The mayor’s office is out with a “public comment draft” of proposed changes to Houston’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The biggest (and most expected) change: There’ll be no more 90-day “compliance waivers” issued for historic-district properties. Under the previous ordinance, owners of contributing properties in historic districts whose plans for new construction, demolition, or renovation had been rejected by the city’s historic commission could proceed with those plans anyway after simply waiting 90 days. Under these changes, the Old Sixth Ward — labeled a “protected” historic district because the waivers weren’t allowed there — will now be the model for all others.
But the changes also include a completely revised process for neighborhoods to vote on historic-district status. Previously, for a neighborhood to file an historic-preservation application, it needed to submit a petition signed by owners representing more than 51 percent of its tracts. But the new system puts power into the hands of owners who are willing to express an opinion and takes it away from those who can’t be bothered or found. It allows an application to be filed if 67 percent of the property owners in a district who send in special cards distributed for that purpose indicate on those cards that they’re in favor of the designation.
There’s more. Here’s the city’s official summary of the changes:
***
- Revised the Historic Designation process by eliminating the petition process. Instead a property owner or owners may initiate an application. The Planning Department will send cards to all property owners within a proposed district after holding a public meeting on the proposed district. In order for the application to move forward, 67% of the owners of tracts in the proposed district who return cards must indicate their support for the district. The boundaries may be modified to achieve the required support. Historic District designation may still be initiated by the Historic Commission.
- Further clarified the use of new materials for rehabilitation, restoration, addition of any landmark, protected landmark, or any building, structure object in an historic district, or any building, structure or object that is part of an archaeological site.
- New construction in an historic district must be compatible with the setback, exterior features and proportions of contributing and potential contributing structures on the blockface and facing block faces.
- Expanded the submittal requirements for certificates of appropriateness for the demolition of a historic structure and modified the criteria for demolitions proposed by nonprofit organizations.
- Eliminated the 90 day Waiver Certificate for contributing and potentially contributing structure within an historic district or for new construction in an historic district.
- The Old Sixth Ward Protected Historic District becomes an historic district which will have the same protections it currently enjoys, thus rendering the separate treatment of the Old Sixth Ward Protected Historic District redundant.
Five public meetings are scheduled to discuss the changes, beginning July 27th and ending August 10th.
- Mayor parker announces proposed historic preservation ordinance amendments [Mayor’s Office]
- Historic Preservation Ordinance: Public Comment Draft (PDF),
Historic Preservation Ordinance: Summary of Amendments (PDF), and
Historic Preservation Ordinance: Public Notification (PDF) [P&D] - Previously on Swamplot: Big Changes for Houston’s Preservation Ordinance? Mayor Parker Wants a Temporary Ban on Those 90-Day Exemptions
I already said this under the “Room to Grow” thread. The barn door is closing after the horse is already out.
So those who already have their newly built faux Victorian mansions in the district will benefit from higher values while the little guy with the tiny old home will be unable to update or expand and won’t be able to compete with the “new guys” when they sell. Homebuyers in Houston want updates and/or square footage, not an old house they can’t do anything with. This is not fair to the little guys.
And this ain’t a historic city folks, no matter how much lipstick you try to put on the pig. And I’m a Houston native and love the city overall.
A historic district could have worked 20 years back and in a city that can market itself as valuing its history. That ship has sailed for Houston already.
I want to know how many petition signers live in newer homes or newly remodeled and updated homes. I don’t like calling anybody names but these guys are hypocrites.
FYI: I live in a former tear-down worthy, two/one 1925 Craftsman house that we restored ourselves and that no other buyer would touch. If we had been faced with this Historic District, we would have bought elsewhere and the house would still be sitting there as tear-down. It would have been financially unfeasible to save it.
… the little guy with the tiny old home will be unable to update or expand …
The preservation ordinance doesn’t bar people from being able to expand or update houses in historic districts — if you attend a Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission meeting, you’ll see that the HAHC approves expansions/updates to historic homes regularly as long as the work is appropriate to the style of the homes. Expansions and updates can be (and are) done in historic districts all the time, and they would continue to be under the amended ordinance.
If we had been faced with this Historic District, we would have bought elsewhere and the house would still be sitting there as tear-down. It would have been financially unfeasible to save it.
Actually, historic homes are being preserved in every historic district in the city — if it were financially unfeasible to do that kind of work, that wouldn’t be the case.
how is this not a taking? if i own property in an area where 67% of my neighbors decide to put restrictions on how i can develope my land via government rules, that seems like a taking to me. especially when the rules are enacted by nothing more than a majority vote. it doesn’t even sound like it matters if all the houses were built in 1990 or the neighborhood has any historical charater at all.
There are other requirements that must be met to be a historic district. You can’t make a 1990 subdivision a historic district.
First, if I have the choice between buying a house in a historic district and having to deal with a committee telling me what is “appropriate” for the house and buying a house three blocks outside the district where I can update and purchase the appropriate items without going through the committee, the extra costs, the extra time and the red-tape, I’m going for the latter. And I’m betting I’m going to pay a bit more for the second house because I won’t have to deal with that red-tape.
Second, there is no value in a historic district designation to increase property values where half your neighbors live in a new house built before 2010 and did not have to build to the “appropriate” standards.
Also, unfortunately, this is Houston and not Savannah, New Orleans or Washington. In those cities, people vie for historic houses because there is value in history within those cities and each house in the neighborhood has been kept historic.
In Houston, most buyers will just move on to the next neighborhood because the historic nature of that new “historic district” is half gone already.
The most important change here that should concearn home owners in historic districts is very simple. Do you want the city to be the one to determine how your home can be renovated? Forget about demolitions, just concentrate on renovations for a minute. Oh, and dont forget, if you are currently in a district that was under the old ordinance, you have no vote in the new ordinance, it will simply be passed by city council. The only way to fight this is to write city council or attend their public hearings.
If this draft passes, the HAHC will be able to reject your plans, and you will be left with the impossible task of convincing the Planning Department that your plans DO conform with the character of the neighborhood.
The clear message here is that SIZE MATTERS. If your plans are to add-on to your bungalow to make room for your growing family, you are going to be at a very high risk of not being able to do so.
The HAHC wants your home to be proportionate to the original homes on your block. This means that if you want to add a second story, and all of the other original homes on your block are one story, you will be rejected. Any new homes or relatively new homes on your block do not matter, they only want to compare you to the original homes on your block.
As far as demolitions go…they will no longer exist. Regardless of how much money it takes to repair what is there, you will not be allowed to demolish. The HAHC will tell you otherwise when you call them, but their past voting is very clear. They want all of the districts in Houston to operate like the old sixth ward. If there is an original house there, it will stay there, and it wont get any bigger. “NO MEANS NO”
The only practicle way to enlarge a one story bungalow will be to build into the back yard. However, this should not concearn you because, as the HAHC has pointed out, “you dont need a backyard, this is why we have public parks.”
This is a terible thing for the Heights in particualar. We have come a long way, and have done it right for the most part. This will cause families to look elsewhere, sales to drop, and values to drop. It will then result in lost revenue for the schools, which are transitioning nicely at the moment. This is just not a good idea.
Anyone who signed the previous petitions need to contact the Planning Department and retract their vote.
The Heights needs to be protected, but not with the 6th ward model, it is flawed. Get in your car and go take a look.
Thank you Chester.
My street is lined with some tiny one-story houses that are, for the most part, in pretty marginal shape and of very little character as far as Heights houses go. Then there are several brand new large homes that are actually beautiful and look more like historic Heights houses than the tiny one stories.
Those one stories would be what I would be required to match by a historic committee. My beautiful front porch with the antique brick and wood columns would never have been built because it would not be historically correct for the other houses on my street. I’d have had to install decorative iron posts.
Fortunately, so far, I’m three blocks outside the historic district and hope it stays that way. Like I said on the other thread, I was informed by someone in the know that my house increased in value $10,000 overnight because I’m outside the historic district.
Jim,
I do attend HAHC meetings. Last week I saw a guy defend to the bitter end removing an ugly aluminum front porch cover. The thing is an eyesore, and it has no slope.
He proposed removing the roof and building a new roof over the porch. A new roof with shingles and a slight slope to allow for proper drainage.
It was painful to watch. He was barely approved, then one HAHC member challenged, after the vote, to be able to modify the vote. He wanted to make the approved “yes” vote contingent upon the new roof not being allowed to be sloped. He wanted the homeowner to find “some sort of material” to be used instead of shingles that would not leak if it had no slope.
The aluminum carport over a porch the guy was removing is increadably ugly, his proposal was drawn by an architect and looked great.
This process is a mess, and NO MEANS NO will be a nightmare for the residents.
By the way, are you aware they the HAHC does not allow the use of Hardi-Plank sididng? Really? We are to use pine siding in Houston??????
I have “Don’t blame me I didn’t vote for her” bumperstickers if anyone wants some…
Chester,
Please pay better attention to the HAHC meetings before voicing your opinion, it’s not fair to others to provide false information.
Jim,
Sorry to bring up another one but I am left with little hope of this new ordinance as a result of attending HAHC meetings.
Last week they actually rejected the renovation of a beautiful two story original home on Harvard accross from Harvard elementary. I cant give the exact address because it is not listed on the HAHC website agenda.
At any rate, it was rejected for…you guessed it…the use of Hardi siding.
I hear talk of this changing, that they will allow Hardi in the new ordinance. But this is all just talk. And who are they to make such basic decisions for home owners?
Trusting the HAHC to make sound and reasonable decisions is just not an option for me.
HISP,
What did I miss with the porch decision? Please, I was there, what did I miss?
Sounds like a great way to stifle the amazing transformation that has occurred in Houston’s core over the past 20 years. Out with the old and in with the new. That’s the Houston way. Billions of dollars of private money have been spent upgrading the housing stock inside the Loop. We should be bragging to every other city about how we got it right. Instead we want to pass new laws to save a bunch of functionally, physically and economically obsolete structures and prevent the exact type of redevelopment that makes Houston so great in the first place.
The development of River Oaks wasn’t at all compatible with Old Man Dickey’s dairy farm, but I’d say that Houston is a whole lot better off because of it. Get over it, people. Progress is a good thing.
I’ve been to numerous HAHC meetings and had a number of plans approved and what the remodelers just lost was the ability to negotiate. Until now you could always threaten to tear down the building if the HAHC didn’t want to be reasonable. With that option gone they will no longer need to compromise about anything, no matter how unreasonable. I’ve built over 50 homes in the Heights since 1993 and designed over 200, about half of which were remodels. The days of spec building will be over when this passes, and with that the driving force for rising property values will go too.
As for the premis that the new construciton houses will raise in value I would like someone to explain that. You would think that a new house in a desirable area would intrinsically rise in value, but how will the prospective buyers feel about the delapidated houses on the blcok that will,most likely, never be fixed up? And how is a house that sells today for $800K going to appraise for more if the majority of the houses on the block are valued at $200K (at the most) with little prospect of ever being of like value? I think this is HORRIBLE for the new home owners. Possible owrse than it is for the owners of bungalows. The new home owners are going to actually LOSE money wheere the bungalow owners are just going to lose potential value.
i have no connection to these “historical” districts but as a prospective buyer in the near future i would never considering buying a house in one of these districts. we live in houston, where very little is historic and it’s definitely not the single family homes, and people want/need property rights.
what happens in the future when the property is worth more than the home? what will have been the point of these historical districts if/when they have to be changed in the future to accomodate developments of much greater density?
Joel,
The Heights is an odd duck. Most here do not want high density development. The ability to have a true neighborhood 5 minutes from downtown is an awesome experience.
Minimum Lot Size is currently our main defense against it. For whatever reason the preservationists have concentrated on creating historic districts rather than regulating lot size. Or even better creating deed restrictions on your own lot to prevent future development or demolition of your own lot. Both of these are easy processes and can be established block by block or lot by lot.
Looking back I think ignoring this approach was a mistake on the part of the preservationists.
For whatever reason the preservationists have concentrated on creating historic districts rather than regulating lot size.
——
I think what a lot of neighborhoods really want is z…z…zo…*cough* zon…*cough* *cough* zoning. But since one is not allowed to even say that word in and around this city, we get “historic” districts for neighborhoods regardless what structures are actually there. Good for places like The Heights, but what about mid-century and later- neighborhoods that want the same thing. (or soon will when the builders are forced into their neihborhoods)…
As someone who does not live in The Heights but is quite familiar with it, based on what I am reading here, this seems like a bad idea.
There seems to be little uniformity to the homes as to year built, size, quality,etc….One block of Rutland for example has a nicely restored period Queen Anne next to an enlarged well done Craftsman but has a godawful 1970s apt. complex on the other side and some non descript, architecturally barren 1920s tract homes across the street. This scenario is repeated throughout the area.
If the area were more homogenous with similar housing stock, I could see the merit but like others have said, it is too late. And just exactly is so special about a 2/1 frame tract house with no gingerbread or stained glass windows or a fireplace, etc….? How are these homes any different with respect to architectural significance than the thousands of 1960s 3/2/dens built by US Home or whomever all the 290 area? Just because a structure is old doesn’t make it historical.
Why not incorporate less stringent restrictions that allow some flexibility to accomodate for different standards of living (meaning someone can expand their 1000 sq foot bungalow if necessary), or improved materials (insulated windows or god forbid, Hardie)?
And finally, as far as review boards go, one need only to look to our Congress to realize that those that seek positions of power and influence often lack any real talent or have the knowledge to properly decide others fates. What they seem to excel in is ego.
@chester
The porch roof was standing seam metal, a material not commonly found in the area and not recommended and attaching it to the front of a historic home is not an ideal solution. As for the hardi plank, it IS allowed on new construction and additions, the same goes with every other historic preservation ordinance in this country.
@everyone else
The HAHC DOES allow additions, you CAN expand a 1,000 sq. ft. bungalow and you CAN built new homes, it is done ALL the time with approval from the HAHC.
And can we all remember The Heights is NOT the only historic district in the City of Houston!
Ah for the days of deed restrictions and respect for the deed restrictions…
This will be a disaster. And probably result in another lawsuit against the city.
HISP, I noticed you said Hardi can go on new construction and additions….you didn’t say anything about restorations of existing structures. So, if you own a structure in a historic district, you will be forced to use the same pest-prone materials, even though there are now more advanced materials that look the exact same and could save a structure into the future for less cost? Bureaucracy at its finest.
I live just south of North Norhill and I personally know people who got out of Norhill because of the red tape. If you want a square craftsman-style column on your porch and all the other houses on your block have square columns, you shouldn’t be forced to use an ugly round Roman column because some committee believes it is more “appropriate”. But in Norhill you do.
My 1920s house never had a porch, it was a plain box with a few nice touches at the roof line and no real historical significance. Somebody added a front deck in the ’80s. My husband and I saw the potential for a lovely home. It sits on the edge of a neighborhood full of beautiful porches. We built a porch to match the nice roofline details of the original house and to fit Woodland Heights.
HAHC would have denied my porch on principle. The house never had a porch means no porch. Or worse, made me put up those ugly metal decorative posts like those on the tract houses that popped up all around mine in the ’30s.
All for saving what may I ask? An ugly ’20s house just because it’s old?
And, from what I’ve seen, the committee doesn’t have to prove they are right either. The homeowner has to try to. It’s like trying to fight HCAD.
I will say this again, we aren’t a historically significant city. We tore down our history long ago. No one comes to Houston because of its history. You can’t make it so by trying to designate historic districts after the fact.
I would be happy to have HardiPlank banned. If it mimicked the shape of the siding it’s meant to replace, it would be fine, but it doesn’t. It’s thinner and wider and screams from a mile away “I’m cheap and fake.” And no, I don’t mean inexpensive. I mean cheap.
What would happen to a homeowner in a historic district if a demolition was not permitted (yet all the safety requirements were met like disconnecting the gas, electric etc) and somehow on a Sunday, a house was demolished?
If a house has sat vacant and is in a ‘tear down’ condition, then what would stop a person from physically doing the work themselves without the permit?
I have no doubt at all that my husband would do just that if the need were to arise.
HISP,
we did in fact notice there’s other “historic” districts in town, but we also noticed that the vast majority of them incorporate nothing more than the upper-income communities that spawned outside of the original city. i just find it to be a misapplication of terms and demeaning to the intent of historical preservation to just throw a blanket over these neigborhoods and call them historic districts.
to state what others have said in more crass terms, why the hell are people trying to preserve this neighborhood now that it’s been flooded with money rather than back in the 70’s? to anyone outside of the heights (as i’ve yet to find anyone in houston that actually thinks of the heights as being historic) this appears to be an unfair grab to protect their neighborhood and i’d like to see this addressed.
as a citizen, i could care less about other peoples neighborhoods as long as they have the same basic rights as everyone else in the city. i just care about the tax base and i don’t want people distorting the rules in the book that may negatively impact that tax base in the future. to me, throwing a “historic district” classification on these neighborhoods will stunt their growth, impede future development and offer them unfair protection from “ashby high-rises” that other poorer/more distorted neighborhoods won’t be able to get. they may rise in value because of this protection, but it won’t keep pace with the tax-base found in bigger/denser developments.
The residents who signed the petitions to become designated historic districts did so under the current ordinance. It seems changing the ordinance should allow the residents to once again buy into the terms of the new ordinance, or perhaps be grandfathered with the preceding.
Ranger,
If you did sign the petition for the previous ordinance and you do not agree with the proposed new ordinance you need to notify your city counsel person. The more retractions the get, the more likely a re-vote will occur.
City Counsel Person Sue Lovell suggested in the Chronicle yesterday that a recount may very well occur.
I have a home in the Norhill Historical District and believe the proposed changes would benefit the neighborhood and my property value. Norhill might be unique in that a vast majority of the original homes are still present. Also the lots are small so if you want to build a Heights-ish McMansion better to buy a large lot in “old” Heights or south in Woodland Heights.
Heights Wierdo, you know people who moved out of my hood because they were not allowed a square column vs a Roman column? A friend of mine built a brand new home in North Northill and had no problem with the Historic Commission. I personally know people who would like to live in the historical district but are priced out.
Norhill Joe, I personally know the owner who had the round column issue. She’s a wonderful person and it was very important to her to restore the house in question the right way while expanding it just enough and still hoping to see a profit when it sold. She was not creating any McMansion either. She became very disillusioned and gave up. She could have saved a lot more houses too.
I’m glad to hear you know of good experiences.
I still think minimum lot size and lot deed restrictions are a much better and fairer way to go than preservation ordinances.
I love old houses and wish that street upon street were filled with bungalows,but I love our rights as property owners more. It is the job of government to protect my rights – not take them away without my consent
I attended the “public input meeting” last night on the proposed changes. There was not a lot of public input allowed. Here is how it was rigged.
1.We were handed splip of paper to put our questions and comments on.
2.They were then taken, sorted and picked and chosen from and then “paraphrased” by 3 people who have a vested interest in making the city’s historic commission’s ( houston archelogical and historic commision) reach and size larger. Questions were paraphrased, spun and eleminated to allow these 3 people to manipulate the spin to a less ” bad ” light. So basically they said here write us note and we will answer the ones that make our postion look good!
It is the proverbial Fox in charge of the hen house. Who rigged it? Randy Pace a preservation officer( sort of director of the commision) for the commission. Marlene Gafrick planning commission director and Sue Lovell who is the council person pushing this on behalf of the mayor.
Randy Pace has been pushing this agenda for over 25 years and over that time has grown a simple bunglow registration list into his own personal little bureaucratic regualtory kingdom complete with employees, political influence, unelected ruling commission and power over peoples rights to control and be lord over.
Marlene Gafrick is also a bureaucrat that will see her department grow in employees and budget.
Ms Lovell is in her last term and wants this to be her legacy and hates what was built next door to her.
I love old houses and wish that street upon street were filled with bungalows,but I love our rights as property owners more. It is the job of government to protect my rights – not take them away without my consent
I second Mark’s observations WRT last night’s meeting. The meeting was advertized as an event where interested parties could voice their opinions pro/con; most of us attended with the expectation (now more appropriate the illusion) that we could speak out (in an orderly manner of course) but like Mark says, it was completely staged to select written questions that would make their (Pace/Gafrick/Lovell) position look good.
I also have witnessed Mr. Pace’s long lived and unrestrained ability to squelch dissent one way or another. I attended one ‘historic preservation’ meeting years ago where he had a resident-owner removed by police officers for simply attempting to use a voice recorder during the meeting.
My take on last night’s meeting was:
1. They allowed every-one to take their seats and they immediately began to inform us of the plan in progress to eliminate the 90-day waiver as a foregone conclusion.
2. No room was allowed for the possibility that the majority of residents may not want the ordinance eliminated or that the City Commission could vote against its removal.
3. They proceeded to gather, collate and answer only favorable questions as Mark described above.
4. We were told the historic preservationists reserve the right to change the boundaries of the historic district to achieve the required number of votes supporting their position, which is exactly what they had to do in Old Sixth Ward to achieve their goals.
5. In other words, ‘we are not here to hear your opinion’, we are here to tell you how we are going to jam this down your throat.
I spoke with a few folks outside the meeting and heard questions/comments that were NOT brought up or addressed. Here are a few of those:
1. Except for Ms. Lovell, no one at the podium was an elected official or answerable to voters, yet they anointed themselves with the authority to push an agenda that has not been proven to be accepted nor beneficial to the majority of residents in these ‘historic’ districts.
2. Ms Lovell keeps repeating that this will raise property values. Is she a qualified economist who has done research on the effects of ‘protection’ on property values?
3. They purposely omitted talking about what similar ‘protections’ have done to Sixth Ward’s property values and neighborhood quality. Take a drive through Old Sixth Ward and see for yourselves.
4. I’ve heard rumors of a vote taken on rejection of the 90-day waiver, but I don’t remember such thing happening. Did any residents vote to eliminate the 90-day waiver? If so, who tallied the results? Were there independent overseers supervising the count?
5. There are many other comments against this proposal which I do not have time to narrate.
If you attended last night’s meeting, please share your take. We should not allow ourselves to be force-fed regulations that are against our interest or that invalidate our rights as property owners.
This is just a repeat of the Fourth Ward/Houston Renaissance fiasco.
And interesting about how they will just change the boundaries to ensure the districts remain intact. What they did in Fourth Ward. They just drew an imaginary line down the middle of West Dallas and added a brand new Trammel Crow property to the proposed TIRZ district. I suppose Trammel Crow was into building blighted properties.
At least they’re more polite. Ask Lenwood Johnson about how a city official pulled a gun on him in one “public hearing.”
And Annise Parker was front and center in that fiasco. Enjoy as they say.
Of course the difference between now and then is we didn’t have Swamplot to keep us informed.
No doubt the Chronicle will run a piece in a day or two talking about overwhelming public support for the new ordinance. Followed by an editorial lauding her for protecting the sanctity of our neighborhoods.
Houston Rennaissance..blah blah blah…Lenwood Johnson….Annisse Parker is the boogeyman……
__________________________________________
Houston Renn/Annise—Beat a dead horse much? Lenwood Johnson trips over his ego almost every time he opens his mouth. His overbearing personality and stridency didn’t help the plight of Allen Parkway Village.
I’ll not get into the inherent racism that reared its ugly little head with regard to Fourth Ward/Houston Renaissance although I would point out that the Italian families took a second look when they had to sign a second petition and many of them said no and of course the city then drew the little imaginary line down the middle of West Dallas.
Different situation. But the “modus operandi” is the same. Just sit back and watch.
Oh and by the way most people who were “on the inside looking out” in Fourth Ward weren’t real supportive of Gene Locke either. He was city attorney at the time.
Houston Renn/4th Ward/Matt Mystery ad nauseum..
___________________________________________
Isn’t it time to just concede that life isn’t always fair and just move on?
From JT:
Houston Renn/4th Ward/Matt Mystery ad nauseum..
___________________________________________
Isn’t it time to just concede that life isn’t always fair and just move on?
________________________
Oh, absolutely. And it looks like the Heights in particular is moving on and right back to where everyone in Fourth Ward was. When you forget the past, it repeats itself. Particularly at City Hall.
There have been multiple references to the “Fourth Ward/Houston Renaissance” event. I am completely unfamilar with this topic. Would one who posted on this topic elaborate? The facts first and then I am sure the respective “spins” will follow. Thanks.
If you have been ignoring this subject you had better wake up…here is a quote from a pro-preservation ordinance website.
“IN THE WORKS!
Areas currently preparing Historic Designation applications to be submitted after the deadline expires are: Independence Heights, Brook Smith, Germantown and Lower Heights. If you are interested in securing Historic Designation for your area, click here. ”
I don’t even know what “Lower Heights” is but apparently it is historic.
some of us may choose to move on, some of us not. It’s a free country!
You love bungalows but what about your rights? You and everyone else in an old house have been under attack. You have no rights now. A developer buys a house, tears it down and builds a FAKE OLD NEW HOUSE (look kids we’re in Disney World) or puts two or three houses in its place. It’s block busting baby…and it will impact the value of your property as they drive up the lot value that lowers your improvement value. You don’t have any rights….when developers (and the realtors that enable them) change the character of the neighborhood and you don’t have any way to stop them.
What rights are you really trying to protect? I want an addition, sniff, sniff, sniff and HAHC won’t let me? Do you really buy that? Look at the statistics over the last year in the HDs. Overall, 75% of the CA requests were approved. Darn… that miniature Astrodome you wanted to add to the front of your house was turned down? And your rights are being trampled? REALLY? Your right? What about your neighbors’ rights?
For those stupid “yes but no†signs in the Height. Where are they? In the yards of realtors and developers and 90% of them are in front of those NEW FAKE OLD HOUSES. Bill Baldwin, Mary Wassef and Kathleen Powell are behind the “responsible historic destruction†website with all the misinformation (ok…I’ll call it what it is…lies). Don’t fall for the Destructionist’s scare tactic: “development will stop, prices will plummet, families will leave, schools will be terrible, prices will fall and we all dieâ€. Spare me. The reason they are so against the proposed amendment is because they won’t earn their Enron profits off our communities in the future. Let’s see…do you make more money if you develop, build, sell and appraise one house or three houses on the same lot? They want to continue to block bust and the uneducated buy their inventory. “Oh…we just moved in from Katy because we loooooove old housesâ€. Really? So that’s why you bought that a FAKE OLD NEW HOUSE?
So for those that read this…look at the amendment, go to the meetings, call the City and ask questions. The City isn’t trying to screw you…it’s the mentioned developers, builders and realtors (not all are bad…some are actually quiet considerate and reasonable).
Finally, thank you Annise Parker for having the backbone for this. By golly, when people learn the facts they will see how important this really is to the future of Houston.
To those that don’t get it…go build that FAKE OLD NEW HOUSE on the prairie in Katy. Or if you like that New Orleans style so much…take it out of the Heights and go to NOLA. They’d love to have you.
From NorhillJoe:
There have been multiple references to the “Fourth Ward/Houston Renaissance†event. I am completely unfamilar with this topic. Would one who posted on this topic elaborate? The facts first and then I am sure the respective “spins†will follow. Thanks.
_________________________
Your best bet is to go through the archives of the Houston
Press and the Houston Chronicle although with the Houston Chronicle I wouldn’t put much stock in any story it ran after James Robinson left. Houston Renaissance was a “public/private” entity that was created to “revitalize” Fourth Ward. What it atetmpted to do was run off the “poor blacks” and rip off the wealthy Italians who owned most of the land. All were offered $6 a square foot. And then threatened with condemnation under eminent domain if they they didn’t take it.
There was a complaint filed with the AG’s Office that left a big question mark about the participation of both the Houston Renaissance Board members and elected officials participation in what had to be the biggest attempted land grab ever attempted in Houston. Under agreement with the AG’s Office over 80 parcels of land Houston Rennaisance bought with public funding was committed to affordable housing. But of course the question of how much was spent by Houston Renaissance was brought up when Houston Renaissance would sell the land for the provision of affordable housing at a price per squre foot that would have precluded that provision. Particularly with regard to the statement of a city councilmember that Houston Renaissance had spent $24.5 million to buy $6.5 million worth of land in Fourth Ward. Stank then, stinks now. But it was just a bunch of “poor blacks” so no one cared. Although some of the wealthy Italian families cared. Particularly after they were told to take the $6 or lose their property it to eminent domain.
There were a number of designated historic structures that were torn down for no reason except Houston Renaissance just wanted to flex it muscle so to speak. While all the “preservationists” sat around and absolutely nothing to stop it.
The part of Fourth Ward known as Freedmans Towns was designated a federal historic district long before Houston Renaissance was created with the goal of gentrification and turning Fourth Ward into River Oaks East. The federal designation didn’t mean a thing.
What angered many was the designation of Old Sixth Ward as the first “protected” district. It should have been Fourth Ward but then Fourth Ward still hasn’t been designated as any type of district by the city. And probably won’t be. Some would still like to be rid of the “poor blacks” particularly the ones who owned their homes to begin with and dared to refuse to take the ridiculous offer of $6 a square foot from Houston Renaissance.
Houston Renaissance even hired a “big gun” law firm to “lobby” the AG”s Office to quash the complaint. Which actually ensured the complaint would bve investigated and acted on after incoming AG John Cornyn read the story in the Houston Chronicle. And didn’t care for the implication.
I think about the houses that were torn down in Fourth Ward and look at the houses being protected in Old Sixth Ward and se the problem is really quite “black and white.” The worst of it the black politicans who sold out their own in Fourth Ward. And still are.
From Allen’s Bro:
Look at the statistics over the last year in the HDs. Overall, 75% of the CA requests were approved.
_________________________
That doesn’t mean a thing. Because this proposed ordinance has not been in effect for the last year.
A better question would be how many CA requests have been approved in Old Sixth Ward?
The stat is meaningful as the CA is required in the HD’s now. The proposed ordinance doesn’t change that. What it changes is that the 90 day waiting period then do whatever you want goes away. Also, if you look at the denials…they were voted down by 80% of the commissioners.
The funny part is the FAKE OLD HOUSES look so much better than the junk heaps they replaced. I’d rather live in a FAKE OLD HOUSE with a clean bathroom and new wiring than a claptrap bungalow that has not been properly maintained for 50 of its 80 years.
So I guess it would be acceptable to build a NEW HOUSE as long as it is MODERN and and NOT FAKE.
Ah…one of those that wants to clean up the neighborhood. Clean it up too much and you loose the diversity that is the Height’s second most attractive characteristic.
It doesn’t cost a whole lot more to renovate and add on to an existing old house. I saw a redo in process on the west side the other day. I think it was Ashland off 11th? Anyway amigo,it does take vision and energy. Can you still buy those plans for the 4/3 on http://www.Disney.com? I’d like the one with the clean Pirates of the Caribbean bathroom please.I guess that’s a lot easier.
is “Destructionist’s” a word?
chill out, this board is usually pretty civil.
Just making an observation about The Heights. Don’t live there nor want to live there. The dumpy bungalows, the re-done bungalows, the FAKE OLD HOUSES and infill Tricon Townhomes aren’t really my thing.
So if the shabby around the edges thing is the 2nd best thing, what’s the best?
All of this is moot. Sue Lovell’s committee will announce that 72% of the homeowners in the districts have approved the new ordinance. And we all know we can trust her. City Council will follow suit and approve the ordinance. And she and Annise Parker will “high-five” each other. While shooting the bird at everyone else. Some of whom, of course, may decide to go sue the city. Another lawsuit the taxpayers will have to pay for over this “zoning by ordinance” which the voters didn’t approve but some spoiled brats scattered about demanded.
Of course the developers will work their way around it. And the historic homes the ordinance is supposed to protect will of course be “unpreserved” particularly if they are on nice big lots.
“You have no rights now”, “FAKE OLD NEW HOUSE(look kids we’re in Disney World)”, “It’s block busting baby…and it will impact the value of your property as they drive up the lot value that lowers your improvement value…”; “..For those stupid “yes but no†signs in the Height..” [“responsible historic destruction†website with all the misinformation (ok…I’ll call it what it is…lies)]. “The reason they are so against the proposed amendment is because they won’t earn their Enron profits off our communities in the future.”; “They want to continue to block bust and the uneducated buy their inventory.”;”The City isn’t trying to screw you…it’s the mentioned developers, builders and realtors..”; “By golly, when people learn the facts they will see how important this really is to the future of Houston.”
=========================================
Any other “FACTS” you forgot to mention?
“To those that don’t get it…go build that FAKE OLD NEW HOUSE on the prairie in Katy. Or if you like that New Orleans style so much…take it out of the Heights and go to NOLA. They’d love to have you.”
==========================================
It is irritating to have “HD” property owners that want new houses and disagree with you isn’t it?
There are more of us than there are of you. Get used to it; we are not going away!
I find it funny that a preservationist is complaining about Bill Baldwin, the Bill Baldwin who carefully restored and resides in one of the most historic homes in Houston, the Wilson mansion, the former mental institution on Bayland that sat in disrepair for years. Yeah, he doesn’t care about preservation (sarcasm).
PS there’s going to be a “yes but no” sign in the front yard of my 1925 restored bungalow as soon as I get my hands on one.
From Heights Weirdo:
I find it funny that a preservationist is complaining about Bill Baldwin, the Bill Baldwin who carefully restored and resides in one of the most historic homes in Houston, the Wilson mansion, the former mental institution on Bayland that sat in disrepair for years. Yeah, he doesn’t care about preservation (sarcasm).
___________________________
Ah, but he opposes this new preservation ordinance. Says all that needs to be said.
Kill the mesage by killing the messenger. Another “modus operandi” of this lovely group at City Hall.
Matt Mystery, thanks for the post explaining the Fourth Ward/Houston Renaissance episode and for providing suggestions where additional information can be found. I will need to do further research.
Chester,
Even if it’s not, we still get the message.
Ok, after going through the posts again I have lost track of the arguments. As I have stated I live in a historical district and am generally in favor of the proposed changes. Specifically the proposal to eliminate the 90 wait loop hole. I will attempt to explain why and welcome counter arguments. My historical district has by a large majority historical contributing structures. If these structures are torn down and replaced with new, Height-ey or Heights-ish homes then it ceases to be “Historic”. The neighborhood becomes just another group of lots close to downtown where builders are putting up big homes out to the lot line. The value in my home now is due to it being located in an unique area where the homes are old bungalows and cottages. Unique and scarce, which makes it more valuable than just the lot.
This is Bill Baldwin. I have never said I oppose a stronger preservation ordinance. In fact, I applied for and have Protected Landmark Designation on my own home. A restriction I understood when I placed it on my home.
What I oppose is a mandate on homeowners without their consent.
If the overwhelming majority of homeowners on a block or neighborhood support the changes – they should be able to get them. But the changes should not be implemented by the city without clear support.
I have specifically promoted a repetition in existing districts and a clear mandate of 67% support in new districts from all homeowners impacted – not just a balloting process where a minority of homeowners can restrict a neighborhood. Such a strong ordinance change should require a clear majority of ownership support prior to implementation.
I also support including in the ordinance many more incentives for preservation: the easing of standards for protected status (if a district only has to be 50 years old then landmarks should only have to be 50 years old); tax incentives for interior remodels in historic districts (if the kitchen is remodeled it is let likely to be torn down!); etc.
I love my city and all of our historic neighborhoods and homes.
From Bill Baldwin:
I also support including in the ordinance many more incentives for preservation: the easing of standards for protected status (if a district only has to be 50 years old then landmarks should only have to be 50 years old); tax incentives for interior remodels in historic districts (if the kitchen is remodeled it is let likely to be torn down!); etc.
____________________________________
And this is what a growing number of people who oppose zoning object to in all of this. Most of the neighborhoods inside Beltway 8 meet the “50 year standard” or will shortly. So in essence the city is bypassing the voters and establishing zoning by ordinance.
In clear violation of the City Charter.
Norhill Joe,
My concern with the proposed ordinance is the lack of clear guidelines for additions to a bungalow.
The “design guidelines” that were created by the city are extremely vague and are essentially a series of pictures.
When one is designing an addition they need real numbers and dimensions in order for the architect to create CAD drawings.
The HAHC has consistently taken the position that bungalow additions should be done at the rear of the home, and should be able to be removed at a later date thus keeping the original structure in its original condition.
I disagree with this. I think additions can be created to the front and sides of a bungalow and result in fantastic looking homes that are in character and scale with the historic homes on the block.
Allens Bro,
I do not support the new ordinance, but I do support minimum lot size, set backs, and restricting Heights lots to single family use only. I do not support high density development.
Most of those that do not support the ordinance share the same views, including the three people you attacked in your post, they all live in restored bungalows.
Chester, I can appreciate your concern about the lack of clear design guides. Without a consistent and detailed design guide the restoration/ renovation process can be lengthy and costly. Also I think it would be important that the guidelines fit the neighborhood instead of a one set for all neighborhoods.
Regarding the HAHC preference for additions only at the rear of the home. In this case I agree with the HAHC preference yet realize exemptions could be made. I have seen some “fantastic” looking additions to the rear but never to the front. I am being specific to my neighborhood. The non-corner lots are 50by100, close to the street and I cannot see how an addition to the front would bring much space or utility to the existing structure. Also, an addition to the front would significantly change the character of the home. I have seen a few front porches that have been enclosed. A small minority look good but the others are ugly and take away from the home.
I believe neighborhoods like Woodland Heights and old Heights proper where the lots are bigger would be better suited to accomodate non rear of home additions.
Joe,
I agree with you about front porches, they rarely look good in enclosed. Most of the enclosed front porches you see in the Heights were done years ago.
I am speaking more about adding to the overall width of the home. if you add 8′ of width to the house you can easily modify the roof to either have a larger version of the original gable roof, or you can add a dormer style roof over the new addition. Both of these options are unacceptable to the HAHC.
If you agree about the design guidelines being vague I encourage you to express this to Sue Lovell or others on the task force charged to rewrite the ordinance. It has been difficult for those opposed to the ordinance to give meaningful input or suggestions in its drafting.
The process has been extremely one sided from the get go. We are going from one extreme to the other, apparently without compromise.
I live in one of the historic districts, and I STRONGLY support the proposed change to the ordinance. And so do 100 per cent of my neighbors with whom I have discussed this issue.
If you do not live in an existing historic district this change will not affect you, except inasmuch as it may make it more difficult to get residents to agree to the historic district designation, if you wanted to do that where you live.
Dennis,
I have spoken to my neighbors as well, my experience was some for, some against. I think that is why this issue is heating up. The South Heights district passed with 51.23% petition support, my experience talking to folks leads me to believe that the numbers are close. Many people are not so sure about making this thing a “no means no” scenario. This really limits what you can do to your home in 10 or 20 years.
Dennis,
Have you or any of your neighbors ever butted heads with HAHC over a renovation?
Baldwin does have a spectacular house. It’s high dollar. How did he afford it? His income comes from the commission on the sale of new houses where old historical ones once stood. His bio the HAR website (http://members.har.com/sites/karenderr/dispAgentProfile.cfm?MEMBER_NUMBER=460158) states he had sales of $31.1 million in 2008. Here’s how it works: a realtor helps the developers buy the lots with the old houses (3%) then they sell the two new construction $450,000 or one $650,000+ new construction built in its place.
The ordinance goes against Baldwin’s commercial interest. I don’t believe he cares about homeowner’s property rights. It’s in his interest to have builders like Allegro(Lambert Arceneaux) and the others to continue to buy, tear down and build two on a lot or a gigantic mcmansion. You make more money on more square footage. Oh…and Allegro did the renovation of the Baldwin house!
Now lets look at the others behind the Yes but No website:
Check out Katheleen Powell’s website (www.homeintheheights.com). All her listings are houses built between 2005-2008 with one dreadful house at 1115 Herimer. Next time you go to Kroger take a quick drive down Herkimer south of 11th. It’s got to be the worst street in greater Heights. Developers gone wild….a canyon of dense ugly.
Next look at Mary Wassef’s website (www.wassef.knowyourkwagent.com). Her listings were built recently or are in construction now (an artist’s rendering). Prices range from $610,000-$999,000 It looks like buy the lot, tear down the house (block busting) and build two big or one mcmansion where the old previously existed.
Where are the Yes but No signs? In the yards of Baldwin, Powell, Wassef, Arceneaux, Easley (isn’t he Allegro’s accountant?), Derr and the new mcmansions they built or sold. They want to continue to profit without constraint.
Finally, Baldwin’s statement on Ch. 11 yesterday was speculation without facts/data to support it. Sales have slowed because of the expiration of the tax credit…..and it’s the economy stupid.
The City’s ordinance is intended to give homeowners’ rights that don’t currently have to protect them from developers, and realtors that change their streets. Homeowner’s have no say in the future of their street.
The repetitioning point just gives Baldwin and the others more time to spread their misinformation like you can’t paint your house any color, change light fixtures and perform routine maintenance and HAHC is considering requiring approval for interior changes. It’s on their website…. all misinformation to scare ordinary homeowner’s. The Yes but No’ers aren’t interested in my property rights…they are interested in protecting their profit model.
Allen,
The original Heights was created by a developer, and builders. I guess the original buyers were taken advantage of?
Your argument is ridiculous. I do not support the proposed ordinance because the HAHC has rejected a planned bungalow addition that I presented to them. I could care less about the people you mentioned, nor do I care what they do for a living, or how much money they make!
Thank you for trying to protect me from them but I really do not need your help.
As I’ve said, I STRONGLY support the ordinance. In this historic district where I live there are many, many more people in favor of the ordinance than there are opposed to it. Yes, it limits what I can do with my home. More importantly to me, it limits what my neighbors can do with their homes. No, I have not “butted heads” with the HCAC. I have attended many of their meetings, and have no seen anyone except developers wishing to demolish historic homes “but heads” with them.
I STRONGLY support this ordinance.
Dennis,
I have seen some pretty silly applications being contested by the hahc. Your comment is just not truthful.
Chester:
We may disagree. I believe that we do. However, it is dishonorable to state that my comment is “not truthful.” That implies, of course, that I am lying. And that is dishonorable. Let’s keep the dialog civil.
For the record, I am not lying. I have been to many HCAC meetings, and I have only seen disputes with developers – never with residents wanting to change their homes by adding on an addition or whatever. If you have seen many such disputes we probably have not been to the same meetings.
Heights Resident:
To state that “the South Heights district passed with 51.23% petition support” and in so doing imply that only a very slim majority approve is misleading. It’s a bit like saying that a politician who gets only slightly more than the required number of signatures on a petition to run for office is unpopular. Once a majority is reached, the ordinance is passes in a particular district. No one would want to spend more time than is necessary gaining more signatures. It isn’t like an election where everyone votes. It’s done by petition. Once the majority is passed, the ordinance is passed. No more work is needed. It’s a time-consuming process, so clearly the people involved will stop when they have enough signatures to pass the ordinance. I cannot speak to the popularity of the ordinance in the South Heights District, but I can say that, prima facie, the percentage of signatures is not a meaningful way to gauge support. The percentage tells us that the ordinance passed – nothing more.
Heights Resident:
Last year an old neighbor was denied a CA for new construction (she bought the lot two years ago andt he house was torn down 8 yrs ago, don’t’ know the condition). I learned about the plans and denial well after the fact. When I asked her what happened, she said the architect went to the HAHC and it was denied. She didn’t know why because she didn’t go to the meeting and the architect had a vested interest in blaming HAHC for this lack of due diligence. I asked her if she had met with Pace and she said no…the architect did everything. What surprised me about this was that she’s very intelligent and she took no ownership in the planning of her new house. If folks meet with Pace and hire an architect will a little common sense denials would be further minimized. It’s not like she was committed to a three story Longoria modern. She would have been fine with craftsman (rather than quasi Disney Victorian). Her failure to do her homework resulted in a denial. What is the actual rate of denials within the Historic Districts? Last time I checked…it was pretty low…like 25%. Did you meet with Pace early on? What did he say? Why was your addition rejected?
For Heights South…a petition with 51.23% is very successful. It doesn’t mean that the other 48.77% was against it. They may not have signed it because the exisiting Historic District ordinance is a joke. The only thing that you got was a special street sign. Others don’t care but that doesn’t mean they are against it.
So what is the real issue with the proposed ordinance? Do you have plan to change the front of your house from queen anne to modern or you want to sell your house and lot for lot value or is it a political thing? Really, I don’t get it.
Dennis,
your point on the percentage is well taken. However, if you were at the hahc hearing on the district you will note that they did not have the 51%. They simply reduced the size of the district, cutting out homes that did not support, in order to make the numbers work.
They have been rushing to get the south district approved because they know the support for a “no means no district” is different than the support for the current ordinance.
They have also changed the percentage to 67% because all sides have agreed that the petition process was flawed. You can expect a re-petition in heights east and south. This time it will be conducted by the city via the mail.
Dennis,
Sorry if I offended you or anyone. I guess my farm girl slip is showing.
The bulls and goats often butt heads to establish proper pecking order.
Oops, there I go again……..
So, Dennis, you admit you want to control what your neighbors do. Why do you think that’s reasonable? Why is the color, siding type, window design, etc. of my house ANY of your business if there aren’t any mutually agreed deed restrictions? Why are trying to have the City of Houston do your dirty work? Would it really offend your sensibilities if I sided a bungalow with Hardiplank because that’s all I can afford? Would you feel like ripping your eyes out if I put vinyl windows in a 1920’s house so my utility bills go down?
Ross
I did not admit that I want to control what my neighbors do. Rather, I want the law to do that. There is a difference.
I wouldn’t object to any of the things you mention. I do not beileve that HCAC would either. I am, however, strongly opposed to having a house in my neighborhood demolished, and replaced by an incompatible stucture. My neighborhood became an historic district to maintain the historic nature of the neighborhood, and to prevent demolitions and new construction. This is why we strongly support the proposed changes to the ordinance.
All the Best!
Dennis,
The HAHC does reject things like Hardi siding and vinyl windows. This is one reason people who have actually had to go through the process are so mad. In all fairness, the new ordinance is being advertised as allowing hardi siding, but we really do not know because the language is so vague.
In the past you could just wait 90 days and then install your economic windows that LOOK FINE. In the future, with the elimination of the 90 day waiver, you will not be allowed to do so, if you do you will be fined via a citation, and then you will have to correct the problem.
Like I have said before, we all love old houses, but the system as it is today is a mess, and its about to get a lot worse.
Dennis,
One more thing, and I am trying to play nice here, have you read the proposed ordinance from cover to cover? Please read it, I would be interested to hear your opinion on the ability to use vinyl windows.
I have felt, and still feel, that the city is not taking any real input from the citizens of the districts in order to improve the ordinance. They have created a new document that, as written, gives the HAHC the discretion to do whatever it wants. Why can’t both sides compromise, give real input, and draft an ordinance that everyone supports?
Between the Wal-Mart debate and this issue I have learned way more about the Heights than I previously knew. As someone who is looking to move from the burbs in-town to be closer to work…you can scratch the Heights off the list. I thought Nazi Germany was eliminated years ago.
CD:
The Nazi Germany comment is a bit extreme. We (some of us anyway) want to have historic districts in the Heights, and we (some of us anyway) want to keep the Walmarts in the suburbs. That’s not Nazi. That’s opinion. But this is the USA, and you are welcome to your opinion too. And you are welcome to stay in the suburbs, a place to which you may well be better suited.
Height Resident:
I have not read the entire ordinance. I support the gist of it. My opinion won’t change. I am not opposed to the restrictions. I support them, for my neighborhood anyway. I wouldn’t ever put vinyl windows in my old house anyway. But I’m sure you are right that the ordinance could be perfected.
Zoning by ordinance is still zoning. Which the voters have repeatedly rejected. But some have decided they don’t care what the voters, the majority, have repeatedly rejected.
And now we have a mayor who tells us not only to eat our vegetables but which vegetables we are to eat.
Hopefully someone will challenge this although I and others resent the taxpayers having to pay for it and hopefully the courts will tell the mayor, and the previous mayor, what they can do with their vegetables.
Actually, it’s not zoning by ordinance. Zoning is different, and is related more to the activity (store, business, church, strip club). Zoning regulates land use in a particular area. Zoning might also regulate the type and size of buildings, etc. This regulates the demolition of historic buildings, as well as additions to such buildings. It’s very specific. It’s not zoning. It’s similar, but different in that it’s very specific.
I vote in every election but I don’t recall the vote about zoning.
Subtlety and gross generalizations aren’t usually well-paired.
What kind of vegetables does our wonderful Mayor prefer that we eat? I think I’ll have a salad for lunch…
A note to readers: Swamplot doesn’t interfere much with reader comments, but we do intervene to disrupt trolling behavior. Usually, for example, when we find a user adding comments to a post under 2 or more separate identities (usually in order to create a false impression of consensus, a practice called sock puppetry), we simply delete the comments and send an email warning.
In this instance, we’re taking a different tack — because by the time we discovered the problem, several readers had already responded to some of the sock-puppeted comments, and in our judgment the overall exchange provides useful information.
So we’re letting the comments stand. But our readers have a right to know that the user identified as Chester and the user identified as Heights resident in this post appear to be the same person.
Several people in the community that support preservation, said “Historic District’s were only able to get 51% support in the first place, because of the 90 day waiver.” To me this is was “Bait & Switch”, and it’s smells bad.
From Dennis:
I vote in every election but I don’t recall the vote about zoning.
_________________________________
Either you weren’t old enough to vote the last time it was on the ballot or you just didn’t vote?
But hey, it sounds good. “I don’t recall the vote about zoning so I will pretend there never has been a vote about zoning.”
Zoning is zoning. Zoning by ordinance is zoning. Putting lipstick on the pig doesn’t make it less a pig…
Thank you to most of you for maintaining civility in this discourse.
I also experienced resistance from HAHC to Hardi siding. I waited 90-days and got my way and that is why I am against removing the 90-day waiver. I did not choose Hardi because it is cheap; I did it because it is pest resistant and easy to maintain. My original objective was to insulate my house which was impractical to do from inside, so the siding had to come down. This forced me to choose I chose Hardi which HAHC rejected immediately.
The New 152,000 SF Bungalow!
Congratulations Houston! We now have a one-dimensional Mayor, one with a single objective, i.e., to protect us against evil developers and Mac Mansions. So potent is she at this that she can go against the will of thousands of ‘historic district’ home-owners and deny them of their property rights by eliminating the 90-waiver. Such waiver was part of the reason many owners voted for ‘historic designation’ of their homes in their neighborhoods. So frozen on her single mindedness that she forgets the ‘historic neighborhood’ concept was sold as protection against the type of project Wal-Mart will build.
So one-dimensional that when it comes to other important issues like the new Wal-Mart , Mayor Parker and City Council say they are helpless (read “It’s Official: Wal-Mart coming to Heights Areaâ€, Houston Chronicle, Sunday August 1, 2010). Many council members even hint of tax breaks for the project developers “…to compensate [developers] for infrastructure upgrades…†I wonder if these ‘upgrades’ will include the brand new ramp off I-10 that delivers Wal-Mart shoppers to the project at the expense of city tax-payers, and if Wal-Mart will compensate tax-payers for this ‘infrastructure’ gift, the increased police force security, and pay back owners for the loss in property values.
So one-sided, the logic would follow in Parker’s mind, that she is convinced that oh no, these are not evil developers of the kind that build Mac-Mansions and lower property values in neighborhoods. She ignores well researched statistics presented by concerned owners to City Council that carry evidence of the negative impact of such project on the neighborhood.
Let’s help Mayor Parker think inside her one-dimension. What if Parker and City Council declare the land for the new Wal-Mart Supercenter part of the Heights ‘protected district’. That way Wal-Mart will be forced to build a GIANT 152,000 SF Bungalow; it will be ‘historic’; it will do wonders for tourism.
Are all these ordinance supporters forgetting how those evil developers, builders and realtors have taken an area of town that just 15 years ago was considered dangerous and helped turn it around. A lot of the houses around mine still have burglar bars on their windows because it was so bad. It was the developers who saved the Heights, not some preservation group.
Norhill is great now due to the developers who came before the new laws. They didn’t tear down houses, they tore down crappy apartment complexes.
It is in the developers best interests to retain historic structures whenever possible. They know that if you remove them all, you lose the sales value of the area. They aren’t stupid. They are just realistic about what people are going to live in and what is structural worth saving. Would you live in a home that’s had a hundred different animals defacating on the walls and floors for years? It looks structurally sound, but would you live there, where the pee has soaked into everything including the shiplap?
Most developers in the Heights work on remodels as well as new construction. They do what will make for a quality house that is safe and appropriate for the homeowner. And if you make it difficult and financially unfeasible for the quality builders to make a living in your area, they will move on.
I know there are exceptions. So if you are a Heights property owner and worried about your historic property, then get your minimum lot size, lot deed restrictions and your protected landmark designations.
We don’t need more vaguely written laws with some non-elected commission responsible for making decisions according to their own interests/likes and not for the community at large.
And I am totally FOR preservation, but not when it makes restoring a home more time consuming, costly and difficult for the average homeowner.
What happens to my property values in Historic Districts?
http://www.preservehouston.org/Rutgers_University_study.pdf
I noticed a sign in a yard in support of the new ordinance.
It states that they are protecting my homeowner rights, just as the opposition signs state.
Can someone explain how the proposed ordinance is going to protect my property rights?
Options wrote: “Let’s help Mayor Parker think inside her one-dimension. What if Parker and City Council declare the land for the new Wal-Mart Supercenter part of the Heights ‘protected district’. That way Wal-Mart will be forced to build a GIANT 152,000 SF Bungalow; it will be ‘historic’; it will do wonders for tourism.”
I’m going to Walmart Disneyland!
Options you cracked me up. Great post!
Dennis,
That article is getting stale. It does not directly apply to all districts. Home size is a very important consideration, and something the Heights districts do not have. We are talking about small bungalows, not large historic homes.
A study was done recently by an appraiser comparing the old sixth ward property values with those of the unprotected heights districts. Heights south for example outpaced the old sixth ward by 10% in average sales price per square foot.
If you look at the current listings on HAR for the old sixth ward you can get a good snapshot of values there compared to the Heights. They have a pretty cool interactive map tool on HAR for searching listings in the historic districts.
I will try to find a link to the appraisal study. Its the only study I have seen that is directly relevant to this debate.
For those who are up in arms about the issue, consider how much land we are really talking about…how much of the city is really in an historic district. Not much….
http://www.preservehouston.org/Gallery%20Historic%20Districts%20in%20Houston/pages/hh_sn_jpg.htm
If you live in an historic district it affects you. If not, it does not. Your opinion is still valid, but it’s a bit like my opinion about laws in Pasadena or Clear Lake: valid but irrelevant.
If the City, removes the 90day wavier.
Does anyone, see law suits, in the horizon.
Chester writes:
I noticed a sign in a yard in support of the new ordinance. It states that they are protecting my homeowner rights, just as the opposition signs state. Can someone explain how the proposed ordinance is going to protect my property rights?
—————————————
Proponents of removing the 90-waiver claim ‘rights’ over what other owners can do with their properties. Proponents claim ‘rights’ to stop use of Hardi siding; their neighbors can’t build structures unless the architecture is ‘approved’ by unelected HAHC bureaucrats. They claim ‘rights’ over your property without owning it; in other words: you pay the mortgage and they own the ‘right’ to tell you what to build.
New ordinance supporters claim everybody will lose unless the new ordinance passes. I, for one, am not pretentious enough to claim I have the ‘right’ to tell my neighbor he can’t build what has been called a FAKE OLD NEW HOUSE, nor do I cede to my neighbor the right to tell me not to use Hardi siding.
Proponents claim that if you don’t support the new ordinance, they will step aside and let evil developers blow down the house next door and build a Mac Mansion on its place. Anyone willing to put $500K on a structure next to my house is welcome.
My rights don’t need the protection OF HAHC; they need protection FROM HAHC.
Heights W.
I’m going to Walmart Disneyland!
Options you cracked me up. Great post!
————————————–
Thank you HW; Mrs. Options came-up with the 152,000 SF Bungalow!
Dennis,
If you only want to talk to folks who live in an historic district and in your words, will be the only folks “affected” by this new ordinance, then you need to limit your postings to your neighborhood forum where you can discuss it with only your neighbors.
If, on the other hand, you want to discuss the topic with other folks who may or may not agree with you, then welcome to the swamp. If you want to keep repeating that our opinions are not relevant, then why are you here?
From Dennis:
For those who are up in arms about the issue, consider how much land we are really talking about…how much of the city is really in an historic district. Not much….
http://www.preservehouston.org…..sn_jpg.htm
If you live in an historic district it affects you. If not, it does not. Your opinion is still valid, but it’s a bit like my opinion about laws in Pasadena or Clear Lake: valid but irrelevant.
Since when is it my job to preserve Houston’s history? Since when is it okay to take a select group of homeowners or taxpayers and tell them that their rights no longer matter? I don’t care if it is 100 property owners, it isn’t okay to take away my ability to chose what I do with my home. Period!
To PYEWACKET2:
Thanks so much for the warm welcome!
To Down in Dixie:
Q: Since when is it my job to preserve Houston’s history?
A: No one suggested that it was your job to preserve history. Where did you read that? The ordinance is about houses. You need not work. Just don’t buy a house in an historic district if you plan to change it to a modern house. Since we’re talking about 1 % of the city that leaves you lots of other choices.
Q: Since when is it okay to take a select group of homeowners or taxpayers and tell them that their rights no longer matter?
A: No one is telling anyone that their rights don’t matter. The issue is that certain regulations will apply in an historic district. Everyone’s rights matter.
Comment: I don’t care if it is 100 property owners, it isn’t okay to take away my ability to chose what I do with my home. Period!
Retort: Why not? For example, if you live next to me, or in my neighborhood, and you want to open a strip club in your home, I will protest. Strongly. And I won’t care about your “rights.” Of course that’s an extreme example, but I use it to make a point: We live in a society with other people. What you do affects other people. What everyone does affects you. This historic district ordinance change isn’t such a big deal. Many, many other cities live happily with such regulations. The sky isn’t falling. It’s progress.
From Dennis:
Just don’t buy a house in an historic district if you plan to change it to a modern house.
____________________________
Unless you buy a house in Glenbrook Valley in which case you will probably be expected to change it into a post-modern house circa 1950s/1960s.
Some really do not understand the term “historic” or what an “historic district” is under the ordinance. Any subdivision 50 years or older is an historic district.
Meaning everything inside Beltway 8 is or will shortly be an historic district. Quite a bit outside Beltway 8 as well.
Meaning a few will decide how the land in a district may be used. Telling someone what kind of house they may build is regulating land use. Sounds like zoning to me. In violation of the City Charter.
Unless of course you’re an “insider” in which case, well, anything goes. Whether you’re a homeowner. Or a developer.
Don’t think so? Just look at Wal-Mart being built in the middle of all these historic districts. And then look at Southampton. Three hirise buildings adjacent to Southampton all opposed by the homeowners association. The mayor and others said “sorry, nothing we can do” about two and then said “it will not be built” about the third.
That’s what we have at City Hall. And some want to make it easier for them and harder for everyone else to fight them when they “pull strings” for each other.
The ordinance will pass because they will pull every dirty trick in the book to make sure it passes.
And we will see at least one new lawsuit filed against the city and this curious “zoning by ordinance.” With developers in one case fighting this violation of the City Charter. With property owners fighting this violation of the City Charter in another.
No doubt our mayor will inform the judge in both cases that he or she just needs to eat their vegetables.
Don’t blame me I didn’t vote for her. And I laugh every time someone in this city calls themselves a preservationist. There are none because there were none in Fourth Ward. And those were historic buildings. Unlike many others that will be protected under this ordinance.
And I didn’t vote for him either. Bill White started this with his Old Sixth Ward ordinance. Hoping no one would notice. Everyone involved with Fourth
Ward noticed. Which is still not an historic district in the city. It’s a federal historic district. So what’s the problem?
Some really should think about voting for him for governor. And about voting for her again for mayor. Hopefully when everyone watches how they get this passed despite a majority of homeowners very loudly protesting they oppose it, everyone will finally get the message.
The real question is why Old Sixth Ward instead of one of the areas in the Heights were there has been ongoing restoration of existing homes. Or Fourth Ward. I guess they haven’t torn everything down they want to tear down in Fourth Ward.
Dennis, You clearly do not understand this issue. The city’s stated purpose for historic preservation is to “preserve the beauty and history” of the city. Well, that isn’t my job! Or no more so than any other Houstonian. Especially with no incentive or compensation. And I already own a home in a historic district and it wasn’t a district when I bought in. This isn’t about changing a old house into a modern one either. You seem to be very good at half the truth.
People are telling me what to do with my property and are taking away my ability to make decisions about my property. We aren’t talking about putting a strip club in the middle of my block. We are talking about my making decisions about how to improve and expand my home being superceded by a commission with very little expertise run by a bunch of fanatics. Wack jobs, really. They have been drinking the Kool-Aid too long. Your comparison is extreme and irrelevant. No one thinks that your desire to limit my property rights is one and the same.
And, one interesting note is that these nutbars haven’t even landmarked their own homes. Now they want to tell everyone else what to do with their homes even though they haven’t protected theirs. Talk about a bunch of hypocrites. What gives you the right to tell me what to do when you are so lazy that you haven’t protected yours? Seriously, you folks have some real balls.
I hate to tell you but PROGRESS was renovators and builders coming in and tearing down a large percentage of the dilapated homes and replacing them with something that has improved the neighborhood, brought in families and raised the value of the neighborhood. I realize the house-hugger clan doesn’t want families, increasing property values, etc., (and don’t lie about the 6th Ward, I know better) coming into the neighborhood but that is what will continue to improve our community.
This change IS A BIG DEAL! A VERY BIG DEAL! And the neighborhood should be very scared of what this handful of extremists are trying to pull off.
Ladies and Gentleman, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. His job is clearly to monitor this site and try to assure you that this won’t be bad for you, that your rights, as homeowners won’t be adversely affected. He is a shill, albiet likely not a paid shill but a shill nonetheless.
If you really want to know what is about to happen to you, read the ordinance. You will see that the city will have complete and permanent control over what you can do to the exterior of your home. And, they have some other clauses that should raise the hair on the back of your neck…like the one about demolition by neglect. Don’t take my word for it, read it and get educated. It is scary stuff!
No. I’m a regular citizen. But Down In Dixie’s use of the word “shill” is commendable. He or she is clearly not an illiterate Palin. A worthy competitor…
Is Down In Dixie a Developer? Or someone working for a developer? Or just a property rights zealot? It’s all very anonymous here.
It doesn’t matter. He/she is right about one thing: Read the ordinance! It’s great if you live in an old home in an historic district. You won’t have any massive town homes built next to your bungalow. Great! If you live in a new place (an existing massive townhouse) in an historic district it has no impact on your situation. You are safe. No impact. If you don’t live in an historic district it has no impact. If you live in an historic (contributing or potentially contributing per the regulations) house in an historic district, there are reasonable restrictions.
From Down in Dixie:
If you really want to know what is about to happen to you, read the ordinance.
_____________________________
And those who believe it won’t affect them because they don’t live in one of hte existing district or one of the proposed districts particularly need to read it. Because they soon will.
Those who will be “allowed” to “approve/not approve” a second time should realize they will have no way or proving who really did or did not approve/disapprove the district. Unless you trust Sue Lovell.
What everyone who does not support this ordinance should be doing is contacting their district councilmember and the at-large councilmembers vowing to never vote for them again for any public office if they approve the ordinance.
They have the final say. Not Annise Parker or Sue Lovell.
Dennis,
–Is Down In Dixie a Developer? Or someone working for a developer? Or just a property rights zealot? It’s all very anonymous here.
Are those all you believe are your only opponents? Never underestimate your foe. You are clearly one of the “chain yourself to your house” clan. I’m just a citizen that doesn’t want the city to tell me how to improve my property, particularly when it is a commission made up of a mainly people who know NOTIHNG about historic preservation.
–If you live in an historic (contributing or potentially contributing per the regulations) house in an historic district, there are reasonable restrictions.
If this wasn’t so serious, your assertion that these are reasonable restrictions would be laughable. Those amendments are so vague and loosely worded that the Houston Archeological and Hysterical Commission will be able to eliminate any choice a homeowner has. Remember, Marlene Gafrick said they were going to “incrementally make it more restrictive”. Pay very close attention to those words…they will bite you in the behind one day unless we stop this madness the city is proposing.
Get informed. Read the ordinance. Ask a lawyer what it means to you. The lawyers all know this a take, pure and simple.
From Dennis too:
>It doesn’t matter. He/she is right about one thing: Read the ordinance! It’s great if you live in an old home in an historic district. You won’t have any massive town homes built next to your bungalow.<
It’s great if you live in an old home in an historic district…if you want the city to tell you what to do!!! Read the ordinance. There is nothing to prevent the city from telling you what you can and cannot do for every aspect of the exterior of your home. Keep repeating the words “incrementally more restrictive” after you read the ordinance. They are ON THE RECORD with their intentions, after years of trying to sneak around behind the backs of the homeowners. They are now telling you that they are going to make things so strict for those in historic districts that you will have ZERO say so other than to do exactly what they tell you.
And folks, most of the Hysterical Commission have no clue about design or building materials or construction techniques (new or old). They just like the “look” of an old house. They could care less that 99% of the 2010 expectation of housing isn’t a 2/1 bungalow. People want closets and larger rooms and insulation. And the utopia of the average home buyer will buy one and improve it to something that meets the needs of people who live in 2010 is just that…utopia. The folks who are cramming this down our throats want to go back to a simpler time, when the expectation for housing was much more basic. They can go back to it — for themselves. They can landmark their house for postertity but they need to let me make that choice for my home.
And PS don’t let the “the town house is moving in next door” threat scare you. Many blocks are deed restricted already and if yours isn’t, it is easy to do.
just a property rights zealot Down in Dixie…
Support the ordinance!!!
AllenBro’s post 66 comments on the Heights builder/realtor profit model hits the nail on the head and defines the drivers behind the “HAHC defiance” opposition movement. “No means no!” and minimum lot size is the only way to control historic district redevelopment when accompanied by fair and logical HAHC rules and administration processes. Otherwise, the whole Historic District idea is defective by design. The real goal should be to develop realistic rules to govern renovations and new construction in Hist Districts that address both design aesthetics and economic components which can function in a “compliant” environment.
Dennis,
Your killing me with your bumper stickers!
Go landmark your home, organize a drive to get minimum lot size and setbacks on your block, and file deed restrictions on your own lot. If you still have energy left after that start a petition drive to get deed restrictions for your entire block.
This is not about town homes or car washes or strip clubs. If the city actually listened to the concerns about the ordinance, they could probably add minimum lot size and other such restrictions to it,and actually get the support of the entire community and get it passed.
In the mean time I am going to continue to hold out hope that I can add a second floor, master suite, kitchen and den to my bungalow. Not to the back of it, to the mid section and the top of it.
JJ,
I agree with you, but the proposed ordinance does not address the common sense of which you speak.
The only current defense against its misguided and unrealistic “design guidelines” is the 90 day waiver.
JJ, if I could trust that the deciding commission members would be fair and equitable, not have political “itchy-scratchy” motives, not play favorites with their buddies or think they are the be all and end all to historic preservation, or understand that not every person who lives in a historic home has deep pockets, I would be OK with it. And if I didn’t have friends who have dealt with HAHC and don’t plan to ever restore properties in a historic district again, I’d be OK.
And I can’t stand the thought of having to prove my case for changes to my home to HAHC and then dealing with HCAD every year. Ugh! It’s too much! Life is too short.
I think it’s time to start thinking about moving to Oak Forest, though I’m a bit late on that train. And how long ’till that gets designated as “historic” too. Ugh!
Just a reminder, the public meeting to discuss Norhill, Woodland Heights and Freeland district is tomorrow night.
8-3-2010
Proctor Plaza Community Center
6 – 8 PM
Please show up if you live in these districts and let your opinion be heard.
From Chester:
Just a reminder, the public meeting to discuss Norhill, Woodland Heights and Freeland district is tomorrow night.
Please show up if you live in these districts and let your opinion be heard.
___________________
Why? Will all of city council be there? Everyone should make their opinions known directly to city council. Takes maybe 15 minutes to fax them all. “No means no.”
They get enough of those faxes they won’t care what Sue Lovell & Company claim the “consensus” at these meetings was. Which of course to Sue Lovell & Company will be “overriding support of the new ordinance.”
Matt Mystery
‘What everyone who does not support this ordinance should be doing is contacting their district councilmember and the at-large councilmembers vowing to never vote for them again for any public office if they approve the ordinance.’
——————————————-
Great suggestion; I am going to do it by e-mail.
http://ResponsibleHistoricPreservation.org/help.htm
lists names, e-mail addresses and phone numbers of all councilmembers and their districts.
Do you know which district Heights belongs to? A, B, C, D, ….?
While I have an opinion about the Heights, since I don’t live there and don’t plan to. I will stay out of the debate over the value of historic homes and the new development and its impact on that neighborhood. However, I do believe strongly in individual property rights.
This is a question and not a statement. Doesn’t the ordinance as written have broader implications beyond on the Heights to other neighborhoods, who could potentially declare themselves a historic neighborhood?
Regarding Ms Parker’s reelection outlook, let’s remind her that she won the Mayoral race by a relatively small margin.
I believe she has lost a big portion of that small electoral margin by choosing the wrong side of two very important issues: 1) she said yes to Wal-Mart, and 2) and she says yes to removal the 90-day waiver.
Options,
In a rare defense of the Mayor, she has no other choice but to “approve” of Walmart, it is not zoned, nor is it in an historic district.
The City has no legal right to legislate what happens to that parcel of land.
CD: Yes. It changes the historic district ordinance city-wide. But it makes it more difficult for a neighborhood to become an historic district.
Plenty of us have already thanked Mayor Parker for her strong support of the new ordinance (which is her doing), and will volunteer in her re-election campaign.
but a large number of us who voted for her and who are against the new ordinance, also there are plenty of us, will not vote for her again.
Perhaps Mayor Parker is not able to do anything about Wal-Mart because the parcel is not zoned, but she does not have to line up tax-brake incentives for the project’s developer and Wal-Mart as reported in Sunday’s paper.
The tax incentives are to improve the infrastructure…there seems to be some perception it is to entice Walmart. The infrastructure improvements needs to happen to support the development particularly the roads. There are going to be other businesses on the pad sites and retail strip in front of the Anchor retail box. It not based on Walmart, but the fact an anchor retail tenant will be there and spur other economic development around the site. It’s not going to be a standalone site. It just happens that Walmart was the high bidder. So just as the city or the mayor can’t select the actual retailer the same thinking applies to the merit of the tax incentives for the infrastructure improvements. If its HEB most cheer and its Wal-Mart so many jeer, but that would be a dangerous precedent to set to deny based on the fact Wal-Mart is an unpopular choice for many.
Seems to me the idea of this historic district thing is to run out all the poor grandmas and grandpas that have been in their little 2/1 homes since the 60’s. Of course, they are on social security and cannot afford to make the mandated repairs according to HAHC. Their limited income barely lets them pay the taxes.
So, they are left to let the house crumble around them. Then, when they eventually die in the home, some developer will buy it and what?? Won’t be able to build a new structure?
I don’t understand why your mayor is not pushing to get Westmoreland designated as an historic district. Yes, she has her own home protected but doesn’t she care about her neighbors in their homes??
Or does she think the effort would be a failure in HER neighborhood?
I will not vote for her next time.
There’s a lot more folks in Houston that will be adversely affected (in the long run) if this passes than will benefit.
PYEWACKET2:
Seems to me you are watching too many horror films. No one plans to run out the old folks or for that matter to wait for them to die. That’s utterly absurd. Did you hear that on Fox New? There are no death panels. There are no “mandated repairs according to HAHC.”
From PYEWACKET2
Of course, they are on social security and cannot afford to make the mandated repairs according to HAHC.
_________________________
One of those little details everyone overlooks. Mandated repairs. Welcome to First Colony!
As for threatening not to vote for her, be careful. She will hunt you down and slap a scarlet “H” on your shirt for all to see.
“H” as in homophobe. As many found out with the Houston Chronicle, one is not allowed to criticize her at all. You will be labeled a homophobe and banned from the kingdom.
Gets tired. This, however, is more than tired. It is, well, just an example of why so many risked being tarred and feathered and run out of town by not voting for her.
People really need to read the ordinance itself instead of just listening to what she and Sue Lovell say the ordinance says.
Some of the vegetables we are being told to eat have been laced with arsenic.
Dennis, you’re kidding right? Pyewacket has it right on the money. I live between two seniors, one has lived in her home since it was new and she moved into it as a 17-year-old bride in 1935. The other took care of both parents who died in their 1920s home. Neither will be able to afford to repair their homes to HAHC standards. What’s a senior suppose to do when they need siding repairs and HAHC demands it be the original siding and it has to come from a specialty mill? They can’t afford that on their fixed incomes. They will be forced to let their home decay.
Dennis has his head in the clouds. Or somewhere comparable.
Let’s be honest. This ordinance is not about preservation. It is about control. It is about trying to make individual property owners conform the tastes of a few bureaucrats. This is not and should not be a public policy issue. The legitimate discussion should be about infrastructure and density, not style. There opposition against this proposed ordinance is growing daily as people learn what it would really mean and what they would have to give up.
“It is about control.”
Yes.
The majority of the supporters of this issue very likely will not even still be living in their “historic district” homes in another 20 years. They will have moved up and out and left their destruction for others to clean up.
Yep, the unintended consequences will start hitting in about 10 years, and the supporters will sell out and move over to the next popular, up-and-coming, chi-chi neighborhood once the builders that have headed there finish fixing it up.
That chi-chi was for you Matt Mystery. :-)
By the way, I think that neighborhood is going to be Westbury.
“Let’s be honest”…a great way to start a sentence in a debate: it implies that the person on the other side of the debate isn’t being honest, while adding weight to whatever will follow it – a really good rhetorical device.
The property rights nuts are really amusing. Like the Palin supporters. Devoid of logic. Happy to exaggerate and make stuff up…innuendo run amok. I will remember you all, laughing, when Anise Parker wins re-election.
Great. Now we have the issue properly identified. this issue is not really preservation but an elitist proposition that by turning over the property rights of the lawful owners of property to a handful of government bureaucrats that somehow the neighborhoods will be saved. What total garbage.
CD,
One of the scary things about this is that it may not affect properties outside of the current Historic Districts yet, but they HAHC has given itself the power to name Historic Districts outright without the consent of the property owners. While today there are only 6,500 houses in the whole City in Historic Districts there is the potential for pretty much the whole inner beltway to become Historic within the next 10 years.
Dennis,
I may not live in the Historic District right but with the HAHC’s given power to name Historic Districts isn’t it the concern of ALL OF HOUSTON what this ordinance says. Also, if this was not a power grab by the City Why would they have included this in the Ordinance? Why give themselves the power if they do not plan to use it? And if they plan to use this power why would you think that they would not want to exercise the power to dictate paint colors, light fixtures and the like? They say they do will not, but even at the meeting on July 27 Randy Pace admitted that they would have the power to do it if they wanted to.
Two last things:
Dennis, the property value study that you posted is based on a study done in New England in the 80’s that was updated using data from select neighborhoods. This ordinace will almost definitely help the property value of certain neighborhods in Houston. Cortland Place, Westmorland and the like. Neighborhoods that are truely historic and have excellent homes that have been cared for since they were built
All: The process of submitting plans to the HAHC is not a direct submittal. Each plan goes through a review process first and MOST are rejected, defered or negotiated before they are submitted. If the staff is not going to recommend it for passage it will probably not be submitted unless the applicant is trying to get rejected to start the 90 day clock. The 75% number for application approval is because only a protion of submittals get to the Committee, those that have no chance of passing never get there.
Heights Wierdo,
Oak Forest will almost certainly be named a Historic District before the en of the year. As will Garden Oaks, Timbergrove Manor and the neighborhoods mentioned previously. I would put Westbury on the short list too, it definitely qualifies.
P.S. I think Spring Branch will be the next “place”. Good schools, large lots, great access to downtown, trees, and all of the suburb amenities people love.
One last thing, sorry.
Please notice the exclusion if all Historic Landmaks outside of designated Historic District being excempted from the new Ordinance and still eligable for the 90 day waiver. I don’t understand why people are not more outraged about this. This exclusion was specifically added to protect River Oaks, which has more Historic Landmarks than any other neighborhood in the City. Would this be allowed to pass if homeonwers in River Oaks had to submit to the HAHC for everything they want to do on their house? Or wanted to tear a Historic house down?
Westbury getting designated a historic district. My parents, who sold their house in Northwood in 2000 for what, in the end, added up to be a big loss after living there 25 years, would crack up.
SCD: “And if they plan to use this power why would you think that they would not want to exercise the power to dictate paint colors, light fixtures and the like? They say they do will not, but even at the meeting on July 27 Randy Pace admitted that they would have the power to do it if they wanted to.”
I can just see it now. Approved lights get chosen. HAHC appointee has a brother-in-law in the lighting business. And oh, look, guess who just so happens to carry those designated lights…
You know it will happen. They say it won’t, but it will. Money talks, fairness walks. And what a huge playground these folks would have to take advantage of inside the beltway.
Discourse with fools produces foolish discourse.
The fools will vote yes while the wise men probably are already busy preparing the lawsuits.
Observation:
Sec 33-22.1 Application for designation of historic district:
(a) Applicaiton for designation of an historic district shall be initiated by either:
(1) one or more owners or property in the proposed district, subject to the requirement of subsection (c) of this section that at least 67% of the owners of tracts int he proposed districts who return cards pursuant to the subsection (c) to the department indicates support of the application.
(2)The HAHC upon instructing hte Planning official to prepare an application for designation
(.b.) application for the designation of a historic district shall be filed … (procedure and criteria, read it)
(c) The department shall review an application submitted by one or more property owners for completeness…(this goes on to explain the procedure for mailing out the ballot and the timeline for notification)
What this section does is require a mailed out ballot only if the application is innitiated by one or more property owners. [i]Subsection (c) specifically states that this is only required in that instance, applications by the HAHC do not require a mail out ballot.[/i] This section is what gives the HAHC the power to name districts without property owner approval.
PLEASE READ THE ORDINANCE!
Observation:
Sec 33-227 Amandment; changes in boundary
Amendment of any landmark, protected landmark, historic district or archeological site and any change in the boundary of any historic district or archeological site shall require action by the city council and [i]shall follow to procedures for applicaiton, notice, public hearing and recommendation by HAHC and the commission used for the [b]original designation [/b][/i]of the landmark, historic district or archeological site.
This is where is specifically states in the ordinance that the MUST re-petition the exact same way that the original petition was done. This sections is still in the ordinance so how can they ignore it? Sec 33-22.1 gives them the ability to do a mailout with 67% approval, but that is only for new districts as I read it, it does not remove Sac 33-227 from the Ordinance or retroactively take away the requirement.
Observation:
Sec 33-203 Enforcement and Penalties
(d) If a landmark … located in an historic district is demolished without a certificate of appropriateness required by this article [i]or, in the case of a landmark only,[/i][b][/b] a 90 waiver certificate issued persuant to section…
This section excludes landmarked outside of historic districts from the revocation of the 90 day waiver. You are welcome River Oaks.
Observation:
SEC 33-241 (.b.) Notwithstanding the preceding subsections (a), the planning official is authorized to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the following types of alteration …
So, the planning official (?) can issue a Certificate of Appropriateness without going before the Committee under certain circumstances that are outlined in the following sections (look them up). They are very broad and open to interpretation as is the rest of the ordinance. This provision is an open invitation to graft and favoritism and the public would be hard pressed to find out because the application would never appear on the HAHC agenda.
SCD = OCD
Matt Mystery on Annisse = Same song, 300th verse.
And like a movie never ending, it goes on and on and on and on…….
From SCD:
This provision is an open invitation to graft and favoritism and the public would be hard pressed to find out because the application would never appear on the HAHC agenda.
__________________________
This surprises you?
Happy to report that in this evening’s meeting to introduce the proposed upgrades to the ordinance in Norhill, the Woodland Heights, and the Freeland Historic Districts, those in support of the changes were clearly in the majority in all three districts. This is based on the sample “raise your hands” vote which was held.
Support was unanimous in the small Freeland Historic District. Great news!
From Dennis:
>Happy to report that in this evening’s meeting to introduce the proposed upgrades to the ordinance in Norhill, the Woodland Heights, and the Freeland Historic Districts, those in support of the changes were clearly in the majority in all three districts. This is based on the sample “raise your hands†vote which was held.
Support was unanimous in the small Freeland Historic District. Great news!<
Don’t you just love it when people gloat? I do. It is always a demonstration of fear. The real decision on this ordinance change lies with the City Council and you have a much bigger nut to crack with them. So, brag away. Parker, Lovell, Gonzalez, and maybe Klutterbuck are in your camp. The rest, well they are paying attention to the wackiness and absurdities. I will venture a guess that they see the nightmare coming to a district near them soon and will think long and hard before inflicting it on their constituents.
Fearful here….shaking in my sneakers…right.
I’m not gloating. I’ll gloat when it passes. Like when Obama won. I gloated with the prospect for progress. For now I am hopefully optimistic to have seen great public support for the new ordinance after having read lots of wacko right-wing stuff on this website here.
Bye Swamplot. Last post. Heading to higher ground…stay muddy and dirty in the swamp y’all.
From Dennis:
For now I am hopefully optimistic to have seen great public support for the new ordinance after having read lots of wacko right-wing stuff on this website here.
________________________
Dennis must be one of the mayor’s staff members. At least he didn’t accuse opponents of being homophobes. Just wacko right-wingers. Although I guess that implies we are homophobes.
Some of us just believe in the City Charter. And don’t believe in zoning by ordinance. Or any kind of zoning beyond deed restrictions. Reasonable deed restrictions.
By hook or by crook, obviously the ordinance is a done deal unless we’ve managed to elect sane people to city council. Since we tend not to do so simply because sane people don’t run for city council, most likely we will see the city sued at some point. Which we will all pay for. Seems to be a pattern of late.
From Dennis:
>For now I am hopefully optimistic to have seen great public support for the new ordinance after having read lots of wacko right-wing stuff on this website here.<
News Flash Dennis the Menace! This is NOT a partisan issue. I have been a Democrat for FIFTY YEARS. Many of the people who oppose your clueless leaders Mayor Parker and Ms. Lovell are big D Democrats. This cuts across party lines, LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVES alike hate the idea of your clan taking away our personal rights as homeowners.
It actually warms my heart that you folks think this is just a few right wing property rights folks because that means you don’t have a grasp on who opposes this which, as I alluded to before means you have underestimated your opposition.
Dennis obviously thinks that only his neighborhood is entitled.
But, I’m reading elsewhere that Lovell said there would be a ballot on this.
Then, after the meeting she recanted when having a conversation with one person who tried to talk more on the subject.
I hope there was a recording or that someone was taking the minutes.
My council member will be hearing from me. And Lovell will never get my vote again.
I’m with you Denise. The “property righters” are just like the birthers. Their ranting is junking up my inbox. I’m checking out.
Dennis, I too was at the meeting and believe it would not be wise to gloat. Full disclosure: I live in the Norhill Historical district and would like to see the 90 day wait loophole removed. Because our district has a large percentage of conforming structures I believe a strong historical preservation ordinance would assist in maintaining the district as an extremely unique neighborhood in Houston(and helping my property value). I am referring specifically to Norhill, the other historical districts already have a significant amount of new construction so I am not so sure.
I have several reasons why I caution against gloating. First, the ‘yes but no’ group appears to be well organized and well funded, probably by developer /builder money. If the 67% re-petition vote for existing historical districts is implemented I believe it will be very difficult to achieve that number. The ‘yes but no group’ will be attempting to create opposition by convincing homeowners that under the provisions they will not be able to build the fence/ garage/addition/etc they want. It is always easier to convince people to vote no than yes.
Hopefully there will be constructive discussions and a preservation ordinance can be created that helps maintain the historical districts and satisfy those with property rights concerns.
Making Sarah Palin is stupid and right wing wacko comments are both unnecessary and counterproductive. As a fiscal conservative I have received my share of prejudiced remarks. It is easier to persuade your opponents to your side with logic rather than with name calling.
Dennis and Allen:
Jeez, at election time, how many Republican signs do you see in the Heights anyway? Not many.
You guys can’t have a meaningful debate without classifying people in ugly terms. You’re being just as bad as the right wingers and birthers and your comments prove why this country is in such a mess. Everyone who doesn’t agree with you is the enemy and no compromise is allowed on either side.
That’s why I’ve gone from Blue Dog to Independent.
Bye, bye!
“Hopefully there will be constructive discussions and a preservation ordinance can be created that helps maintain the historical districts and satisfy those with property rights concerns.”
Thanks Norhill Joe, isn’t that the point of debate, so each side can see the other’s point and compromises can be reached.
Well one thing is for sure. If you want the real story about what is unfolding at City Hall you pull up Swamplot instead of the Houston Chronicle. Which seems to be ignoring the issue. As it always does when it might upset the “in crowd” at the Chronicle which seems to have turned the Chronicle into a blog, not a very good one, with a print edition.
And of course those who oppose the ordinance would post a comment and be branded a homophobe and banned. And if they keep that up, they will have no readership at all. They barely have a readership as it is.
Just a quick note… the Bill Baldwin mansion was remodeled, not renovated, and beautifully, mind you. Too bad Allegra did not extend the same care and attention to detail to their new construction big box houses as they did to the Baldwin mansion (again, which is beautiful).
For those concerned with type of building material that can be used in renovation, the proposed changes to the ordinance does allow for hardy plank and other materials.
Sam, I think it’s for new construction or addition only, not original structures. Please correct me if I have that wrong.
>For those concerned with type of building material that can be used in renovation, the proposed changes to the ordinance does allow for hardy plank and other materials<
No, it does not say that specifically. I urge you to read the ordinance. It is vague and subjective and up to HAHC. It needs to be specific about what can be used. Hopefully we are all smart enough NOT to take anyone’s word for anything. If it isn’t in writing it isn’t enforceable.
I think their intent is to allow hardi on all projects. However I know for a fact that they are not doing so presently, I have a friend doing a remodel and he was told by staff to expect a denial on hardi at the next HAHC meeting.
I don’t understand why they wont let him do it now, they have the power to do so. He is being told he will have to wait 90 days to finish the exterior trim. Just another example of why people are pissed at the HAHC, common sense and compromise are not in their vocabulary.
SCD:
Can you post a link or something to get me to the new ‘proposed ordinance’ please?
I’m giving some thought to attending the meeting tonight and I’d like read through it.
All I’m finding is a summary and it’s not much use.
I really think Hardi (and hardi-type) siding is here to stay. Producer’s may evolve to make a better product including recycled plastics.
I feel an ordinance needs to leave the door open on the ‘hardi issue’ and not shoot everybody in the foot (funny visual there…)
No, hardi doesn’t biodegrade and shouldn’t end up in any landfill. It should be a wholly recycleable thing, and it could be formed to a variety of historical standards.
At a Houston City Council Meeting in early June, Mayor Annise Parker stated that she could simply “impose” the changes to the historic ordinance that she wants. This “imposing” what she want concept has been repeated by Council Member Sue Lovel and Planning Director, Marlene Gafrick at the Public Meetings being held to inform the public. And they are right. They can impose these changes. What no one is asking is why these same city officials aren’t making this statement to the homeowners in the most historically significant neighborhoods in Houston. River Oaks undoubtedly is the MOST historic neighborhood in Houston. Many of our most prominent and important leaders and contributors have resided in River Oaks. The homes are old, stately manors and of a sufficient size and design to warrant the term architecturally historically significant. There are other noteworthy neighborhoods that would qualify under the meager requirement for historic designation – the fifty year old rule. Communities like Tanglewood are reaching that milestone as well.
The obvious answer to why no one in the city is telling the residents of our most influential and affluent historic neighborhoods that they could impose their historic ordinance on them is because they could never get away with it. Those homeowners have money and power and influence far beyond the average homeowner in our current historic districts. Can you imagine if the Mayor, et. al., told them they would no longer be able to demolish their home and rebuild on their lot? Or add on to it in the way they deem appropriate and instead will have to do it the city’s way? The lawsuits would begin before the ink was dry on their new ordinance. Those folks would tar and feather any city official that tried…and they know it! Instead, Madame Mayor and Company are weilding their power over people they think don’t have the same power as the homeowners in River Oaks. Don’t let the city do to you what they wouldn’t do the most significant historic district in Houston. Stand up for yourselves. You have rights and the city can’t take them away from you unless you let them.
The obvious answer to why no one in the city is telling the residents of our most influential and affluent historic neighborhoods that they could impose their historic ordinance on them is because they could never get away with it.
_________________________
Tanglewood at this point is beyond redemption. Doomed to becoming a community of what in some ways are merely enormous patio homes with a side yard and lap pool. Sometimes just a little patio. Who needs a garden when you can have another room to overdecorate?
River Oaks, on the other hand, may surprise you. Quite a few are talking about it. They’re tired of the “nouveau trash” being built. The legacy of the Fastows on Chevy Chase becoming the “poster house” for the movement.
As for the “my way or the highway” attitude of our mayor, most likely the majority of voters will tell her to take the highway next time and vote her out of office.
>Tanglewood at this point is beyond redemption.River Oaks, on the other hand, may surprise you. Quite a few are talking about it. They’re tired of the “nouveau trash†being built.<
Are they tired of new construction? Who says they are? Contrary to your opinion Matt, these folks care about them and theirs, and they have the sense, money and influence to know they don’t need to be in their neighbors business. What amazes me is that the proponents of this horrible ordinance don’t landmark their own home (but they can’t because it isn’t really historic, just old). My friends that live in River Oaks DEFINITELY don’t want radical groups like yours OR the City of Houston telling them what to do and if they try, they will file lawsuits so fast the Mayor won’t know what end is up! And she knows it and won’t mess with them!
But, the people who live in the districts that Mayor Parker thinks she can impose tihs on are getting VERY vocal and telling Council they DO NOT WANT this ordinance and if and when it passes, expect a few law suits. The lawyers are watching quietly and getting ready. I love watching The three city folk announce they don’t have to allow all the existing historic districts, where they believe there is little opposition, to vote! Hahahaha! That is excatly what the lawyers are hoping for!
My friends that live in River Oaks DEFINITELY don’t want radical groups like yours OR the City of Houston telling them what to do and if they try, they will file lawsuits so fast the Mayor won’t know what end is up! And she knows it and won’t mess with them!
______________________
You need to read my posts because I do not support the proposed ordinance. Just the same the matter of “historical district” appeals to some in River Oaks because it might allow them to tighten their already tight deed restrictions in such a way as to prevent any more “Craftsman” and “Tuscan Tacky” out of River Oaks.
And keep people from painting their stucco odd colors. So far no one has gone beyond white or cream with the old brick. But you never know. Someone might decide they like purple brick with orange trim.
Zoning by ordinance will not fly in River Oaks. Historical districts might. The ‘twain might meet so to speak.
Sherwood Forest might follow them. Particlarly if the Jerry Moore home is torn down and replaced with another “Tuscan Tacky” nightmare.
As everyone pretty much expected the meeting tonight was different than the others. It looked like about 500 showed up and the opponents of the new ordinance were dominant. At the end Sue Lovell had a hand vote by District “For†and “Against†having a revote on the Historic District application. The vote broke down this way:
Heights South: For – 65 / Against – 40
Heights West: For – 38 / Against – 25
Heights East: For – 49 / Against – 31
Because there was a clear majority in favor of a revote Sue said that there would be one (I recorded the meeting).
Now we need to make the City, HAHC and Sue Lovell make very clear to us how this vote will be interpreted and we must insist on having access to the ballot preparation as well as the ballot counting. I see three ways that they could interpret the vote and the most likely one leaves the possibility of a majority “no†vote still resulting in the Historic District being adopted:
Possibility 1, and in my opinion the least likely, is a democratic vote for the whole District. They have already said that they will adjust the boundary to fit the support, so I think this would be unlikely though it makes the most sense.
Possibility 2, and also unlikely, is a block by block determination. If they did this than there would likely be blocks scattered around and it would be very difficult to know what block was Historic and which wasn’t. This also would defeat the idea of what they are trying to accomplish.
Possibility 3, and this is the one I think most likely because it would result in the largest amount of Historic District land, is the electoral college method.
Take a 3 block area as an example, each block having 20 houses and each house using their vote:
Block 1 has 11 for the Historic District and 9 against, so it will count as FOR
Block 2 has 20 houses against, so it will count as AGAINST
Block 3 also have 11 for and 9 against, so it will count as FOR
In this scenario the actual vote will be 38 AGAINST and 22 FOR, but it could be interpreted as 2 blocks FOR and 1 AGAINST so all three will be considered Historic because more than 51% of the BLOCKS are for it.
There is a very real possibility that this will be the way this vote is interpreted unless we make the City define EVERYTHING before they do this ballot.
PYEWACKET2: Original Ordinance
http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/docs_pdfs/Hist_Pres_Ordin.pdf
Ammendments:
http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/docs_pdfs/HPO_CommentDraft.pdf
There was a substantial turnout for the Heights districts. SDC posted the vote. It amounts to 62% in each of the districts. The PROPERTY OWNERS (voters) have spoken. This is the only district where there was an organized effort to explain what the ordinance means to the homeowner. It would be interesting to see if homeowners in other districts would feel the same if they were actually INFORMED what these changes mean to them.
The meeting, on the whole, was the same partial information and confusing explanations. The city claims they can’t let the people actually speak because it would take too much time or it would be dominated by a few individuals. This could easily be overcome. They say read comments too but at one point, Marlene Gafrick read one card, put it aside, and said “This is a comment”. When they would read a comment, they would not address it.
CM Lovell said yesterday at council that these were not forums for comment and debate. They were informational gathering experiences for council EVEN THOUGH they told they were for everyone to make their feelings known.
The misleading statements and out and out LIES by those pushing this on the homeowners in historic districts in beyond comprehension! This is the worst spin job I have ever witnessed.
The meeting last night was similar to the others. Baldwin, wassef and powell with the ill mannered lot in a feeding frenzy created with the misinformation they chummed. Profit, profit, profit….it’s the only right they are trying to protect. So many I’d their listings of $650,000+ state they are in the Historic Heights. At the current rate, the history will be largely gone within 25-30 years.
Allen’s Bro, my long-time Heights resident friends have been here since before all the money and preservation talk arrived and are still here. They are all against this power grab by a select group who want to make all the decisions for the area without their input. They can and have been making their own decisions on proper preservation for years, and overall they have done a pretty good job. Taking away everyone’s property rights now, after the fact, because you’re scared of a few builders is bad form. There are other methods to protect your own property from the evil builders. Use those instead of taking away individual rights.
And on being ill mannered and feeding frenzied…stating your case without slandering your opponents will get you a lot farther around here.
Weirdo: There was lots of shouting last night. That’s ill mannered to me. Once someone shouted others joined in like a “feeding frenzy”. In the past ten years, 15 houses have been torn down on 4 blocks of my street. Maybe you haven’t had that amount of demolition. If so, you’re lucky.
From SCD:
Now we need to make the City, HAHC and Sue Lovell make very clear to us how this vote will be interpreted and we must insist on having access to the ballot preparation as well as the ballot counting.
_________________________
Good luck with that. Whatever ensures the votes go their way is what they will go with. By hook or by crook as they say.
I would raise my voice too if it was not allowed to be heard by MY elected officials in a forum that was suppose to be being held to take public opinions. That’s public outcry, not a feeding frenzy.
When your officials think they know what’s best for you without asking, it stinks. And from what I’ve read and heard, that’s what is going on at these meetings. Unfortunately, I’m just outside the WH district and have no say…yet.
Though I wish I could take my votes for Parker and Lovell back.
And yes, I have had new houses on my block. My block hasn’t come back like others and the new construction is actually helping my area. More remodels and new construction are on the way right now because I am a couple of blocks outside of the WH district and we are now more desirable.
I don’t feel that new construction is always a detriment. I think it’s helped contribute to saving an area that just 15 years ago was considered an undesirable place to live. Of course it can and has been taken to the extreme in some cases. That’s because the individual homeowners did not place protections on their lot. It is up to the individual homeowner to work on protecting their own property with minimum lot and lot deed restrictions, not force their will on everyone else.
FYI, if someone wants to build more on my street, come on. I could use the extra money when I sell for retirement.
Some have suggested this started out as an attempt by some to protect themselves from gentrification. Those who bought the little bungalows and will never be able to afford the “faux chateau” in Sherwood Forest but don’t care because they really like the little bungalows but who nonetheless don’t want the “faux chateau” being built next to them which will drive up their valuations and drive them out when their property taxes go up.
The easier solution would be to demand our tax and appraisal system be changed. Capped tax rates and acquisition value works well in California. The new $1,000,000 home doesn’t proportionately affect the value of the old $100,000. If California is in trouble, it’s not because of the tax and appraisal system. It’s because of the legislature and local government living beyond their means. The scandal in Bell a prime example. And of course it’s not that different here. And the politicians don’t want to give up their ATM machine because they can always have valuations raised to cover the “overdraft fees.”
As for protecting anything, anyone who believes any politician would support an ordinance that would in effect put developers and homebuilders out of business is delusional. But then we have quite a few delusional people in our midst. As we see every November.
Yep, I so want our property tax system changed. That’s what is running the poor out of the Heights, our unfair tax system. Homeowners are taxed on unrealized gains they might never see.
I know my elder neighbors love feeling safe in their neighborhood again, but abhor having to fight their property evaluations each year because of it. It puts an undue burden on the poor and elderly.
From Heights Weirdo:
Yep, I so want our property tax system changed. That’s what is running the poor out of the Heights, our unfair tax system. Homeowners are taxed on unrealized gains they might never see.
______________________________
Well unfortunately this ordinance is not going to change that one bit. Although some probably do indeed believe it will.
Everyone I know thinks it is going to bring down property values. Though HCAD won’t agree, they’ll just keep increasing them because they need the money. Lose, lose is all I see for the individual small homeowner.
And I also foresee a lot of upset homeowners, big and small, when they don’t make a nice profit when they sell, as they do now.
Our neighborhood is not yet considered ‘historic’. Our fear is that Ms Mayor and HAHC has their eye on this particular ‘hood and if I’m reading correctly, they can so designate it without our property owner input.
We do have long standing deed restrictions which we’ve maintained and updated for over 75 years, with setbacks etc but will that be enough to keep us a non-historic district?
One thing in our favor–we are in the part of town that some folks consider undesirable, but then I remember back when the Heights was a very scary place to be living. And don’t even talk about Washington Ave.
>There was lots of shouting last night. That’s ill mannered to me. Once someone shouted others joined in like a “feeding frenzyâ€.<
It appeared to me that what was occuring was out of frustration at not being heard, at having comments ignored, at having questions “interpreted” by the Hysterical Commission’s band of merry spin doctors. If the public had a REAL forum to discuss this issue, that wouldn’t occur. The mayor’s cheif communication employee, Ms. Davis posted on the WH chat that Parker wanted these meetings tightly controlled yet the PEOPLE, the HOMEOWNERS wanted a voice. Sometimes, when you try to control and manage people too much, you get backlash. (Sounds like their ordinance too, n’est pas?) That is what I saw last night. Their excuse for why the people can’t speak is LAME, like most of the illogical arguments they try to make. For politicians, they aren’t very good at making a logical argument that anyone with half an ability to logically reason can’t refute with ease. It’s like shooting ducks in a barrel. I suppose that is what happens when you don’t have a logical position…you make illogical explanations and when all else fails, force it on people if you have the power. They keep reminding us they do. We need to show them that the power of the people trumps their power as ELECTED officials.
Some are calling for a recall of Gonzalez if he doesn’t support the MAJORITY of homeowners on this issue (although the Wal-Mart folks are the ones pushing a recall). I haven’t gotten on that band wagon YET but the MAJORITY of homeowners spoke loud and clear last night. Pay attention, Ed. Your political future might rest in the hands of the 62% of homeowners that said NO last night.
>The meeting last night was similar to the others. Baldwin, wassef and powell with the ill mannered lot in a feeding frenzy created with the misinformation they chummed. Profit, profit, profit….it’s the only right they are trying to protect.<
Apparently you missed the 62% of HOMEOWNERS who said NO to NO means NO!! This isn’t about builders. It’s about HOMEOWNERS. Every homeowner against this should be outraged that you diminish their opposition by claiming it is just a bunch of people who don’t live in the district and whose only concern is making money from new construction. It is a LIE being promoted by the “chain yourself to a bungalow” group to MISLEAD the homeowners into thinking that they are the only property owner in the community scratching their head and thinking that this is really bad for our community. They won’t be fooled that easily.
>So many I’d their listings of $650,000+ state they are in the Historic Heights.<
Take a deep breath man, and slow down. You are having trouble making sense. It is understandable that you are upset at your big loss last night. Your comment is unintelligible – so relax and explain what are you talking about? Realtors? And their listings of $650k which state they are in the historic district? Are you upset they say they say they are in the historic district or that they are $650k. Aren’t they in the Historic District? What troubles you about either?
One suggestion for you. You might want to use caution when questioning why a realtor would be against this ordinance. It sort of makes you sound ignorant since 99% of folks who buy property rely on realtors for advice about the value of their largest investment. What makes YOU the authority on property value? Are you the guy who asks his mechanic to put braces on your kids to straighten their teeth? Or maybe you want your mailman to do your dry cleaning? Put your property valuation credentials up against those people who design, renovate, build, sell, appraise and inspect property…if you are an authority on the subject. Talk on an intelligent level about property valuation when you understand the subject matter and have REAL and CURRENT data to back it up. Otherwise, leave the expertise in the hands of those who have it.
Please calm down before responding. I’m seriously worried about your blood pressure. Wouldn’t want you to have a stroke!
For anyone interested: I recorded the meeting last night and have it as an mp3 file. It is a little over 40 Mb so it’s large but not too big. I put it on my website to download but I have limited bandwidth so I’m not going to post the link. If you would like to copy it please email me at steven-at-scdesignllc.com and I will send you the link. I don’t care if you are for or against the Ordinance, just ask and I’ll send it.
Allens Bro,
Your take is getting old. I have been trying to ignore your constant name dropping, it is also getting old. You are obviously out of touch with this issue. You need to call Sharie Beale, she has a much longer list of residents that oppose the ordinance, it will give you some new ammunition. I am sure you know how to reach her.
Speaking of name dropping: Do you mean the same Sharie Beale who is working with the group supporting the proposed preservation ordinance amendments? Seems doubtful she would have a list of opponents ready to send out.
Jim,
She does have a list, she advertised that fact in a recent email to supporters of the ordinance. She stated that you simply need to contact her for the names. She is also on the HAHC board, not just a supporter and resident.
Thanks, Chester.
Doesn’t it seem unfair, that those who live in townhomes, or new homes get to vote, on whether contributing, or potentially contributing homes will lose their property rights concerning demolition of their property. The townhomes & new homes are exempt, they can be torn down. This seems to smell as well, quite foul.
Jeff,
You would be surprised at who signed the petitions for the creation of the districts. In Heights South for example, 22% of the signed petitions to create the district came from new homes.
It seems fair to me that they be allowed to vote, it’s their neighborhood too.
You are free to create deed restrictions on your own property, or get a landmark status. It is a simple process.
To be fair, all structures should be treated the same, as far as demolition is concerned.
New homes, and townhomes, should be held to the same level, or you could say, the same penalty, not be allowed to be torn down, the same as contributing & potential contributing. They want to preserve old homes, but they don’t want to live in one.
So I have read that the Heights meeting on 08/10 had more people against the changes and also that it was the same as the other meetings? Which one? I am curious how the Woodland Heights meeting went. Were there as many people against the changes in the WH meeting?
The sad thing is that ultimately this fight will hurt everyone in the neighborhood. The interesting thing is that our mayor is hell bent to become a one term wonder. Ugh.
Clark WH,
The answer to your question is both. 62% wanted a re-vote or re-survey as they now call. It was different than other meetings but they all have been different from one another. Some didn’t get to vote. Others voted on whether they wanted the changes. The Heights voted on whether to vote.
The meeting at PPP was different and the opposition was not as strong but there also wasn’t the same effort to educate Norhill and WH. Both have deed restrictions and neither have the same number of deteriorated structures as the Heights. So, they don’t have the same opportunties for new construction. They never lost their deed restrictions. Norhill is a good example of what WH should do, which is strengthen their deed restrictions and prevent the things that the neighborhood doesn’t want. Why let the city control things and add another process to your remodel/renovation project? It results in higher costs, as much as 30%, for your contractor to deal with the delays and trouble of dealing with the city’s historic commission. Your 200k project turns into a 250k nightmare dealing with the HAHC.
If you want to stop demolition and townhouses, deed restrict. If you want to give architectural control to political appointees, create a historic district. Personally, I would rather deal with my neighbors, who have a vested interest in my community.
HAHC Supporters Hijack Property-Rights Issue at Thursday Night’s Meeting.
_
Anyone who does not respect other peoples’ rights does not have the legitimacy to bemoan rights violations.
_
HAHC supporters want to control building, additions and major repair decisions over ALL the properties that we bought and paid for. We pay the mortgage and taxes and they own rights over our properties. What’s wrong with this logic?. On the other hand, we want everyone’s rights to be respected and property decisions to be made by the individual owner instead of by a committee. Their ‘rights’ cry sounds legitimate, but is designed to cloud the issue, hopping to draw those who sit on the fence regarding new restrictions.
_
I would never dream of claiming rights over my neighbor’s property. I believe in his right to preserve his old-house or build a new one if he wishes; but my respect for his rights does not extend beyond the boundaries of his lot. No unelected committee should have the right to tell me the only option I have is to meet their approval regardless how unreasonable their rules are.
_
The main thing that brought the Heights back was new construction; it has paved the way for those who want to restore old houses and made it a safe investment; and for those who want new construction it has raised the value of our land and the taxes have helped improve our schools. There are hundreds if not thousands of old houses inside the loop that are not being saved because no new houses are being build in those areas.
_
If HAHC and their supporters continue to get their way, the Houston Heights will freeze in time and could sadly become the largest Bungalow Graveyard in the nation. They won’t tell you about the other ‘historic’ Graveyards in St. Louis, MO, and Chicago to name a few; Sixth Ward is well on it’s way there too. We got a good thing going here and it is working well, let’s not fix what works. After all, property rights are a lot older than bungalows.
Okay. After several months of watching/reading the comments on this forum I have decided to jump in and add my worthless two cents. My wife and I are in the process of purchasing and completely renovating and expanding a bungalow in the Heights West Historic District. After all of the (mis)information being distributed here, I attended the HAHC meeting today fully anticipating the prospect of our application for our COA to be rejected. Much to the dismay of the vocal majority here, we were approved with nary a glance. I thought I would take this opportunity to bring to light some of the points that are routinely posted here as fact which, as it turns out, couldn’t be farther from the truth. First:
Chester wrote, “The only practicle way to enlarge a one story bungalow will be to build into the back yard.”
Wrong. Our plans call not only for enlarging into the back yard, but a substantial addition to the SIDE of the home.
Second:
Heights Weirdo wrote, “from what I’ve seen, the committee doesn’t have to prove they are right either. The homeowner has to try to.”
Wrong. Maybe this has been what YOU have seen, but today there were two homes that the committee called the “staff” to task over because they had no proof of what the home originally looked like. They ultimately voted to reject the “staff” recommendation to deny a COA and granted one instead. There may have been more homes this happened to, but I left 2/3 through the meeting.
To wrap this already long post up, I could go on, and will if anyone REALLY wants to listen. But ultimately, I guess I can say that I was mostly really unimpressed with the lack of fireworks and the prevelance of sanity at this meeting. Contrary to posts here, there was actual adult-like dialog, with sound minds prevailing on every issue I was present for. Granted, there were over 30 items on the agenda, and I left with about 10 left. Maybe I missed the Battle Royale. At the end of the day, I can tell you that the Historical designation is EXACTLY why we chose to persue this project. We don’t want a 4000 square foot two story on a 6600 square foot lot looming over our home. And while I am sure there are plenty of people out there that will be turned off by the fact they can’t build a Hardi-Planked or stuccoed (is that a word?) monstrosity next to me, I can assure all of you that there are more people looking to purchase property with Historic Neighborhood protection than the market has available. We know. We have been looking for almost two years. And remember…if you don’t want to live in an Historic Neighborhood, you still have the choice not to. George Bush, Annise Parker, Rick Perry, Barack Obama, or the polititian of your choice that you harbor vitriolic hate for hasn’t taken that away from you…yet.
Have a good day, boys and girls!
Pirsh,
This indeed is GREAT news! I have some questions. Where does the side expansion begin? How much back yard will you have left? Is your addition two story? If it is two story, does it mimic the pitch of the roof line of of the original home?
If you are allowed to widen your home, then that is a change from previous decisions. They have ruled many times against side additions and want to keep the setbacks of the original home. For example, they denied a C of A for a home that wanted to punch out the side wall of the dining room, like what is in my home which was built with a punch out for a room length window seat. This extension did not extend past the setback for the deed restrictions. That type of thing is on the record for most C of A’s which attempt to widen a home.
My home needs to be widened at the front. The front bedroom does not have a closet and the second only has a tiny closet. Due to the configuration of doors and windows and the already small size of the rooms, closet space cannot be added on the interior. If they have changed their approach, fantastic. If your experience is anectodal, not so much.
One last question. How long did it take you to get your C of A?
I agree, the current rules and processes have been a great success and they work very well. But what we are talking about is changing the current rules to make them more restrictive and also removing any alternatives for the homeowner when the HAHC won’t issue them a COA. The members of the HAHC might be very reasonable people right now, but these things are not static, there is nothing to prevent future people on the HAHC from being unreasonable 10 years from now. And when you as a homeowner have no other alternative, there is less reason for the HAHC to be reasonable and compromise with you when there is disagreement. If the proposed ordinance passes the successful process that you experienced will change.
The HAHC is under a lot of scrutiny right now with folks, including reporters, watching what they do and how they do it. I’m betting decisions being made are currently much more agreeable and with more compromise and documentation than in the past so they can say “see, we play fair.”
Down In Dixie:
To answer your questions, the addition runs down the left side of the home, begins 25 feet from the front and runs the length of the house (40 feet). It is approximately 10 feet wide. There is also a 21 foot by 16 foot addition off the back right-hand side of the house. The roof line will remain the same height, except where a previous addition that was done in the 1950’s will be totally reworked to be brought more in line with the rest of the house. It will remain a single story. As for how much back yard we will have, well, not a lot. About 1200 square feet in the shape of a “backwards ‘L'” if that makes any sense. We are fortunate that we have alley access, and the two car garage that is there currently is at the back of the property, allowing us to access it from the alley and eliminating the long driveway, creating space for the addition. We applied for the CofA on 8/10 and were approved at the meeting on 8/25. If you want to be approved at the 9/23 meeting, you application has to be in by 9/8. There were several side additions approved yesterday. Now here’s the part a lot of folks aren’t going to want to hear. My advise is to hire an architect/contractor familiar with the process. On two occasions that I witnessed, when the staff recommended denial of the CofA, the architects of the project were able to speak intelligently and thoughtfully on their proposals, and could answer any of the boards questions. Both of these resulted in the Board rejecting the staff’s recommendation and ultimately granting the CofA. When individual homeowner’s got up to explain and justify their projects, they were, quite frankly, unsuccessful. Right or wrong, “’cause it’s my house and I wanna” and “’cause it’s cheap” ain’t gonna fly. I’m not saying that’s the way it should be, I’m just saying it is what it is. Be part of the project and the process. Contact HAHC for guidance BEFORE you sink your life savings into starting a project. Get online and look at the plans that were approved at the previous months meeting, and perhaps more importantly, look at the ones that WEREN’T approved and see why not. It’s right there in black and white. And be patient. This is certainly not an “I wanna do this and I wanna get started tomorrow” process. However, I do believe that if we all take a deep breath and calm down, this is something that in a few years most of us will agree was a good thing. As for making changes just because there is attention focused on them, that could be. But isn’t that what the detractors of the Preservation Ordinance want? And I know some are going to say that this is just temporary and that things will go back to the way it was once the spotlight is off of them. But I say that a well-informed citizen with a handful of precedent-setting pre-approvals (how do ya like all them hyphens?)will have a pretty good chance of getting their CofA’s approved.
Have a good day, boys and girls!
Pirsch,
It is fortunate that you didn’t need to add to the front part of your house. There is NO way to add a closet to the room at the front of my home. I was crazy enough to buy a home with this problem but not many families are. And, as it turned out, it has been a big problem for us too with no storage as my child grew into a teen. The room has a set of french doors, a doorway to a hall on the only long stretch of wall and there are two sets of double windows on the other walls. Consequently no place or room for a closet anywhere. I have had an area architect/renovator who is considered one of the best in the Heights look at my home and he said the only way to “fix” my house is to widen it, starting at the front, which won’t get approved. 25 ft from the front is something they will at least consider. My situation is wholly different. There is no precedence for what I need except in the form of denial. However, I am just a single homeowner although I assure you that I am not alone in my need to widen my house for similar reasons. My house is the standard bungalow configuration with LR/DR/KIT on one side and BR/BA/BR on the other. These rooms are small and don’t have the storage required for modern homebuyers. When the HAHC approves 25 houses which need to be expanded to make sense for contemporary living, I will be confident that they are making good decisions. For now, one or two that get approval to be widened starting 25 ft back or farther isn’t enough of an indication that these homes won’t remain too small for growing families.
Your remaining small yard may prove a hinderance for future sales. This is the point that others are making about the yard being taken up by the addition and the problem it creates for selling to families with young children who want play space or room for a pool.
I’m glad it worked out for you. Hopefully you won’t have problems with the historic inspector as others have had once they got into their project. One had to add $18,000 for custom milled siding — YIKES. Can’t have too many of those kinds of over-runs and still make the project economically viable!
NO one has said that every HAHC decision is is bad but there are a lot of horror stories too. My favorite one recently is a renovator red-tagged for removing termite eaten studs (which won’t be ever be seen) from an exterior wall. The engineer wouldn’t sign off but the city wanted them to keep them in place and add new next to them. Seriously!!! Studs! Hope you don’t have those types of problems because some people do!
I have read the posts related to the changes to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. I have not been able to respond until now and I think I am in a unique position to comment on this issue.
First to establish my street cred: I am a fifth generation Houstonian. My father grew up on 15th at Rutland in an adorable house that stands today. My ancestors have built houses on Avondale, on Morgan’s Point next to the Sterling Mansion, and a bank that is now Rockefellers. My best friend since second grade also has ancestors in the Heights, Greater Houston as well as Galveston areas. Her grandmother and my father went to All Saints together, and their parents help to found this church.
I have lived in the Heights area for 15 years. We started our family in a little cottage on Key Street. We moved to a Craftsman style 4300 sq ft house on Cortlandt in 2001. It actually looks like an old house and when we sold it people could not believe it was built this century.
In an effort to right-size our lives, we sold the big house, bought an old bungalow on Cortlandt, moved to my parents’ vacant house in River Oaks and started the remodeling process. First architects, then a ridiculous number of weeks with the engineer, and finally we were ready for the city.
Unfortunately, our plans made it to the city the first week of June. Because we are now in the East Heights Historic District, we can’t get a permit without approval of the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission. Since we had just missed the cut off of the end of the month, we had to wait until the July 15 meeting to get approval (about 40 days).
Meanwhile, we are able to get a permit for interior construction only. We had to get new plans drawn up by the architect with no exterior changes $$. Then, the architect met with the working group of the HAHC $$. The HAHC liked the changes that we are making but do not want us to move the front door to an area between two front windows. This is because putting the door there will change the amount of “fenestrations†in the front of the house, and therefore make it harder to return our house to its original state.
New plans were drawn up by the architect with the door in the place of a window $$. I went to meeting on July 15th to get approval from the full committee, closing my clinic for half a day $$. Our plans were approved.
On July 27th I get an email that my COA is ready. Next step, my contractor brings this down to the city for a revised permit $$.
This process requires additional money and time. The payoff of getting a Certificate of Approval is a tax break for city taxes (not county). If we had not been approved or decided we REALLY wanted the door between the windows, we could have waited 90 days to get our permit.
During our involvement with the historic commission, there were several events of note. First, city council voted yes on a moratorium on the 90 day waiting period for demolishing or moving old houses in historic district till the end of the year.
Next, the South Heights Historic District was accepted by the committee. It should be noted that this was done after much discussion and some controversy at the July 15th meeting. The first issue was that apparently every historic district so far has used PUBLIC LAND SQUARE FOOTAGE as being FOR a historic district. So esplanades and parks were somehow signed up in the FOR column. Apparently this was not quite kosher so public land had to be removed from the South Heights petition, leaving only 50.3% of the land in the FOR column. It was suggested to hold this over till the next meeting so that more signatures could be obtained. Instead, during the meeting the edges of the proposed district were gerrymandered to make the total over 51%. Now, this is apparently allowed, but sure does look bad. If the neighborhood is really in favor of this district, why not wait a month and get the signatures?
A couple of weeks after this was the announcement that the 90 day waiting period would be going away forever, meaning that you MUST get approval by the HAHC or you will not get a permit. Whoa!
So what is the problem? If going before the HAHC is no big deal, why do we care if they get the final say in all decisions affecting the front of my house?
Here is why it is a big deal: The HAHC is made up of people who are appointed, not elected. The decisions are at times arbitrary. The guidelines are vague. The intention is not just to keep the character of the neighborhood and to prevent destroying old homes. There is also a very clear mandate to try to return houses to their original state, and to prevent any changes which may make this more difficult.
In my case, my house has been altered so many times, including a second story addition, that it is impossible to tell what it looked like originally. Also, the house is a total DAWG! Seriously folks, it is ugly. Any changes we make that don’t include neon signs and a drive-thru window will be an improvement.
At the July 15th meeting, there was a guy trying to redo a cottage that, in its current state looks like a crack house. He wanted to remove a rusted metal porch roof. His first design replaced it with an arbor, as is seen in many parts of the Heights. This was not allowed. He was returning with another design that kept the roof as a metal roof but made it a standing seam roof, and at such a pitch that you would not be able to see the metal from the street. There was significant back and forth discussion from the committee, the major objection being that the porch roof tied into the main roof and this might make it more difficult to return this house to its original state. The architect noted that the new roof would be tying into the roof where the old one does, because that is where the beam is. A very rude woman from the committed continued to badger them about this, asking if they had any PROOF that the original house had a porch roof that tied in there. It was unbelievable. This woman was catty and adversarial and I really felt sorry for the homeowner. I’m also pretty sure his neighbors were sick of looking at the crackhouse.
Real estate agents have really borne the brunt of the criticism from those that support the amendments to the Historic District ordinance. I know MANY homeowners that are against the amendments. I know several people in the South Heights Historic District who feel that they were tricked and would never have signed the petition for that district without the 90 day waiver. The 90 day waiver is the only recourse if the committee is unreasonable.
I am not a real estate agent or developer and I don’t play one on TV. I am a little irritated at the vitriol from people who don’t have the courage to identify themselves. If you really have a point, use your real name.
Every day I walk my dog and see such cool houses. I would hate for any of them to be torn down. On the other hand, I know some old houses just are not viable. I do like the current rules that at least make people stop and think about whether they want to tear down a house.
The usual examples that are trotted out to demonstrate the atrocities of builders are a house being torn down and two put in its place, or two torn down and three put up. These issues have nothing to do with the HISTORIC nature of buildings and the neighborhood, but rather with the small town feel of the Heights. All of these examples can be prevented by having prevailing lot size and prevailing lot line restrictions that are strongly enforced.
Calling the Heights a historic district does not make it historic. The rich history of the neighborhood makes it historic. Neighborhoods change over time, and though changes are part of the fabric of our lives and our city. I expect Bayou Bend to look the exact same in 20 or 40 years. It is a museum. I expect my neighborhood to change. I am not living in a museum.
What has saved the Heights from blight during the lean years is the fact it is “dryâ€. When houses were falling into disrepair, crime was increasing and the neighborhood faltered, no one could come in and open a strip club or liquor store. Once those elements creep into a neighborhood, it is hard to ever get them out. Montrose is still a victim of this process.
I am not sure why it is so important for certain people to make the Heights a historic district and to keep the neighborhood from changing and developing over time. River Oaks in not a historic district, despite the many historic homes there. I think this is because the people that live there are not willing to give up their property rights
My biggest opposition to the proposed changes to the historic district is the divisiveness it has caused in my neighborhood. I have been personally insulted by people that I consider my neighbors and friends over this issue, and I don’t mean because I wanted to discuss this with them. These were unsolicited comments.
My best friend since grade school is in favor of this amendment. I love her to pieces and I am not going to let this stupid amendment affect that. I know she has a point and I know I have a point. No, she has not made comments to me. We don’t talk about it.
My biggest fear is that we will end up with no protection at all for the cool old homes. I think a waiting period for demolitions is a good idea. I want to keep the character of our neighborhood without being told where to put my front door.
I really would like certain peeps on the Heights Association board to cease with the paternalistic attitude toward my neighborhood. They do not represent the majority of the neighbors. Many of them just have a lot more time on their hands than the rest of us.
There is a difference between respecting history and being corseted by it. I love the Heights because it is heterogeneous. There is much less of the materialism and inflexibility that is seen in other neighborhoods. I love that someone wants to put a giant disco ball over their driveway.
I know this was long but I had a lot to say. Keep the Heights funky, fight the Frumpies.
Allison,
You hit on one of the biggest failings of the HAHC. The idea that anyone is going to tear down or remove improvements that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars is absolutely ludicrous. That is absolutely the agenda of some of the staff who seem to live in some preservation haze filled bubble promoting the idea that at some point people will want to live as they did in 1920. They are so out of touch with reality that they actually say, out loud, that the need to preserve a structure’s original form because it will one day be so valuable as a relic that of course a homeowner will want to undo progress and return it to its original build. Were Heights bungalows of a sufficient size and made from more durable and long lasting materials, there would be no need to expand them. However, even if you are talking about the mansions in some of the other districts, do they really believe that a million dollar renovation will ever be undone? Its hard to believe that they make those types of comments with a straight face, but they do.
These people need to be replaced with intelligent, realistic individuals who understand what historic preservation is really about and how to do it in a 21st century way.
Allison–kudos and thanks for sharing.
Best line in the post:
“Calling the Heights a historic district does not make it historic.”
Many folks who live there seem to think otherwise. This is just the impression I’ve gotten from posts made here and on HAIF.
But, and in response to Dixie, at least nine of the folks on the HAHC board change with each administration. Those 9 are appointed by the mayor. So, while that rude catty woman may be replaced by someone more intelligent and realistic when Parker leaves office, it would be a temporary fix.
I just continue to be amazed that the mayor and HAHC seem to think it’s entirely OK to dictate to folks what they can do with their possessions. And I continue to worry about the older retired homeowners who are on fixed incomes living in homes they’ve owned for 40 years or more. Their financial resources are much more restricted than those of 30-40 year olds when it comes to remodels or even routine maintenance.
Pirsch:
Are you in the process of or have you already purchased?
If I were you, I would take a long drive through the streets of Old Sixth Ward (it is not very large) and see for yourself what the proposed restrictions can do to a neighborhood. Do not be fooled by how ‘reasonable’ HAHC members seem regarding the COA process based on a few visits to a couple of meetings. You seem like an open-minded reasonable person and I would be interested in your reaction after you spend some time visiting Old Sixth Ward.