Swamplot will have more details later, but here’s the news all you historic-district junkies and haters have been waiting for, just out this morning: The official tallies and maps of the repeal surveys from historic districts that went through the process, plus planning director Marlene Gafrick’s recommendations to city council for changing their boundaries. The gist? As reported earlier, none of the existing districts were able to muster owners of 51 percent of their tracts to send in repeal slips, which would have dissolved the districts. For Norhill, Avondale West, Boulevard Oaks, Heights West, and Heights East, Gafrick notes that “surveys requesting repeal . . . were dispersed throughout the district,” and is recommending that the districts maintain their current boundaries. For First Montrose Commons, Gafrick is recommending “changing the boundary to exclude a tract of land where the owner is the sole tract in the blockface on the edge of the district. The community has stated that they never intended for this tract to be included within the district.” That’s it. What happened to Heights South, the 7th district facing possible dissolution? That’s a “pending” district, planning department spokesperson Suzy Hartgrove tells Swamplot, and its status will be addressed at another date. Mayor Parker is presenting the recommendations to city council at today’s meeting.
- Historic Districts coverage [Swamplot]
And so it is done. Now, let’s all get along and continue to create thriving historical communities.
Hmmm. Which property in FMC? I have a buildig right on the border of FMC. If you look at a map, it looks to be “inside” the boundary (based on street) but the border line moves right around it like it was carved out. I’m not sure how/why. Maybe this guy is trying to do the same?
Oh happy day! Att’a way Mayor Parker and thanks to all the volunteers for helping this along. Houston Proud!
This is nothing to celebrate…it is not a victory. City Council still has the opportunity and authority to vote the whole thing down. Even if city council does adopt the recommendation, and that is all that this is, a recommendation, the lawyers will then get their cut at this ordinance.
These districts could not have been created more dishonestly. Celebrating the most dishonest and non-democratic process in the history of the stealing of property rights is however what I have come to expect from the preservationist. They are goal oriented….any means to achieve their goal, legal or not….let nothing stand in their way!
“Celebrating the most dishonest and non-democratic process in the history of the stealing of property rights is however what I have come to expect from the preservationist.”
********************************
What they have done to your property rights is an unspeakable tragedy, never before seen in the history of the stealing of property rights.
— Manifest Destiny
Remember when you were 15 and the hormones were rushing through your body, and when you didn’t get your way it was a travesty of justice of divine proportions, and those who didn’t see things your were all evil monsters, and you made melodramatic pronouncements about the horror of it all that made your parents and your teachers roll their eyes?
Yes you do!
Hey ConstructionJunction => Get over it, already. Remember, whatever you do with YOUR property affects those around you. You don’t want to come off sounding like and inconsiderate bastard, do you?
Hey John, Remember when you were a kid and couldn’t get your way, so you ran and told your mommy because you weren’t able to do anything about it, because you knew you didn’t have the power or ability to do it yourself.
My mom frequently said, “I’m busy! Go in your room and be quiet!”, which is usually what City Hall does.
The lesson of a high school teacher of mine impressed upon my teenage class many years ago.——
“The end never justifies the means”; he repeatedly during one class uttered those words and they have stuck with me. How appropriate in this instance.
“The end never justifies the means”
Those who are against the ordinance feel the entire process was crooked and rigged. Those in support feel the process was transparent and fair. Fascinating.
From Mel:
Those who are against the ordinance feel the entire process was crooked and rigged. Those in support feel the process was transparent and fair. Fascinating.
______________________________
Oh, please. Quite a few who supported the ordinance KNOW the process was crooked and rigged. And LOVE it. And only a few, whether they supported the ordinance or opposed the ordinance, believe anything involving City Hall is transparent or fair. Like her predecessor the mayor no doubt believes if someone doesn’t like it they can sue. And no doubt someone will.
How was it rigged?
Remember that “rigged” means something very specific.
Caneco: so when citizens ask the people they elected to act on their behalf, that’s some sort of infantile acting out? The adult thing is to never ask your government to act on your behalf? Presumably you favor some kind of benevolent dictatorship, then?
Yes (John) yet another, the entire process was apparently “rigged” and democracy was “raped” (a great comment from Conseco over at Your Map to the Folks Who Wanted Out) because the very vocal minority did not reign supreme.
Matty Mystery, oh please, yourself. Who are these “some people” and “a few people”? My comment stands.
The real vote on this “Bait-And-Switch Historic District Ordinance” will be in November.