Judge Won’t Block Construction of Ashby Highrise, but Orders Developers To Pay Up

Site of Proposed Ashby Highrise, 1717 Bissonnet St., Boulevard Oaks, Houston

Judge Randy Wilson today issued a ruling affirming a jury’s conclusion that the proposed Ashby Highrise at 1717 Bissonnet St. would constitute a “nuisance.” But he couldn’t both grant an injunction preventing the building’s construction and award the complaining neighbors the approximately $1.6 million in damages determined by the jury, he explains, because that would constitute a “double recovery.” Instead, citing the extremely local nature of the nuisance, the difficulty of enforcing an injunction, possible harm to the developers, the disruption to city development rules a singular decision in this case would bring, and other concerns, he denied the injunction and the portion of the jury award for loss of use and enjoyment — but ordered the developers of the proposed 21-story building to pay 20 plaintiffs the $1.2 million the jury had apportioned for “lost market value damages,” because “these damages have already occurred.” The plaintiffs had argued they preferred an injunction to the payment; it’s likely they’ll appeal.

Photo of 1717 Bissonnet St.: Swamplot inbox

$1.2 Million for Lost Market Value

24 Comment

  • “lost market value damages,”

    Does this mean McDonalds Franchisees can sue any time a Burger King opens up across the street?

  • What was the proof of damages? In 12 months (or 12 months after the building is built) if the homes have gone UP in value, can the developer get a piece of the increase in value he brought?

  • Congratulations! Get to work immediately.

  • Yes! Starting digging the foundation now!

    What damages???????, all those homes have gone up in value.

  • Since when do Potential damages count? Until you sell the house and can prove on paper that you got a lower price Solely because of the high rise, it’s just nonsense.
    Rise, Ashby, rise!!!

  • Guess the only question is who got to the appeals court first this afternoon….

  • Who are these judges?!–how on Earth did these people incur almost 2 million in damages??? –are you fucking kidding me? Those houses will sell immediately, Southampton is so sought after nobody will care about the Ashby high rise if they like the house–this is absurd. So I guess Tanglewood can sue the Four Leaf Towers, River Oaks can sue over the Huntingdon, the Bayou Bend, and the River Oaks—-I could go on and on–this judgement is beyond stupid–I can’t see it holding up on appeal, surely it will reach a judge with a brain–at some point

  • Seems like a way of saying sorry you lost, here’s a conciliation prize.

  • My neighbor doesn’t cut their grass. Can I sue them for loss of property value? This is moronic.

  • Every dumbass in town gets paid to buy a house behind commercial property….

  • I think the homeowners lost all of their effectiveness the moment they sued for and were awarded damages. Once damages have been awarded, the assumption for me is that the building might as well already be there. If you ask me, the approach to sue for damages ahead of the construction is what buried the property owners. Strategically, it seems to have been a bad move.

  • Not surprising that the the Judge sided with the developers. Not surprising that the City Attorney told the Judge to side with the developers. The residents lost because the residents always lose in Houston.
    The mystery is: who are the principals behind Buckhead Investments and Houstonians for “Responsible” Growth?
    How did these two entities come up with the money to submit permit after permit to the City, and over a period of 7 years, finally suing the city for approval of their permit? These two entities next fought the residents in a lawsuit, and now will appeal the million+ compensation to the residents for loss of property values. Why this maniacal tenacity and vehement determination to cram a skyscraper onto a 1+ acre lot in an area that is residential in character? Why stuff it in the faces of residents who do not want it? There were many other more suitable locations for a high rise building.
    I can tell you why? Because the city powers want to widen Bissonnet, and this Ashby high rise will give them an excuse to do it, by increasing the traffic count. Widening Bissonnet is the object.

  • I doubt his ruling will stand on appeal.

  • All of the commenters (except Honcho) above need to turn in their bard cards- oh wait, they have no idea what they are talking about.

  • @trey, which appeal? The appeal from the developer to not have to pay, or the appeal from the community because the judge didn’t allow the injunction?

  • if light rail ever gets built on Richmond, then they sure better widen Bissonet at the same time or there will be hell to pay. surely i’m not the only one that’s ever wondered why we don’t have a major 4-lane cross-street between Richmond and Holcombe.

    wouldn’t hurt to try and divert some of the traffic off Rice/Sunset anyways. I stopped running at Rice years ago since it was literally like running through a giant cloud of car exhaust after work in the evenings.

  • Nightmare to come.

  • Those damn yellow signs everywhere are the real nuisance!

  • They should have to sell their houses in order to receive settlement. Pure and simple. Otherwise NO DAMAGE has occurred. If they want to claim a loss in value, yet not sell their houses, then they OWE THE DEVELOPER for the lower property taxes they will be paying.

  • Stupid NIMBYs

  • Joel: it might make more sense to widen Sunset Blvd. since there’s an esplanade in the middle of most of Sunset.