WE’LL STILL HAVE THE NORHILL HISTORIC DISTRICT TO KICK AROUND The planning department has tallied all the surveys from property owners in the Norhill Historic District — the last of 7 historic districts subject to the one-time “reconsideration” provisions of the revised preservation ordinance city council passed last year. Department spokesperson Suzy Hartgrove says the number of surveys returned was below the 51 percent threshold that would have dissolved the district, but she hasn’t provided the actual percentage. Planning director Marlene Gafrick “has been meeting with council members whose districts are affected” by the reconsideration process, Hartgrove tells Swamplot. “We should have maps ready when this goes to council which may be as early as next week. The Planning Director is still working on her recommendations.” [Previously on Swamplot]
Sign up for the Newsletter
So…. Not that I’m not happy with the outcomes so far, but how many districts have changed? Had they just let things be, I wonder how much money would have been saved,
As a resident of Norhill, who intentionally bought a house in a historic district, I am so happy that Norhill will not only remain historic, but is now protected.
I have many friends in Norhill, the Heights, and other Historic Districts. Finally, NO MEANS NO. What little history this city has to offer future generations may actually survive our lifetime. Those down the line will thank us and wonder what the hell we were ever thinking to allow Hummer-homes, McMansions and the like to be built in such neighborhoods. All those real estate agents and builders of such beheamoths who funded the anti-historic movement can move on to other places so unprotected areas should organize now.
How about this as an argument against the historical district: “YOU DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT I CAN OR CANT DO WITH MY PROPERTY!”
I sound like a broken record on this – what do the terms “Hummer-homes” and “McMansion” mean? Heightsite, your post sounds like an attack on the size of houses. Is that a correct interpretation? There are plenty of old houses in the Heights that have way more space than your typical bungalow. If you want to attack new, then attack new, but do it in a way that doesn’t create this persistent inconsistency. Of course, you will need to figure out how to do it in a way that doesn’t hurt the Camelbacks! Why can’t the Bungalows, McVics, Victorian Revivals, McMansions, Hummer-homes, Camelbacks – did I miss any? – just get along?
“YOU DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT I CAN OR CANT DO WITH MY PROPERTY!â€
Cool. Can I move in next to you and do some meat rendering, take in some nuclear waste, put up a 90 ft tall wall on our shared property line with a giant painting of Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader flipping you the bird, fill up my drainage ditch with cement, chop down the utility poles on my property and cut down the power and phone lines (I never agreed to communistical utility easements), and have my 28 pit bulls practice their “skills” at 3 am? It’s my property. I can do whatever I want.
Old School – No, you can’t. I believe every one of those is prohibited by federal, state, and/or city law. Of course, now you can add to the list of prohibited actions the building of a new house, as nice as it may be, that does not conform to the standards that the Bungalows believe are best. That sure smells a lot different than a meat rendering plant, doesn’t it??
MOpens: I guess No Historic District’s argument wasn’t so good after all. Thanks for helping me out with that.
Ummm, sorry buddy, you can’t claim that I “helped you.” Let me be a little more direct – a Victorian Revival ain’t a meat rendering plant. You might not like a Victorian Revival, but it is not even in the same ballpark. Your interest in preserving Jim Walter homes is not the same as my interest in prohibiting all of the obviously-absurd things you listed. I think No Historic District is spot on.
Actually, we do have the right to tell you what you can or can’t do with your property, and we always have. That’s part of the social contract of living in a community with other people – like, for example, a city. The “we” in that sentence is “all your neighbors, via the messy process of representative democracy.”
THere is no bright line demarcating what is reasonable and what is not; anyone telling you there is is just not thinking very hard/ Communities all over the world wrestle with this and come to different conclusions. In many places, people have concluded that preserving historic districts is of value to the overall community, enough so to cause some inconvenience to property owners.
You can certainly argue with that, and there are valid arguments to be made for or against it, but “You don’t have the right to tell me what to do with my property” is not one of them; when you bought your property, you agreed to volumes upon volumes of restrictions on what you can do with your property. This is equivalent of a four year old shrieking, “it’s not fair!”
If you want to talk about what’s reasonable and what’s not, that’s a valuable discussion – particularly if it’s informed by the long history of what happens when communities make these kinds of decisions through their elected governments – but simply wailing “YOU DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT” is just idiotic. It’s not an argument or a discussion, it’s just venting because your community didn’t agree with you, and this being a society in which we all have to live together, that happens sometimes.
To all of us.
Like I have always said, owning real estate is not like owning say, shoes. We local homeowners have nothing more than the right to do certain things to the surface of the land within the confines of the many, many laws and deed restrictions. Where is it any different?
It could be much more restrictive, as it is in most suburban subdivisions.
And it will do no good to whine how you lived here first. Things change.
Yes, some people will be financially hurt by this, just as many have been hurt by the McMansion invasion. My taxes in the Heights are now more than my house payment. But there is not a thing I can do about it.
Since Norhill already had deed restrictions in place (i believe they are min lot size, min setback, and max height) it seems to me that this is mostly just adding a bunch of extra work for those looking to improve their bungalow. HAHC approval is needed to change, even if it would be to fix some crappy 70s “remodeling”. Too much grey area is in the ordinance as well as too much power for the board. Its like trying to hammer in a tiny nail with a sledge hammer.
Ah yes, all of those are exactly comparable to building a house on a residential lot. What a well thought out and intelligently presented argument.
One does have to wonder if the districts themselves have a “tally” just to “verify” the city’s “tally” not that anyone at City Hall would pull a fast one so to speak.
The “tally” that will count the most is the one this November.
Caneco-
Norhill’s deed restrictions are some of the strictest in CoH. For existing homes, they dictate repair materials, street appearance, materials and roof line. For new homes, the PPNA has even more control, although the don’t exercise it to its fullest, i.e. dictating paint color. The Historic Designation does very little to add to the work a Norhill homeowner has to do to make changes. Often the City green lights projects that the neighborhood doesn’t. As the City’s oldest and, I believe, largest HD, the neighborhood association has developed a pretty solid relationship with the City and the HCAC will often defer to the neighborhood on projects when there is a difference of opinion.
Then, why the need for Historic District label?
@ John (yet another):
You just made one of the most sensible, well articulated, well thought out, cohesive statements in the history of Swamplot.
Prepare to be blasted.
Have a nice day, boys and girls!
Heightslife,
Thats is what I am saying. If you want a historic district, do it the Responsible way Norhill did it. No need for the ordinance.
One the reasons a deed restricted neighborhood needs City protection is to be able to actually do something when the DRs are violated. Without the historic designation and the power of the City behind them, they can be too costly and difficult to enforce.
Now, with the new status as “protected” the neighborhood will be able to prevent unfortunate and unnecessary tear downs (like 801 Pizer, if you’re familiar with that little gem). No one in Norhill wants dilapidated or dangerous homes to remain standing but the people who bought 801 Pizer told the sellers they were going to remodel and then applied for a variance (the story is longer than that, but I’ll spare you). They waited 90 days and tore the house down, replacing it with one of the ugliest houses I have ever seen (that, of course, being highly subjective but a commonly shared opinion by most people in the area). This is very important to a district like ours which has 80% contributing structures. Our neighborhood is largely in tact and that’s what people like about it.
Also, by living in a Historic District, we are offered some great tax breaks for renovating a contributing home.
“From Heightsite:
All those real estate agents and builders of such beheamoths who funded the anti-historic movement can move on to other places…”
Please stop with perpetuating the myth that the opposition to the ordinance was funded by realtors and builders. The effort was funded by dollars donated by homeowners to educate the neighborhoods.
“From HeightsLife:
One the reasons a deed restricted neighborhood needs City protection is to be able to actually do something when the DRs are violated. Without the historic designation and the power of the City behind them, they can be too costly and difficult to enforce.”
And please stop furthering the myth that deed restrictions cannot be enforced. They city can and does enforce them every single day. Norhil has had ONE failure. Hardly a case for abdicating control of a community based issue to a governmental body with a poor track record. I am a liberal and believe in government for many things but this is not one of them.
After life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, Americans value their property rights. This issue is far from settled mainly because of the lack of true support and a process that was so flawed it put all of the efforts at risk.
There is zero point in trying to convince you of anything but as long as you continue to make false statements, you are going to be corrected.
From RHP:
And please stop furthering the myth that deed restrictions cannot be enforced. They city can and does enforce them every single day.
__________________________________
The city always has enforced deed restrictions although some might add the word “selectively.” The real myths are the myths put out by the mayor and her minions including homeowners who fell for the myths believing they will now be able to stop each and every developer.
But alas, ’tis done. Let the fun begin.
I suspect the first victims are going to be the apartment owners in these districts who paid a fortune buying older complexes, spent a fortune renovating them, and now will lose a fortune to homeowners who simply don’t want apartment complexes.
In the fine print as they say.
Or should I say let the fun, and the lawsuits, begin?
From RHP
“Please stop with perpetuating the myth that the opposition to the ordinance was funded by realtors and builders. The effort was funded by dollars donated by homeowners to educate the neighborhoods.”
You are wrong to imply the anti preservation group was funded soley by homeowners. The Yes but No anti preservation group was also funded by realtors and builders and spearheaded by three realtors. Follow the money, it was about profit. In a capitalistic economy it is their right to try and maximize revenue. However the driving force behind their support was not ANY concern for homeowner rights.
It seemed like Bill Baldwin, who’s one of the biggest realtors in the Heights, was the main anti-preservation spokesman.
From RHP
>You are wrong to imply the anti preservation group was funded soley by homeowners. The Yes but No anti preservation group was also funded by realtors and builders and spearheaded by three realtors. Follow the money, it was about profit. In a capitalistic economy it is their right to try and maximize revenue. However the driving force behind their support was not ANY concern for homeowner rights.<
I am curious. What is the source for your claim that the opposition was funded by realtors and builders? You see, these types of claims made with absolutely no shred of credible knowledge is what makes you appear as just another preservation extremist with an agenda not of preservation or discussing the merits of the ordinance but to discredit the messenger because you can’t discredit the message. Have you been privy to the accounting for Responsible Historic Preservation? Are you their treasurer? Their accountant? Seen their donor list? Know a builder or realtor who donated money? Likely not. You are simply trying to kill the message by killing the messenger.
But, aside from your lack of knowledge, I will say that if a realtor or builder owns property in a historic district, they have every right to speak out against something they don’t approve of, think is bad for the neighborhood they live in and certainly have the right to donate money to any cause of their choosing. However, since I was there (and you weren’t) when they counted the THOUSANDS of dollars they collected from homeowners, and I am quite certain you have no access to their books; it is time for you to stop perpetuating the idea that the opposition is realtors and builders. It is hundreds and hundreds of homeowners and they are more than willing to spend their money to defeat your efforts to take their property rights. I have first hand knowledge. Do you? And not speculation, real first hand knowledge. Because if you do, pony it up. And if you don’t, zip it up.
And the same is true of your claim about the oppositions concerns. Do you know them personally? Are they your friend? Have you spent any time talking to them? Or are you calling your friends, liars? Because if you are their friend, and haven't talked to them then you have NO idea what their concerns are, do you? No real knowledge, just supposition based on an extreme, unpopular position.
If you go to find out who “Responsible Historic Preservation” is – http://www.responsiblehistoricpreservation.org/who.htm – you find a statement with the names of three realtors at the bottom. It’s not unreasonable to think that this is an industry-driven astroturf group. Of course, said group could resolve the whole issue by simply telling us what % of their efforts came from outside their industry and related industries, was % of the members are just regular old homeowners, etc.
What’s funny to me is that realtors in the protected historic district I used to live in were capable of making the restrictions a selling point and made a crapload of money for themselves by doing so. (And good for them for their success.)
Does anyone know if the activist realtors actually LIVE in any of the districts?
27
>From finness:
Does anyone know if the activist realtors actually LIVE in any of the districts?<
ALL ACTUALL LIVE in the districts. One lives in Norhill, one in East Heights and one in Woodland Heights.
@ HeightsLife
I understand what you are saying, but I think it would have made more sense to simply have the city support the current restrictions. There is no need for all the additional rules.
I’m in Woodland Heights, I’m very familiar with the Pizer debacle, and I agree that it would be nice to have something in place to prevent that from happening (it did only happen once…) The ordiance is gross overkill.
>If you go to find out who “Responsible Historic Preservation†is – http://www.responsiblehistoric…..rg/who.htm – you find a statement with the names of three realtors at the bottom. It’s not unreasonable to think that this is an industry-driven astroturf group. Of course, said group could resolve the whole issue by simply telling us what % of their efforts came from outside their industry and related industries, was % of the members are just regular old homeowners, etc. <
Three realtors who live in historic districts helped homeowners organize. I live in the United States. Please feel free to pack your bags and move to Iran or North Korea if you want to live in a country where only those who agree with the government are allowed to speak out.
Not sure what your question is. The realtors have not made a secret of who they are or about why they object to the ordinance. Your group has tried to change their message but it hasn't worked.
When you ask what percentage are regular old homeowners, what do you mean? Do you mean the 800 plus homeowners who signed in opposition? Those regular old homeowners? They helped organize and offered advise and guidance to regular old homeowners who went door to door and got signatures. Regular old homeowners were the real leaders, doing the real work. If you actually talked to them, instead of making all these false allegations on the Internet, you would know the truth…but then the truth is not something you want to hear.
Why don't you contact Responsible Historic Preservation and ask them who their supporters are and the names and phone numbers of regular old homeowners who can tell you the truth instead of making these claims based on your assumptions or propoganda from the city.
I am a lot more trustful of my neighbors than I am of a bunch of city employees.
“Three realtors who live in historic districts helped homeowners organize. I live in the United States. Please feel free to pack your bags and move to Iran or North Korea if you want to live in a country where only those who agree with the government are allowed to speak out.”
Good lord, we have a drama diva in the house.
I was just pointing out that it’s not unreasonable to conclude that the group is realtor-driven when all their spokespeople are realtors.
If you can point out where I ever *suggested* that ANYBODY shouldn’t speak out, please do. Otherwise, switch to decaf and get fucking grip on yourself.
From Caneco:
@ HeightsLife
I understand what you are saying, but I think it would have made more sense to simply have the city support the current restrictions. There is no need for all the additional rules.
I’m in Woodland Heights, I’m very familiar with the Pizer debacle, and I agree that it would be nice to have something in place to prevent that from happening (it did only happen once…) The ordiance is gross overkill.
Yes, it is. Particularly in Norhill and WH where the deed restrictions could easily be modified to reflect restrictions the community wants. It’s a little harder for the Houston Heights but most of it has block by block deed restrictions to prevent density issues and those can be modified as well. If the neighborhood truly wants more restrictions then they clearly would be willing to change the deed restrictions.
The Pizer home is UGLY beyond words but sacrificing your property rights over one ugly house is absurd.
I ran into someone last night who was at the HAHC this week. He said that one commission member was complaining about an old 4 plex being torn down and two new homes going in on a 66 ft wide lot. He was complaining about the increased density. Fortunately a sane member pointed out that they were going from 4 to two, both single family.
And that folks, is why you don’t want to turn over your rights to that ridiculous commission. Even simple math escapes some of them!
>From John (another one):
What’s funny to me is that realtors in the protected historic district I used to live in were capable of making the restrictions a selling point and made a crapload of money for themselves by doing so. (And good for them for their success.)<
So you no longer live in an historic district? There seems to be some convoluted premise that these realtors who opposed this ordinance only make money in historic districts selling new construction. One of the complete ironies I discovered in talking with my neighbors is that some in new construction already said they wouldn't sign because they believe their homes will be worth more because there will be no more new construction. First, that isn't true. Properties beyond redemption will still get torn down. The HAHC approves many demolitions in historic districts. Second, given the controversy and scorched Earth policy of the City and the yellow sign nutcases, there won't be any more historic districts.
So, there will be lots of new contruction all around the boundaries of the districts. The crappy old dilapidated structures will be there forever if they can't get approval for demolition in the districts so the neighborhood will not continue to improve at the rate out side of the district does. So since there will be available new construction, it won't increase the value of new construction in the districts and they will be stuck with property whose overall value will decline which will affect their overall value as well. Not rocket science, just good ole fashioned economics and marketing. And those new construction folks have to get permission from the HAHC for changes just like the contributing structures so they get to pay more for the work on their home too because contractors will tack on the extra expense of dealing with the HAHC.
I now live in one of the Heights districts in this debate. In the past, I lived in protected historic district in another city.
Has the scenario you outline come to pass when other cities have created protected historic district? Examples are helpful.
>From John (another one):
Has the scenario you outline come to pass when other cities have created protected historic district? Examples are helpful.<
Which scenario? You mean where what is considered a tear down by any reasonable person just remains in perpetuity and values around it without restrictions improve? We only need to look at OSW to see what happens to protected districts in Houston in that type of neighborhood. A 30-40% decline in land value and non-renovated structures along with builders and developers who basically have quit caring about this issue because there is plenty to redevelop nearby is enough of an example for everyone to figure it out.
Can you please give me an example of a city without zoning whose historic districts were created out of neighborhoods which suffered severe urban blight for already sub-standard housing and had already begun the redevelopment process 15 years prior to creating a protected district and that redevelopment has altered the neighborhood enough that it is no longer historic? I can’t give you an example of that because no other city is stupid enough to do something like that.
The historic districts in the three Northern cities I lived in with were not comprised of 2/1 bungalows that had severely deteriorated. You can look at any midwest ctiy and find historic districts that had no redevelopment because the homes were already large enough for today's homebuyer. In fact, they think we are insane for thinking we have to save an 800 sq ft termite and climate eaten house. They wouldn't dream of saving something like that. All of you who complain that other preservation groups ridicule Houston need to actually talk to those folks. I have…and they think it is preposterous to save structures they would use as storage sheds! They have much larger brick, stone and stucco homes and none of them are 800 sq ft. My sister lives in a 90 year old 1 ½ story bungalow that was originally built with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. It was a quality home when it was built with beautiful trim and floors and built-in and paned windows, etc. She also has a basement for added sq footage and storage. They made a small addition to the back to expand the master but beyond that, they didn’t need to alter their home to make it large enough for their family. But they never would have bought an 800 sq foot house to add on to, no matter what the condition. It is too costly. And no one in her historic district (and she owns one of the smallest homes) is mainly 2-3 story brick homes. And the horse wasn’t already out of the barn when they became an historic district.
So, unless YOU can come up with a concrete example of an historic district like the Heights in a city with no zoning, you cannot possibly expect me to come up with a similar scenario. None exists.
So if no such scenario exists, then it would be a bit foolish to state with certainty what will happen, right? (The way you did a little while ago?)
What’s interesting is that if that scenario is correct, we would have expected to see languishing property values and deteriorating structures in the heavily deed restricted parts of the Heights. Have we?
(You’re reading a lot into my comments, and you’re off base. I’m not responding to a lot of your rebuttal because you’re rebutting things I didn’t say.)
John,
The strict deed restrictions would not require approval from the HAHC, not to mention they show that a super majority of the neighborhood are in agreement. This is normally indicative of a area with mostly well kept homes. (norhill is the perfect example of this). Now some of these other districts went from nearly no deed restrictions at all, to heavy handed super restrictive rules. This wasn’t a community driven change for these districts. There are going to be exceptions to disprove both sides of the argument, but even the “responsible” builders that would build something that would receive HAHC approval, would save money building that same building just outside of the districts…
From Caneco-
“even the “responsible†builders that would build something that would receive HAHC approval, would save money building that same building just outside of the districts…”
Can you explain this, please? It doesn’t cost anything to go before HAHC, and once they approve your project, your permits cost 50% of the normal rate, and after completion you can qualify for a tax break for up to 15 years, so one could argue that a project that would be approved by HAHC is actually cheaper in the end if it’s built in an Historical District. Unless you mean the property is more expensive in the HD to start with, and THAT is gonna get people wound up…
Have a nice day, boys and girls!
From finness:
“Does anyone know if the activist realtors actually LIVE in any of the districts?”
Yes, they all do. On the other hand does anyone know whether any of the people who will now get to tell us whether our plans for our homes are acceptable or not live within the historic districts. Last I heard it was maybe one member of this unelected body.
I guess time is free to you?
@Caneco
One meeting that takes MAYBE three hours, and that’s if you are last on the list and it’s the longest list of the year.
Seriously? You’re time is so valuable that you wouldn’t take two or three hours to save several thousand dollars? If that’s the best argument you have, that’s pretty thin. Scratch that. It’s unbelievably thin.
Pirsch: That 3-hour meeting is just taking into account the meeting itself, not the planning for and waiting beforehand, nor going back to the drawing board when something gets shot down by HAHC. Even small changes cost money.
A 50 percent reduction for permits is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of a carpenter and his/her crew left sitting on their hands for two days waiting. If they’ll even wait. Most good ones will head out of the neighborhood to other jobs they can fit into their tight schedules.
Contractors are not going to deal with that if they can build somewhere else close by. Just look at the zip codes for most of the recent demos for new construction listed here on Swamplot. There’s a reason 77008 is popping up even more now.
A lot of the good contractors that you guys would have liked to stay in the neighborhood have moved on and won’t be back unless they get paid a premium.
(And that 15-year tax break goes to the homeowner, not the contractor, it won’t affect actual construction costs one way or the other.)
And how long do you have to wait for that meeting? Don’t be such a fool to think that it is that simple.
Really Caneco? We are going to resort to name calling? Tsk, tsk. Don’t do that. It’s so unbecoming. The answer to your question is, have your paperwork filed 15 days prior to the meeting and you are on the agenda. Don’t be so uninformed as to think it’s more difficult than that. As for the contractor argument, contractors go where the money is. That’s capitalism. Most of what they do is code driven, not HAHC driven. And carpenters build what is on the plans. Period. They don’t care about the HAHC, an Historical District, a Yes/No sign, a StopTheHeightsWalmart sign, or any other foolishness. Draw it and they will build it. Now, does your designer/general contractor/architect have to know the “rules”? You betcha. It’s really not that hard. And again. I DON’T CARE IF YOU ARE FOR OR AGAINST IT. Just know the FACTS. Not what you think is true, what you have heard, or what you have read on a blog somewhere. And heaven forbid, whatever you do, don’t believe what you read on here to be the truth. The hate and vitriol on here (from both sides) is unbelievable. And for the sake of full disclosure, yes, I am in the process of expanding and renovating a home in an Historical District (without a camelback), with HAHC approval. 900 original square feet to 1970 square feet of heavenly air conditioned comfort.
Have a nice day, boys and girls!
Pirsh, I didn’t say you couldn’t get it done, it’s just going to cost you more now than it did before and take longer.
You said it, contractors go where the money is, and you’re going to have to pay a premium for the good ones who build a quality product and know how to deal with HAHC.
Pleezze – No one knows how this will work in reality; how long the waits will be, how builders will react, how tough the commission will be to work with. We need to revisit this topic when there is some data. All we have now is fear-mongering and nya-nya.
Most historic districts should have a mental hospital built smack-dead in the middle of the district to treat the cry bay Marxists who live there. Historic districts are mostly about a demented quest for power and control and very little about historic preservation. Historic preservation commission members usually are anal-retentive, malignant narcissists who like to play Hitler with other peoples’ lives.
OMG, it’s every crazy blog comment rolled into one! What a great treat on a Friday afternoon.
Cousin Bobby you nailed it! I like to think of the HAHC as the local PTA on steroids. The Heights area preservationists could care less about preservation. They mainly live in dilapidated bungalows and the only thing they want to preserve is low taxes.