008 did on the bench. You really just can't tell how someone will do as a district judge until they get to work.

If I was a plaintiff in this case, I would definitely want a Republican. A Democrat is not good news for the plaintiffs. But a new judge could also be afraid of ruling and drain everyone's resources so much that they all just settle to cut their losses (in all fairness, many well seasoned judges do this too).

[SilverJK]

This is why judicial elections are such a farce and need to go away.

Yeah, heaven forbid an actual election takes place... I guess you should just be able to hand pick all the judges? How about if you don't vote, it counts as a vote towards the incumbent...

[TGM]

Yeah, heaven forbid an actual election takes place... I guess you should just be able to hand pick all the judges? How about if you don't vote, it counts as a vote towards the incumbent...

How else are they supposed to get 150% of people to turn out and vote yes for these districts.

[s3mh]

Yeah, heaven forbid an actual election takes place... I guess you should just be able to hand pick all the judges? How about if you don't vote, it counts as a vote towards the incumbent...

Did you even read the article? The allegation in the article is that one plaintiffs lawyer funded the campaign of J. Palmer to get back at J. Kirkland for a multi-million dollar adverse ruling. That is about as close to hand picking a judge as it gets. From the conservative side, many believe that the Weekly brothers have done the same in funding conservative judges to get them out of builder defect lawsuits. Having people who have an interest in the outcome of litigation funding the campaigns of judges should raise some very red flags to those who believe that courts should be impartial. Texas is one of only nine states that has partisan judicial elections. The result has been that the courts have been beholden to their funders. In the 70s and 80s, the plaintiffs bar funded the campaigns for judges and Texas courts were way too friendly for plaintiffs. In the 1990s and 2000s, business and insurance interests bought the courts and we now have the exact opposite--courts are way to friendly to businesses and anti-plaintiff. The entire Federal court system is appointed as are over fourty of the other states.

[SilverJK]

what does that have to do with elections? Your problem is with the campaigning process. Everyone has an interest in who gets elected... thats why they vote.

[s3mh]

what does that have to do with elections? Your problem is with the campaigning process. Everyone has an interest in who gets elected... thats why they vote.

The judiciary is supposed to be a (potentially) counter-majoritarian branch of government that has a check over the executive and legislative branch. If the judiciary is subject to elections, then they will be less likely to act against the will of the majority as expressed by the legislature and act as an independent check on the other two branches of governement. Those who want to see the historic ordinance struck down by the courts would want a judiciary that is not thinking about whether their ruling will result in them losing the next election, but acting independently subject to their oath of office.

I am all for reforming the campaign process. But take a look at how that has been going.

[SilverJK]

People acting independtly without worry of the consequences would be beneficial in other areas too, say the City Council... where Ed Gonzales had to go along with "his boss" Mayor Parker...

[s3mh]

People acting independtly without worry of the consequences would be beneficial in other areas too, say the City Council... where Ed Gonzales had to go along with "his boss" Mayor Parker...

I would actually agree that Houston has a too Mayor-heavy form of municipal government in that the Mayor sets the agenda for council and CMs frequently have to go along with the mayor if they want to get what they need for their constituents (and this is in no way an exclusive feater of the Parker administration), if that is the point you are trying to make. But, if you are wishing for representatives on council who have the same kind of independence as the judiciary should have, then you are wishing for the kind of council that you believe we have (i.e. ignored alleged overwhelming opposition to the HDs).

[SilverJK]

I would actually agree that Houston has a too Mayor-heavy form of municipal government in that the Mayor sets the agenda for council and CMs frequently have to go along with the mayor if they want to get what they need for their constituents (and this is in no way an exclusive feater of the Parker administration), if that is the point you are trying to make. But, if you are wishing for representatives on council who have the same kind of independence as the judiciary should have, then you are wishing for the kind of council that you believe we have (i.e. ignored alleged overwhelming opposition to the HDs).

The second part doesn't really make any sense... if they were independent then they wouldn't have to just go along with the mayor. Yes they still went up against their own constituents, but out of fear of Parker, not because they were voting their personal beliefs or the collective beliefs of their constituents. But I'm glad we agree that council ignored overwhelming opposition (you say alleged, but thats just to save face)

[Markus]

http://blog.chron.com/heights/2013/05/historic-preservation-fair-perfect-place-to-learn-about-protection-research/

 

....The event is designed to “bring historic neighborhoods together to allow residents and professionals the opportunity to interact and discuss challenges related to caring for older homes.”  It also will present an overview of the tools that the City of Houston provides to historic neighborhoods like the Heights that allow residents who are so inclined to protect the traditional character of their homes.

 

 

I haven't seen this mentioned here thus far.   Considering the amount of talk on Historic districts we have here, I'm wondering what thoughts are on this event.

[JJxvi]

I get that by watching Channel 8

[RedScare]

Yes, and histiric preservation is still enjoyable on Channel 8. Why would I want to attend a "fair" that teaches people how to narc on their neighbors? It is the same as touring a prison.

[s3mh]

It is a great idea.  Outside of the anti-historic ordinance echo chamber that is HAIF Heights, a lot of people are interested in having the chance to learn about how to renovate and develop in a historic district.  This is a great opportunity for people to interact with the City outside of the permitting process so they will know what to expect if they go forward with a project.   

[august948]

....The event is designed to “bring historic neighborhoods together to allow residents and professionals the opportunity to interact and discuss challenges related to caring for older homes.” It also will present an overview of the tools that the City of Houston provides to historic neighborhoods like the Heights that allow residents who are so inclined to protect the traditional character of their homes.

So you can opt out of the HAHC process, then? Just tell them you're not inclined to preserve the traditional character of your home when they ask why you put in new windows.

[RedScare]

Well, at least we know that we'll be able to change out our windows between 8 and 1 on Saturday, as all the snitches will be at Permitting.

[august948]

Well, at least we know that we'll be able to change out our windows between 8 and 1 on Saturday, as all the snitches will be at Permitting.

That's your window for windows.

[fwki]

Case dismissed on March 7th, non-suited for trial.

[Marksmu]

Case dismissed on March 7th, non-suited for trial.

 

Any information on where you get that?  I'd like to see what occurred and the reason for the non-suit.  Did the plaintiff drop it, did the judge order there was no standing, what was the cause of the non-suit?

[s3mh]

Non-suit can only be filed by the person bringing the claim.  It just notifies the court that the party no longer wishes to pursue its claim and asks the court to dismiss the lawsuit.  The plaintiffs in this case may have settled with the City.  Or they may have just decided to call it a day.  Sometimes the notice of non-suit will say something like "all controversies between the parties have been resolved".  But only the order is up on the district clerk's website.  The new efiling system gets all backed up as far as posting things on the clerk's website.

[fwki]

Any information on where you get that?  I'd like to see what occurred and the reason for the non-suit.  Did the plaintiff drop it, did the judge order there was no standing, what was the cause of the non-suit?

District Clerk webpage http://www.hcdistrictclerk.com/edocs/Public/Search.aspx and search for Cause# 2012-36113. (leave out dash)

Edited March 13, 2014 by fwki

[Marksmu]

Non-suit can only be filed by the person bringing the claim.  It just notifies the court that the party no longer wishes to pursue its claim and asks the court to dismiss the lawsuit.  The plaintiffs in this case may have settled with the City.  Or they may have just decided to call it a day.  Sometimes the notice of non-suit will say something like "all controversies between the parties have been resolved".  But only the order is up on the district clerk's website.  The new efiling system gets all backed up as far as posting things on the clerk's website.

 

Yes, I know procedurally who can file the non-suit, but often times a plaintiff will file one after a ruling that negatively effects the rest of their case, and they wish to non-suit, regroup in order to bring back into a second case the needed elements to prevail...its done to create a new, more beneficial record.

 

It appears by just glancing at the files that they may not have been ready to goto trial, perhaps lack of funding, and thus dropped out...or they could have determined that they would be better off getting some of the causes of action they previously lost back into a new case....its hard to tell.

 

I looked at the filing, and its just a short 2 paragraph blurb request the case be dismissed.

[BBLLC]

The City of Houston has 6 residential plan checkers and something north of 1200 plans in the system.  It takes 6 to 8 weeks to get a plan through the system YET, the Planning Department can afford to send 4 people to one of my job sites for 1 1/2 hours to investigate the egregious crime of a 3" difference in rafter tail exposure on a porch.

 

Let me explain.  Our plans had an error that a licensed engineer, a licensed architect, the architects boss, the Staff of the Preservation office licensed architects, the HAHC members with licensed architects, the plan checkers in Code Enforcement, Bastian Builders Superintendent, and myself as the owner of the company did NOT catch.  The plans showed the roof rafters of the porch passing through the beam on the front porch.  This is a physical impossibility and can't be built that way.  The framers built the front porch roof with the rafters notched over the beam resulting in 3 inch difference in reveal of the open tail rafters in front of the beam from a perfect 90 degree perspective.

 

It was a MISTAKE, that I acknowledge and will make right.  But rather than asking for a meeting or a plan of correction, the Hysterical Preservation group places a complete STOP WORK order on the whole project.  After 4 different site visits, dozens of emails and phone calls, and many thousands of dollars of loss by both the city and my company, we get ANOTHER visit to check measurements on an unfinished house with an ungraded lot.

 

Regardless of your position on the Historical Ordinance, the administration of it is petty and absurd.  Is this what you want the Planning Department focused on?

[kylejack]

Maybe you had good intentions, but not everyone does. Some speed through getting incorrect work done and then shrug and grin like a Cheshire cat, knowing that they're going to get away with an after-the-fact variance.

[JJxvi]

I agree, its a very slippery slope. What's next? 4 inches of difference in rafter tail exposure!?

Edited August 13, 2014 by JJxvi

[Marksmu]

I can only say that you are clearly in the city crosshairs....The city is targeting you for not just accepting their authority and having the gal to try to turn a profit....I would expect that you will be receiving an IRS audit as well shortly.

 

We now live in a world where if you are in the political minority, or you disagree with those in power, that your opinion can not be voiced without fear of official government retribution.  It is a sad day indeed.