COMMENT OF THE DAY: WHAT’S THE PLAN? “. . . It would be nice if someone would come up with a ‘master plan’ for these areas of unrestricted land and at least ask the developers to work within that plan. I suspect if some had been a little nicer the developers of 1717 Bissonnet might have been nicer as well. They did buy the land in good faith as they say. They were not legally obligated, nor are they, to get anyone’s permission to build whatever they wanted to build beyond meeting the requirements of city code. There was also no indication on the part of the city or anyone else what was “desired†for that area. As it stands, it’s a hodgepodge of multi-family and commercial. Neither of which fits the definition of ‘single-family’ which seems attached to every argument made against 1717 Bissonnet. I’m not sure you can have a perfect plan but someone needs to at least attempt some sort of plan for future development in Midtown and the Museum District and Montrose and the Heights and of course Galleria which at this point is at critical mass in terms of traffic. . . . We don’t have zoning but we do have unrestricted land. Which is the same thing when you think about it. No one thought about possibly restricting the unrestricted land until the plan for 1717 Bissonnet was announced. . . . The problem here should have been addressed a long time ago. As for urban planning, it should have happened yesterday. Hopefully tomorrow the next mayor will make some sort of ‘master plan’ a priority for these unrestricted areas and we will have something developers and neighborhoods can work with. . . .” [Matt, commenting on Comment of the Day: Missing That High-Density High Density]
Sign up for the Newsletter
i’m guessing that matt works for the peter brown campaign.
You’d be guessing wrong.
How about this for a plan? You do what you want with your property and I’ll do what I want with my property. If you want to control the legal use of a property that I own, you should buy it from me. Then you can do whatever you want with it. Until then, you can pound sand.
This is the plan we have in Houston (except for certain tracts adjacent to extreme wealth and city council member owned sites), and it’s awesome.
awesome for who?
The developer or the city as whole?
Which is more important?
Awesome for people who care about liberty, I’d say.
And if Matt’s pined-for planner does take over, let’s all hope his plan works out okay because once we lose the freedom to do as we please with our property, we won’t get it back any time soon.
How about this for a plan? You do what you want with your property and I’ll do what I want with my property. If you want to control the legal use of a property that I own, you should buy it from me. Then you can do whatever you want with it. Until then, you can pound sand.
This is the plan we have in Houston (except for certain tracts adjacent to extreme wealth and city council member owned sites), and it’s awesome.
________________________
The problem, Bernard, is that is NOT the plan we have and you do not have the right “to do what you want” in the majority of our subdivisons due to deed restrictions. Which do work. Which some subdivisions have discovered although they, rather than the city, have been forced to enforce them.
As Chapter 42 it is a joke. If I were Annise Parker, I would distance myself from it rather than take credit for it.
With some exception property on “thoroughfares” is unrestricted even in subdivisions. As everyone in Sharpstown discovered, someone can operate a business out of their home on Bellaire. And do. They just can’t tear down the home and build a commercial building.
The problem is the unrestricted land. That is what needs to be addressed. And that is what needs to part of a “master plan” for the future.
Montrose is another mess that has to be addressed. Through the years single-family homes were demolished and small apartment complexes were built. How do you address those in subdivisions that originally, per deed restrictions, were “single-family only” which also is a problem in the Southampton and Boulevard Oaks area.
Heights of course is trying “reclaim” itself and so far seems to be doing quite well with it. And doing so through deed restrictions that were never enforced simply because as people left the Heights other people just moved in and did, as you put it, what they wanted.
Chapter 42 provided some means by which subdivisions could protect themsleves but unfortunately it also provided developers some means by which they could override those means and “do what they want” and that is where Chapter 42 in the end just simply didn’t work.
Developers do have rights per the city charter. But subdivisions should have rights as well and while not defending the “mob rule” tactics that came into play with regard to 1717 Bissonnet the subdivisions so far have found they have few if any rights and those rights need to be protected finally.
And that involves either zoning or some sort of master plan that involves “restricting” the unrestricted land. Not sure how that can be done without zoning but so far no one has attempted it. Zoning by ordinance has been a disaster.
Trying to apply zoning on unrestricted property in Houston is kinda like trying to look the barn door after the horses have gotten out and the whole barn has burned down. Do I like that there are areas like Bellaire where someone can run a muffler shop in their back yard? No. But when that area was developed, they did not put in restrictions, so can’t be done retroactively now. In areas that were developed responsibly, deed restrictoins were put into place, by the developer not the city or county. That is the pattern that Houston has developed based on and it is far too late to do it another way. There are cities in the area with zoning – Pearland, Missouri City – and developer work within those parameters, but those cities planned ahead of their growth. Houston is 50 years too late to the game. Lastly, Houston could regulate zoning and land use within the city limits itself and not in the ETJ. Only the subdivision ordinance cann apply there.
Too often planners take an unrealistic view of planning an utopia which is not practical (Peter Brown) because it is not practical or econimically feasible.
Bernard – There are plenty of controls on the property you “own”. Everyone from the City’s Neighborhood Protection Department to the EPA have a say, as does Public Works, Planning & Development, TQEC, TACB – the list is long. Do you also own the mineral rights? If not, all you have is current control over the land surface to the extent that you are not breaking any of the many, many rules. And there is no place in American without some rules, so boo-hoo.
How did I forget Homeowner’s Associations! They are often the most dictatorial of them all!