COMMENT OF THE DAY: AFTON OAKS AFTERTHOUGHT “Maybe a light rail stop would help to staunch the bleeding.” [Nord, commenting on Plenty of Expensive Homes for Sale in Afton Oaks]
Sign up for the Newsletter
Tag: Neighborhood Disputes
NEIGHBORHOODS NOT PAYING FOR NO FRONT-YARD PARKING NOTICES Civic clubs won’t have to shell out thousands of dollars for postage if they want to apply for a front-yard parking ban after all, the Chronicle‘s Bradley Olson reported last week: “After the neighborhoods balked, the planning department purchased equipment that will allow it — instead of neighborhoods — to send bulk mailings. The department estimates it will pay $15,000 to $20,000 in mailing costs in the first year and $125,000 over five years for the bulk mailing equipment. ‘I’m really excited that the administration listened to the voices of the homeowners and the civic associations,’ said Councilman James Rodriguez, who pushed for city to revise its stance. As of [last] Thursday afternoon, the planning department had received four applications, all from neighborhoods in the Spring Branch area.” [Houston Chronicle, previously in Swamplot]
A Swamplot reader from the Missouri City neighborhood of Quail Glen writes in asking for help figuring out what to do about a neighbor who’s tapped her water line:
“. . . the guilty party had dug up the ground and connected a line from [their house] (previous and currently disconnected for several months) into the active line that provides water that we are paying for. This investigation was initially sparked during January 2009 due to skyrocketing water bills. After several visits to our home and meter, the City of Houston discovered the problem on today. When confronted, the inhabitants fabricated a story saying that they pay a 300.00 water bill each month to the City of Houston (despite their account being disconnected) and that they are moving anyway.
Our reader has a bit more to say about those neighbors:
WASHINGTON AVE SPEC’S: TOO CLOSE FOR SOUTHERN COMFORT The Harris County Attorney’s office filed suit last week, demanding the Spec’s Beer and Wine store at 6100 Washington Ave. — near the Westcott roundabout — be shut down. The new store is within 1000 ft. of a school. How’d it get there? “In December 2007 [Spec’s owner John Rydman] sent a letter explaining his intent to the school — Memorial Elementary — and put in an application with the city. To his surprise, the city said yes. He said he assumed that since the proposed store was a couple of blocks away, across a major intersection and not even visible from school property, the city had granted him an exception to the rule. He said he double-checked to make sure there were no problems and was assured that neither the city nor the school district opposed the prospective store. About $400,000 later, and on the hook for a lease totaling $2.4 million more, Rydman now finds himself at odds with the state, which wants to yank his license. The law is the law, says the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, and since a formal variance was not given by the city, Spec’s is violating it.” [Houston Chronicle]
Plans for the Ashby Highrise were rejected by the city for the 9th time last week. But . . . this rejection appears to be a bit kinder than the others have been.
How much kinder? The West U Examiner‘s Michael Reed explains:
. . . the tone of the city engineer’s remarks seemed less perfunctory than in the project’s recent permit denials.
In his comments dated March 16, Mark Loethen said “conflicts in drawings sets have been addressed and revised†since the previous rejection Feb. 13.
Saying the city is still concerned about the distance between a proposed entrance on Bissonnet Street and the Dunlavy Street intersection and the volume of left-turns during peak traffic hours, Loethen offered a potential solution.
“Increasing distance between (the) entrance driveway and Dunlavy along with other mitigation measures may be considered,†his comments read.
That sure makes it sound like a building permit for the 23-story highrise — which developer Buckhead Investment Partners still insists on calling 1717 Bissonnet — isn’t that far away from actual city approval. Can’t these tiny remaining details just be worked out in a friendly little get-together?
PROBLEMS WITH THE FRONT-YARD PARKING POSTAGE METER Houston’s opt-in-only front-yard parking ban, which goes into effect next week, is already proving popular with neighborhood groups — but expensive. “The current application requires civic clubs to pay for first-class mailings to every property owner that would fall under the parking ban. ‘We’re seeing whole neighborhoods come in (to apply), like 5,000 residences,’ said Planning Department spokeswoman Suzy Hartgrove. ‘We underestimated the magnitude of the interest in the program. We weren’t fully budgeted for this, and this was a way for neighborhoods to share the cost.’ . . . Sharpstown, for example, has more than 6,800 homes. Informing all the owners through a first-class mailing would cost at least $3,000. Milton Winebrenner, the Sharpstown Civic Association president, said he is asking the city to allow them to do a bulk-rate mailing. Other neighborhood leaders want to know why they cannot use their regular homeowner association newsletter to inform residents.” Or hey, why not just use Swamplot? We’ll post keep-off-your-lawn notices for free! [Houston Chronicle; previously in Swamplot]
These bright letters, dated this past Friday, are now posted throughout the Wilshire Village Apartments. They’re a friendly notice from the city Building Official, informing the remaining residents of the 17-building maintenance-deprived apartment complex at Alabama and Dunlavy that their residences “pose a serious and immediate hazard to the occupants” — and yanking all Certificates of Occupancy.
Oh . . . but all is not lost! The owner can appeal:
The Owner of the Property is entitled to request a hearing by delivering a written request to the Building Official at 3300 Main, Houston Texas 77002. The Building Official or his designee shall hold a hearing within three business days after receiving such request, unless the owner requests an extension of time.
Given the apparent owner’s evident interest in scrapping the place, that’s not likely. Any objections from anybody else?
Some fun recent pix from around town!
Above, from this weekend: the Williams Tower just moments before liftoff, as captured by Flickr user Bokeh Down.
Oh yes there’s more:
COMMENT OF THE DAY: RELEASING THE WILSHIRE VILLAGE INSURANCE HOLD “. . . Why keep residents there? Insurance for an occupied commercial exposure is MUCH cheaper than a vacant one. Vacant buildings or sites have to be secured to prevent problems with the city and attractive nuisance lawsuits. Rent was coming in, even if it was minimal. All roads lead to the fact that it was financially advantageous to not change anything until time to do something else with the property.” [Hellsing, commenting on Wilshire Village Moving Day: They Shall Be Released]
The latest from the drawn-out, soap-opera-worthy Wilshire Village kick-’em-out festival: A source tells Swamplot that owner Matt Dilick’s Commerce Equities has informed a tenant that electricity for the 8-acre complex will be turned off on March 28th.
Plus: complaints about what our source terms the “psychological warfare” waged against the remaining residents of the complex on Dunlavy and W. Alabama:
[Dilick] has never identified himself as the owner or contacted [any of the residents]. An army of COH inspectors was here as well as the Fire Marshal touring the property with Jay Cohen, to whom [residents have] paid rent for 20 years. Now [the complex has been] papered with fire hazard and code violation signs. It preys on your mind. Why can’t Dilick say he’s the owner and give . . . a proper eviction notice? Guess it’s cheaper to scare [them] out.
The source also claims a city representative had instructed residents not to pay rent for March, but also told them they could be evicted with only 24 hours notice. And then there’s a little rumor Swamplot’s source has heard — that the place will be bulldozed on March 29th.
The River Oaks Examiner‘s Michael Reed reports that “more than 10 families” are serious about leaving Wilshire Village . . . and they’ll be hosting a couple of eviction sales over the next 2 weekends to prove it:
“We are going to be OUT, but you don’t have to be … shop indoors at those apartments participating,†fliers being distributed for the event read.
Could that mean? . . . Yes, apparently:
A resident, told the Examiner that tenants had recently been given until the end of March to leave, and that the owner had agreed to help with the moving expenses.
“We haven’t seen anything in writing,†he said, but added that he is “reasonably pleased.â€
- Wilshire residents plan eviction sale [River Oaks Examiner]
- Wilshire Village coverage [Swamplot]
Photo of Wilshire Village window: Katharine Shilcutt Gleave
The Chronicle’s Mike Snyder comments on the the Ashby Highrise’s latest failing grade:
Since March of last year, [Matthew] Morgan and [Kevin] Kirton have submitted various versions of their permit application eight times, and the city has rejected it eight times.
Since one definitition of insanity is taking the same action repeatedly and expecting a different result, some observers have speculated that the developers were building a record for a lawsuit. The language in their timeline shows they’re prepared to take this step, whether or not it’s been part of their strategy all along.
The developers are portraying this case as an example of heavy-handed and inequitable city regulation that all developers should worry about. How much support they’ll get from their industry colleagues if they choose to go to court remains to be seen.
But Jennifer Dawson, writing in the Houston Business Journal, notes that Buckhead Investment Partners has been fiddling with those plans they keep submitting:
COMMENT OF THE DAY: WHO OWNS WILSHIRE VILLAGE? “Dilick purchased the property in 2002. He was aware that prople still lived in Wilshire Village as the rent checks continued to come in. He/Flat Stone II Ltd./Alabama & Dunlavy Ltd. was not only a developer at that point but a property owner and a landlord. . . . here’s where the circus music gets cued. Jay Cohen continued to ACT in the capacity of property manager/landlord/owner for the next SEVEN years. It is highly unlikely that Dilick had no idea this was going on. Texas law considers a principal to be vicariously liable for the torts of agents committed in the course and scope of their employment. Was Jay Cohen actually employed as the Wilshire Village property manager or do we have a case of ostensible (“for all appearancesâ€) agency? If Dilick ALLOWED him to walk, talk and act like one, then a reasonable person could legitimately assume that such was the case. Jay Cohen made the statement to more than one resident, acting in the capacity of someone with the authority to do so, that they would not have to leave the property as stated in the eviction notice. Texas recognizes oral agreements as binding with 4 exceptions that must be in writing, but lease extension is not one of them. Implied authority is further conveyed by Cohen being cc’d on the notice. Looks like Lucy has some ’splainin to do, hmmm?” [Hellsing, commenting on Comment of the Day: Wilshire Village Town Meeting]
COMMENT OF THE DAY: WILSHIRE VILLAGE TOWN MEETING “Residents met with an official of the City of Houston Police Department last night at a “town meeting†regarding the fate of Wilshire Village. They were informed that in the next 2 days the city will post orange notices for residents to vacate. They will follow up no later than the first week in March to remove personal items and toss them “on the side of the road, off the propertyâ€. Matt Dillick also reportedly has a request to a district judge to have anyone still on the property next week “removed†as well. Considering the age of those who were told they didn’t have to leave by Jay Cohen and now have 4 days to get out, I hope the authorities won’t feel the need to pull a Robbie Tolan on any of them.” [Hellsing, commenting on Comment of the Day: Wilshire Village Plan]
COMMENT OF THE DAY: WILSHIRE VILLAGE PLAN “The notices from the fire marshall are actually Fire Hazard warning stickers not condemned notices. Yes, they are very different according to the Fire Marshall. The condeming of the property will take a little more time but I am sure the plan is in motion. According to the fire marshall when he was at the property on thursday we will still have till the end of the month to get out. After that it’s going to get messy for the people who decide to stay.” [Dawn, commenting on Wilshire Village Apartments: Okay To Stay?]