Heights Homeowner

I think this is hilarious. I can't wait to watch the fireworks. I'm microwaving the popcorn as we speak.

Red, is it butter flavor? Gotta have the butter otherwise it doesn't have any taste unless you leave it in the microwave too long.

Undoubtedly, the fireworks will start soon. The word is it is planned for 2 stories of retail, 2 of parking and 2 for residential. It will give the anti-development, anti-progress, hysterical preservationists something to be hysterical about. Clearly they are already going crazy starting rumors that it is 14 stories. They will be lobbying to have a 1 story, 2 bedroom, 1 bath bungalow built on the site. The developer needs to be prepared for a fight at every turn. The traffic studies will start. The crime and safety concerns will be brought to the planning department. Spend some time down at the planning commission meetings. There is some group that shows up to planning every other Thursday to complain about some developer or business owner trying to make something out of the property they own and they always meet with neighborhood resistance. Always. This deal will create a storm from our own neighborhood nutjobs who don't understand that urban redevelopment is going to happen all over, including the Heights.

Their heads might actually pop off.

If you would like to go treading back through the historic ordinance thread, in there you will see that I admitted I was exaggerating to the political party yard signs.....

The difference in credibility between you and me is that when dealing with the ordinance I use facts, the ordinance, and I showed you clearly how the wording allows abuse...how the actual words of the ordinance allow abuse, how its written broadly enough to enable abuse...you just said nuh-uh that wont happen Annise Parker said so....I know that when dealing with ordinances the words are strictly interpreted....comments do not matter, and nothing said at a meeting by the dishonest ordinance people who hosted it matter either. It is not a defense that they told you it was allowed....the only thing that matters is the words as they are written.

As we have seen on the HPO thread, s3mh claims he knows everything about everything. He doesn't understand sarcasm or irony or any other subtlety. While he claims to know everything about the law, he didn't understand the simple truth in law that what is on the paper, in black and white, is the only thing that matters. If he understood law, he would know that the "plain language" is always what it means. If it says words like "any" or "all" or "every", then that it what it means. Any means ANY. When people pointed out the broad language, his tiny clan just cried...but they said....waaaaaaaa! No, no one said anything like what they claimed because they wanted the city to have ultimate authority over everything. Thankfully, due to the property owners complaining, we got some exclusions although the language of the ordinance is still very broad and of course, they can come back and remove those exclusions anytime they want to, which is another thing they didn't tell people. They said publicly 3 years ago, when the Heights districts were created, that they would take baby steps. They didn't have to take baby steps when Parker got elected. But they will come back and make the ordinance more restrictive. Guaranteed.

The HPO folks have taken up with the anti Walmart folks thinking their kinship is a longing for days gone by. They could get closer to it if they moved to rural, small town USA. Life is easy. Development and progress is virtually non-existent (exept for Walmart, of course). Instead, they live in the inner city of the 4th largest city in the country and complain bitterly about urban revitalization and redevelopment of any kind. They dominated the HHA for years (but are now on the outs). They had nothing better to do than oppose any reasonable rtail/commercial development that came into the neighborhood for years and years and it drove people out of the homeowners association because it was ruled by this mentality. Not anymore, thankfully! It is not surprising that they co-op'd the Walmart issue too because they are against all development. They want everything frozen in time so they can live in the fantasy of the 1950's.

It is very unfortunate Walmarts new frontier is inner city urban areas but it was bound to happen. The best thing to do is to work with these type of developers to get the kinds of businesses we would like to see in the community instead of fighting development in general. Developers are business people and they want to be successful and make money (I know it isn't popular to say that) but that is reality. If the folks that spend so much time fighting developers actually tried to work with them, they would be much more successful. To prempt Walmart, they could have organized and made an effort to encourage all of the grocery retailers to come to the area. The grocery retailers (Randalls, HEB and Fiests) have all been looking at the Heights for 7 or 8 years, maybe longer. Hundreds of letters/emails to HEB might have made the difference in their decision. But the s3mh type folk's methodology is to have city regulate everything, oppose everything and then scream and cry (and lie) when they don't get their way.

Like I said, I hate Walmart, never shop there and never will. But the truth is that unless an another anchor retailer is willing to go in to that space, Walmart will happen. Parker is for it. Parker wants the tax revenue. Parker, despite the fact that she isn't a fan of Walmart, didn't oppose the 380 because she wanted the money it will bring to the city. She couldn't prevent it but she also doesn't care. Just like the Red Light Camera issue (she can sue over it but if doesn't change the truth) but in the end, she wants the money from Walmart and will work to get it. She is working with Aimbinder's lobbyist on other initiatives. She isn't on the anti-Walmart side. She is on the side of the money.

You don't need to look up the fact that you can't recover attorney's fees and expert fees in med mal cases from defendants to make me happy. You need to do that to save your own credibility. You have claimed to be an attorney on this site and used that to get an audience about the historic ordinance. Yet, you then claim that the HAHC will be able to tell you what political signs you can put in people's yard (constitu . . .). You attack the valid criticism of medmal reform on the grounds that attorney's fees and expert fees do not come out of the plaintiff's recovery. But you refuse to back it up when challenged on the grounds that the person challenging you doesn't have credibility. If you want people to believe anything you have to say, and they shouldn't, you can either come clean and admit that you just made a guess and were wrong. Otherwise, it is clear that you do not care whether you are right or wrong and cannot be trusted 100% of the time.

And you did nothing other than strawman an argument on intentional torts. I never said it was impossible to recover from doctors who commit intentional torts. I just said that doctors are human and are not some special species of the human race. I gave real examples of some very human wrongdoing that doctors have committed over the years.

Good grief! Now you are an expert on doctors, lawyers and tort reform as well as urban planning. Is there anything you don't claim to be an expert on?

This thread is about Walmart but that doesn't seem to stop you from weighing in on the historic district issue here. You distort and downright lie about what the opponents of the ordinance had to say about it, like the political sign issue. No one ever said politcal signs would be regulated. The Coalition of Crazy made that claim up! In fact, no one ever said that paint color or HVAC or light fixtures or fences would be regulated. The only thing the opponents pointed out was that the first draft of the ordinance had language that was so vague and all encompassing that it would allow the city to regulate any exterior feature of a property (again, no mention of signs). Clearly, you can not discern nuance. Or you can and needed a red herring to deflect from the fact that your merry band of hysterical preservationists had an unpopular position. You had to lie about density and the fact that the ordinance didn't prevent density or things like townhouses and condos, or even a high rise. No high rise residential structure could have been built in the existing historic districts as there was no tract large enough. But it didn't prevent you from using these sorts of ridiculous claims to frighten your neighbors.

The truth is that there is no space large enough for grocery stores and other retail development (let alone a highrise) within the boundaries of the historic districts and most of it is protected by prevailing lot size and set back restrictions which are the ONLY thing that prevents density - something the Planning Director and the Mayor have both said publicly. The HPO does not prevent density. And the HPO will not prevent retail development in the areas that surround historic districts that have tracts large enough for retail development. You could never have created historic districts in those areas. They are largely commercial/industrial and have nothing to do with historic preservation. There is retail development on the outskirts of every residential area - its called urban planning. Retail close to where people live.

I hate Walmart, and hate the idea that it is coming near our neighborhood. I never shop at Walmart and never will. But the reality is retail development surrounding the Heights is going to happen. The land is very valuable and quite frankly, we need the retail resources. I would love to have seen HEB go in but after years of negotiating with the developer, they opted out. Once that happened, the developer sought other potential anchors for the development because they had to have a large retail anchor to be successful. The one that came to the table was Walmart. Unfortunate, but that is business. That is urban development and planning. There will be more of it. Look around the fringe of our community. Where there are large tracts of land owned by a single entity, you will have redevelopment with both retail/commercial and dense residential developments.

The world has changed since the 1950's. No matter how hard you wish for it, it won't go back. You continually play fast and loose with the facts and post all over this forum as if you are an expert on every subject. Again, it is better to remain silent and appear ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. You don't have to persist on convincing us you don't understand this concept.

I have been following this thread and note that there are several considerations that have not come up here. Full disclosure: my two kids did private all the way (one still in HS). The choice was primarily academic because when we moved to first Timbergrove and then the Heights, the school choices were not what they were then. In fact, living inside the loop wasn't all that popular yet. Child #1 got into Travis Vanguard but we opted to go private for several reasons. The first was an aversion to the whole TAKS process and bureacracy in general. Private schools do annual testing of the kids but it is as much for continuous self-improvement as to see where the kids fall out. Accredited private schools go through an extensive process every so many years and are reviewed on many factors. I don't see the TAKS system accomplishing much, particularly considering the bar is set so low as to what is "passing".

Other considerations we had were regarding the arts and physical education. Public schools go back and forth on this as funding issues arise, but rarely offer all of it all of the time, such PE and (gasp!) recess daily. Then also we considered the whole PC bit where you can't pray, etc. We weren't looking for a religious environment per se, but we really hate anyone telling us that you can't do such-and-such.

It is my opinion that the better private schools are approximately one year ahead of public. Of course this is not an absolute, because we all know there are examples of great public schools and not-so-great private ones. However, we did not want to find our selves at 6th grade competing with better prepared students for slots in private middle schools. Lanier and Lamar are gold standards in HISD for upper grades, but they are very competitive. I think a kid needs to be pretty self-assured and independent to handle a big environment like Lamar, too. Despite improvements made at Hamilton, I would not consider it then or now.

We got accustomed to the costs of private school slowly: graduating from nanny/day care costs to one in private school, then two in private school. It can be done. Notable is the pricing at Catholic schools. Subsequent children in one family pay much less. The Catholic HS are outstanding and seek to admit interested candidate from Catholic K-8 schools even if they are not quite a well prepared as candidates from better schools.

These are my opinions only so if you disagree, I respect that. I just wanted to point out that the decision is about a lot of factors, not just academics.

My child was in Travis Vanguard, Lanier Vanguard and then Waltrip's IB program, which has been discontinued since. We opted to not do to Lamar although accepted there because of the size. Waltrip was half the size. My child graduated top ten percent and was accepted into two top 50 private Universities with scholarships. It is definitely possible to get your child through HISD with a great education. One bonus was there was lots of diversity. My friends comments starting in middle school that it looked like my child was enrolled at the UN. All Vanguard and IB programs are essentially one year ahead so are comparable to the private schools. However, unlike St. John's, Kincaid, and Episcopal, the academic pressures aren't as tough. Those schools are very competitive. Lanier was fine but I wouldn't have chosen Hamilton then and I don't think it has change enough to make it. We were lucky to get in such great programs.

One thing we found when looking at the top private Universities was that they really look for kids from public high schools who have great class rank, SAT scores, and gpa's because so many of their applicants come from private high schools. One admissions councilor told me that when it gets down to decisions between kids who are essentially the same in their criteria, they often will chose a public school student over a private so they have more diversity of backgrounds, and don't end up with just a bunch of rich kids. And the scholarships are much more plentiful for private Universities than they are for public. They all have huge endowments and much more available $$ per student. (UT didn't have nearly the scholarship offer that the private Universities offered). Kids who have done very well in the public school advanced programs can really do well in the college application process particularly if you want scholarships to top schools. The private Universities all run about $55k a year now.

That's my two cents...

I wonder if I took a book of pictures of the original houses in the Heights, there are a couple of really good ones, we could use them as examples of Historic architecture that we want to replicate. I mean, the whole thing is about Historic preservation, and saving the neighborhood, what could be better than rebuilding houses like some of the ones that originally made the Heights great. I could do 2 story Victorians, 2 story Revivals, 2 story Craftsmen. Pretty much everything that I've been building. I think that would be a pretty valid argument too.

Great idea! And now, thanks to all of our efforts, there is an appeal at City Council (and thanks to Wanda Adams who insisted on the appeal process). If the builders show up with photos of original homes and plans to build something virtually identical, I suspect Council would over-rule the hysterical preservation commission. The David and Sharie Show will undoubtedly be up there arguing against you but they have no credibility with Council anymore. And it will make any of them look ridiculous to argue against homes that are identical in style to the original architecture in the Heights. The number one thing they will fight over is size but my take on Council is that they understand that homes have to be built that are of a size that homebuyers want and lenders will finance. They will be reasonable where the hysterical group is not.

It would be good to submit some plans and see what they will approve (or not) and then see what the Council does with it. The appeal process could also help with the stuff that needs to be torn down. They will fight like heck to prevent any tear-downs but if it isn't economically feasible to do anything with it, supposedly they will approve it. The issue will be the length of time you have to deal with the process but you already were waiting for 90 days for demo and another 90 for incompatible so hopefully the appeals process wouldn't take that long. (hopefully).

Here's a house with an original balcony. Looks almost exactly like it does in the picture of my Grandfather standing in front of it in 1915 or so, when he lived there.

231 W 17th

There really are quite a number of them still standing. Corner of 13th and Harvard, 1500 block of Tulane has two, one on 20th occupied by TBW, 1300 block of Cortlandt, 900 block of Cortlandt (on the National Register), 1800 block of Harvard.

I love this quote of yours! - I'm in line right behind you regarding appropriate retribution and am anxious for it to escalate to more that just talk on this website and begin to raise this sunken ship.

Me too! Red is dead-on although I like to think of it as retribution justice. I am equally anxious for it to escalate. Their wild claims of "Mission Accomplished" will be embarrassing for the City and the Mayor. They had a chance to do it right and be fair and they opted for winning at all costs with any illegitimate process they could dream up. Even though their dirty political maneuvering appears to have gotten the upper hand on the surface, it is just what is on the surface. We just have to be patient, and bide our time. Just a few weeks and the real fun begins because when politicians compromise their ethics for a personal agenda, it rarely turns out well for them.

And those who hitch their wagon to their colleagues in deals like this always end up collateral damage. Parker has said that Ed wasn't a leader and he needed hand-holding. She's got his number, knows he hasn't got a clue and is letting him be the fall guy in this deal. Lovell didn't have any consequences so she got to do most of the heavy lifting but Ed, well he'll have consequences no matter whether she redistricts him out of the Heights or not. In fact, it will be better for us to get him out of our district. He won't have his few minion hysterical preservationists to vote for him and instead will have a bunch of ticked off folks working on his opponents campaign telling his constituents how he was a rubber stamp for Annise Parker during his first term. Too bad for Ed. Everyone says he's a nice guy but being a nice guy won't save him from 1000+ pissed off Heights homeowners who have the motivation and deep enough pockets to impact a small council election. And because of their underhanded tactics, this will be going on long into the election season. We will remember who voted to take away property rights with this fraudulent process and we will vote and (donate) accordingly. They have no idea how committed people are, but they will soon.

But back to architecture - it would be great if someone put together a photo montage of all of the two story original historic homes with second story balconies in the Heights and submit it to Pace and Parker since they stood up at a public meeting and claimed they weren't built here. I suggest presenting it at Council so that they understand that these folks don't have a clue about the original architecture. Their comments about faux Victorians being inappropriate in the Heights along with the comments about Glenbrook Valley and the double front porches were so wrong, it was almost funny. Almost. What was funny was the woman who asked them to stop talking about the Heights and talk about their district - First Montrose Commons. The video shows Parker's facial expressions - hilarious! She was shocked that the residents of FMC could care less about the Heights! Annise needs a better poker face.

If you don't like bungalows and prefer new construction, then you made a big mistake moving into the Heights. But that is your fault, not mine.

Interesting since there is lots of new construction to go around. One can actually like both. They are not mutually exclusive. Like Bill Maher loves to say, I can hold two opposing thoughts at once...but then again, that might be a function of left brain logical thinking.

And just how old are you? Nananana boo booo, it's your fault, not mine. Sheesh, stop embarrassing yourself.

On another topic, did anyone notice the new sign that was put up on the 610 feeder around Oxford that says "Height Historic District"??? Vanna White, I'd like to please buy an "S" for the Heights historic district sign. Wonder how much more money Annise will waste on her pet project because of her screw ups. She can't read an ordinance and follow it that she wrote and now apparently her underlings can't spell "Heights" either. I sure hope the new Mayor will replace those people in January of 2012. Not sure which should go first, the Planning Departments and the Preservation office or their technology - both appear to be quite historic - but of course, we all know anything old and of limited value must be preserved so a trolley can drive by them and imagine days gone by. In this case, the tour director can announce that this is what a historic preservation department looked like in 2011 when Houston had a Mayor so driven to sheer madness by fear of townhomes in her neighborhood that she lost all of her common sense - and the respect of those who voted for her with it.

I was in the market for a 2-1 for almost two years. Combined with the experiences of several friends (all young couples) looking for the same thing, I can tell you that over the past four years, 2-1 bungalows that are in good condition in the Heights sell like hotcakes. I paid list, friends bid up by 10-15%, even after the market crashed. Most good ones are gone within a week if priced properly. I did not even get a chance to make an offer on three bungalows because they sold before listing. The realtor just listed for back up offers. I even tried bidding on two as-is foreclosure/bank owned bungalows that needed 50-60k in work (all 2-1's). I bid up by over 20% and lost each time. One time in Woodland Heights to a . . . wait for it . . . young couple who have done a lot of renovation to it. The market is huge for bungalows. People snap them up like hotcakes. Why? Because they are unlike anything else in the City. Anyone can get a townhome, 1970s tract home, McVic, and so on. But the bungalows are unique and historic. And there are plenty of people who appreciate this more than having extra rooms to decorate.

The good news is now people won't have to bid against the wrecking ball and can put money into their homes knowing that they won't end up being reduced to lot value if the neighbors all go to new monster McVics. So, the realtor predicted doom of all the houses rotting away is bull. Now that historic homes are protected, people can put their money into significant renovations without fear of the McVics turning their house into lot value.

Bungalow renovations are not rare, they are the norm. I looked at over thirty bungalows when I was looking to buy. Everyone had been renovated. In fact it is rare to find a bungalow in the Heights that hasn't been renovated. And most of the time a bungalow has trouble selling is because of crappy renovations that have killed off the original architecture or make the interior look more like the Wooldands than the 1920s.

Let's just go back and revisit your comments...

You said bungalows in good condition are hotcakes (and then later added your definition of a good condition). Yet, you say that people can now put their money into significant renovations since the homes are protected. But, by your own definition, a good condition is one that has been updated so why would anyone need to do a significant renovation to a home in good condition. And if they are the norm, and not rare, then the only real market is the renovated bungalow. No one has ever questioned that a fully renovated, double original size or better bungalow wouldn't sell at market value.

The truth is, you are talking out of both sides of your face. You know absolutely nothing about the real estate market in general and you sure don't know anything about it in the Heights. You like to think you do but your statements always contradict themselves and then you make some outrageous claims that it is okay for those with bungalows in need of renovation to lose market value due to the ordinance because it will improve the overall neighborhood.

Anyone reading this with an education beyond 5th grade reads your postings can see that your arguments are continually flawed, just like the reconsideration process but since it was dreamed up by folks just like you, it is easy to understand why it is such a train wreck. Clearly you know as little about logic argument and real estate as you do about preservation. The one thing you do seem to have a good grip on is HISTORIC REGULATION, versus historic preservation. Fortunately, the folks who will ultimately make the decisions have the ability to form logical arguments and understand them and won't be bullied by Parket and Lovell. Those days are numbered just like your victory dancing days are - they too will be short lived and bittersweet for you.

Any by all means, make another posting telling us how much you know about real estate and lending and all the other things you believe you are an expert at. We enjoy the entertainment.

One Term Mayor

Anyone But Annise

Anyone But Ed

If folks are really changing their offers by such a large amount due to the ordinance, it does not sound promising. However, based on just one piece of second-hand anecdotal evidence, it's hard to believe someone would be willing to pay a $50k premium not to be beholden by historic rules, and I say that as someone who doesn't agree with the way the ordinance was carried out nor some of the restrictions it puts in place.

$275k sounds high for a demolish and rebuild lot, but it sounds more promising if it's reasonably sized and has a good core for remodeling and adding to, even within the historical guidelines. This has already been going on for years by folks all over the Heights, the only difference right now is the drop in demand and resale due to the market crash, and the aspect of big-brother looking over your shoulder. But now may actually a good time to start buying property, while the prices are still suppressed.

Not second hand info. Seller's agent told me the offer amounts so that indeed would be first hand info. Offers are submitted to the seller's agent first so it doesn't get anymore first hand than that. Its not about paying a premium to not be beholden to an ordinance. It's worth at least $275 as a tear down but not worth that as a renovation. As far as being high priced, an exact same size empty lot two block away got $280k this fall, so not really too high except if it is only a candidate for remodel. The break-even for an addition/remodel is tough for most investors so they have to get a property at fire sale price in order to make it worth their while. From what I understand, with a demo permit, it's worth $275k. Without it, its worth $225k. It has nothing to do with the market crash.

Back on January 5, you made this statement. Today, you finally admitted the truth.

No matter how much you crow on this forum, what you have is indeed a hollow victory.

And you forgot a short-lived hollow victory. hehehehehehehehe!

And, due to lending restraints, you will not get 275k because no one will be able to finance in any needed renovation with a mortgage. Yes, you will lose money compared to no ordinance.

So, we won't be able to get loans to finance improvements and renovations. We will lose money with the ordinance. Well, everyone should want that, right?

Why didn't you put these little ditties in the barrage of flyers you papered your neighbors with? In fact, why didn't you inform them of this little problem when you asked for their signature on the petition to create the district? Why did you tell them their property values would go up in an historic district in every piece of lying propaganda you put out? Why? Because only the truly crazy would want their property values to go down because of an ordinance to preserve 100 year old termite mounds that can't get financing for renovations and expansion. Grandma gets to preserve her home so the Mayor's trolley tour of the Heights can roll by while the tour guide points out that Grandma's house looks just like it did in 2011 and that if you squint real hard, you can imagine how it looked 100 years earlier before she took in the front porch, added a funny lean-to on the side, covered it in vinyl siding, put the aluminum screen door on it and removed the original window screens.

OTM

ABA

ABE

Dear Ms. Parker,

It appears you had a George W. Bush moment last night. I just got back from viewing video of the FMC meeting of last night. All I can say is "OOOOOPPPPS! Your comments about Houston architecture is terribly and embarrassingly misinformed. Talking about how atomic ranch is only found in Glenbrook Valley or that Greek Revival is not a style found in the original architecture of the Heights made you look really ridiculous. Ms. Parker, the entire loop is surrounded by ranch home JUST LIKE Glenbrook Valley. They are in subdivisions from Timbergrove and Oak Forest to Meyerland and Bellaire. And two story Greek Revival style homes with second story balconies on the front of the home were built in the Heights. Not many were built but they are in the Heights and some are even on the historic register. There is no reason to prevent new construction in that style except that your bungalow bigots don't like them.

Perhaps you need to fire your historic preservation officer and your communications director who continually keep you misinformed. And add, Jonathan Smulian to the list. No more Smulian design guidelines. Please hire a real architect with real knowlege of the home styles of these historic neighborhoods without the bias of someone who has an agenda. The bungalow is just one of many styles in the Heights but Smulian can apparently only identify 1 other. The architectural style of Glenbrook Valley is everywhere in Houston. You can review the styles in these neighborhoods by going to the HAR website. There are examples in the Heights of two story Greek Revivals on the market right now! There are hundreds of 1950-60 ranch homes for sale in many subdivisions. There is plenty of opportunity to educate yourself before you speak in public.

Please, as a fellow Democrat, I am asking that you do not speak about things you know nothing about as it make you appear to be following in the footsteps of Dubya. And take a moment to review those who are giving you all this bad information. They are not serving you well and will likely be your downfall.

I made myself clear. If you have a bungalow that has not been updated ("well maintained" is realtor BS for a house that has not been updated in decades), you will no longer be rewarded for your failure to care for your home by having a builder pay you for an inflated lot value. And, due to lending restraints, you will not get 275k because no one will be able to finance in any needed renovation with a mortgage. Yes, you will lose money compared to no ordinance. But, if you bought the house in the 1990s or 80s, you will still, at least, double your investment. Like I said, I would be happy to have such bad fortune.

If the bungalow has been updated and is in good condition, it will sell fast and may get bid up depending on where the price starts. Not only did my realtor tell me that, but so did one of the realtors that lead the anti-preservation fight. And this was not because people were bidding against builders. Builders had almost completely stopped buying lots with existing liveable bungalows in the Heights for new construction when the market crashed. It was homeowner v. homeowner. People actually do want a yard for their kids and dogs and are willing to give up on sq ft to get that in the Heights. There are millions of acres of land in Houston where you can build a big fat stupid house to fill with big fat puffy couches, enourmous TVs and giant appliances. If people want that, they have got it just about anywhere in Houston. Only in the Heights do we have such a large stock of historic homes. We are going to keep it that way not to control development but to preserve something that exists nowhere else in Houston and can never be replicated.

Your original claims were about homes that were not dilapadated, not homes that have not been updated. You simply twist the facts and your own previous comments when it suits you. However, these folks get it. And I suppose from your way of thinking, the elderly in our neighborhood should just be glad that the historic ordinance has deprived them of $50k because they doubled their investment. We are just going to start calling you the Bernie Madoff of the Heights. These folks should be pleased they didn't lose more of their investment because someone unscrupulous cheated them. Madoff didn't seem to care about taking money from little old ladies either.

I do not see what exactly is paranoid or "nuts" about believing that the city will use whatever tactics necessary to achieve their goal of larger Historical Districts throughout the Heights. The original survey was obtained fraudulently. People were not allowed to remove their names from a list that they signed years ago and under completely different pretenses and sets of circumstances.

The "re-survey" was done more dishonestly than anything I have ever seen done. Counting a non-returned ballot as a yes, and not allowing owners of contiguous property to have their percent ownership counted the same as everyone else is also dishonest. The resurvey was THE most dishonest, disingenuous, back handed, back room, political process I have ever witnessed. It does not even begin to pass basic tenants of democracy...yet that is how it was done.

The original wording of the ordinance required a positive vote of 67% of respondents....that is it actually required a VOTE. That wording was deliberately dropped.

If you read Sec 33-222.1(e) it reads "The notice shall include a card to be returned by the property owner which shall indicate whether the property owner does or does not support designation of the historic district"

(f) "After the deadline for returning the cards mailed in accordance with subsection (e) has passed, the director will determine if owners of 67 percent of all tracts in the proposed district support the designation of the district"

NOWHERE in that text does it require a returned card to be a yes.....they could very easily, and likely would again use a non-returned card as a yes vote.

All that is required is a card be mailed and that the card have an option for it to be a yes or a no. The method of counting the yes and no is not described. It is DELIBERATELY not described because they want to have the ability to use whatever method they believe will leave them with the highest probability of success.....

I also believe it was written this way to remove the chance that the ordinance as written be used against them in attempts to invalidate the current Historic District designations because they know they could never achieve 67% of the owners to actually vote affirmatively to form the district.

Its not nuts, its not paranoid, its not even a stretch of imagination to conceive....its an unfortunate reality of the world we are now operating in. We have idiots, actual idiots, people with low IQ, in charge of our city, our laws, and now, unfortunately our private property.

Amen, Brothas and Sistas!

But don't be disheartened. They won't get away with these tactics forever. Unfortunately, the wheels of justice turn slowly but it will soon be out of the hands of the City and into the hands of regulatory officials who won't be bullied by MAP or bought by her promises of counci member district improvements. She won't be able to go to them and ask what they want for their support as her flunies have done with our current city council. And the more they try to lean on council, the more respect she loses.

OTM

ABA

ABE

No, it's not paranoid. It is just nuts. The word "determines" obviously refers to the process of the director counting and verifying the returned ballots, not some super secret special way the director can say that an unreturned ballot means a ballot in support. I mean come on people. This provision is one the realtors and builders wanted. They made it very difficult for further expansion of the districts, if not impossible. But even in the pro-builder/realtor provisions, you all see some secret plot. This is about as bad as the paint/HVAC/political yard sign arguments. Just because you think that it is possible to read an ordinance a certain doesn't mean that it is read that way. Move on. Go get in on the hot property market surrounding the Historic districts. Property prices are going to shoot through the roof as every builder, resident and renovator flees the historic districs and rushes to west of Ashland to build monsterous McVics. But watch out! The decay in the historic districts will be so fast and devastating that the old bungalows will become crack houses and meth labs (granite countertops are a plus for cutting drugs). People moving into the non-historic areas will probably see their property values plummet as soon as they move in due to the crumbling historic districts. Eventually the entire Heights will become a post-apocalyptic war zone where gasoline is currency and gangs of out of work contractors fight for control of the Citgo on W 11th and the Valero on Shepherd.

Or, actually, life will go on. Gas will eventually go to $4.00+ a gallon when the economy rebounds and people will pay piles for a bungalow in a Heights Historic District to avoid paying hundreds a month to drive in from The Woodlands.

Sheesh, what a drama queen! And please cover yourself. Your hypocrisy is showing. Again, your group proves this has NOTHING to do with preservation. It is all about controlling development. You don't like your bungalow being overshadowed with higher priced, 21st century construction which has far wider appeal than your 2/1 bungalow with no insulation or closets, modern conveniences, large enough rooms for 2011 period furnishings, etc. Its a buyers market for those properties that don't have 2011 homebuyer features and its a sellers market for homes that meet the needs of today's families. Period.

The Heights is an historic neighborhood, with or without a riduculous ordinance that stops the organic revitalization of the community. If the Coalition of Crazy was serious about presevation, they would engage in acts of preservation instead of lobbying to give control of development to City Officials. But they aren't true preservationists. Your group engages is fear tactics falsely telling our neighbors that the ordiance will prevent density and yet, lo and behold, it won't. And Gafrick and Parker have both admitted publicly that it won't although Annise didn't have a problem lying about it on her little undue influence postcard she mailed out.

BTW, had a conversation with realtor with a listing for an old but well maintained, unremarkable bungalow that they have multiple solid offers of $275k IF the property is not included in the HD but multiple low ball offers at $225k if it is. So, without even a a quarter of a year atof passage of the "protected" restriction, the property value has dropped $50k. Its a hotcake alright, but at what price? What your obvious lack of expertise in the real estate industry demonstrates is that you don't understand that everything is a hotcake far below market value. Needless to say the seller isn't thrilled about being in an historic district which costs them $50k. Since you and your friends are fond of paying full price or over market, can you please send them an offer above $275k. You can revel in the fact you paid more than market value for a very desirable hot cake bungalow in a Protected Historic District. You will be the envy of all of your friends

Keep repeating "we won, they lost, we won, they lost, we won, they lost." We are busy, very busy.

P.S. The friends I mentioned last week are still waiting for their over market value offer for their well maintained but teeny tiny hot cake bungalow. They check the mail every day but so far, none of your buddies have sent in their contracts. Maybe they are lost in the mail like the ballots the City didn't record.

Looks like the area builders are going to compensate for the historic restriction ordinance by building all around. I was out driving today, winding my way through the hood and saw all the development West of the West District. For fun, I decided to drive South of 11th, then drove up North of 20th. All I can say is WOW! It won't hurt the builders at all to have to build outside these districts. It is definitely time to buy something outside the district before the prices go up more. The areas adjacent are going to be very attractive b/c all the run-down, commercial stuff will eventually be gone and there won't be any HAHC nonsense to deal with. My 1915 unremarkable bungalow with its 1980's renovation can stay frozen in time so people can look back and say "gee, this is what an old home that couldn't be improved past 2010 looked like." I'll be doing the community a favor by increasing the available rental opportunities. There are already 4 rental properties on my block, one a slum lord 4 plex, so one more rental can't hurt, right?

If you want to live in a city regulation free zone, buy West of Ashland, North-East of 20th and Yale, much of Sunset Heights and all of the Woodland Heights outside the soon to be Historic District or Stude 2. It all looks very promising and thanks to Parker and her ill-conceived ordinance, those areas will never be able to acheive historic district status. The balloting process they dreamed up will never acheive a return of a majority, even at 51%, let alone 67%. It is a complete JOKE and everyone knows it. They tried so hard to design a process that prevented the existing districts majority opposing it to undo them, that she screwed every other area. Rocket scientists they aren't!

Sell in historic districts, buy in the HAHC free zone historic neighborhoods!

One Term Mayor

Anyone But Annise

Anyone But Ed

I'm definitely willing to call at least one of my neighbors an idiot...

The folks with the Coalition of Crazies yellow "Yes to the City" yard signs comes to mind...

Excuses, excuses, excusses. This thing has been going on for months. Unless you are willing to call your neighbors idiots (which I think you are), then you would have to admit that every homeowner in the Heights knew about this and knew the survey vote was coming. After all the huffing and puffing, and a lot of realtor and builder cash spent on mailers, websites and meeting, the anti-preservationists didn't come close. You can spin all kinds of fantasy scenarios about the majority of Heights residents leaving for their winter homes on Thanksgiving, or thinking that the survey form was junk mail, or that there is some guy that owns 346 consecutive lots who would have thrown the vote the other way but for the rules, and so on. But the hard facts are that you couldn't get it done. Wake up and smell the coffee. People in the Heights didn't send in their surveys because they are intelligent, understood the issues and made a conscious decision to keep their historic districts with the revised ordinance.

And have you heard who announced they are running for Mayor? So far, no one. In fact, no one is even being talked up as a potential threat to MAP. Whether that is because MAP is popular outside the anti-preservationist and the few whinny council members who don't like a mayor who is more Margaret Thatcher than Bill White, well, that is for you all to worry about.

Just remembered you didn't comment on your best gal pal, Sharie getting tossed from the HAHC. Wonder why? Maybe you ARE the David and Sharie show?!?!?! Would explain why you think you know about real estate, even though clearly they know nothing about real estate. Would also explain why you threatened people who oppose the ordinance and why you think you have the stroke to get our renovations rejected. But the David and Sharie Show has been canceled. There will be no syndication, no re-runs. Its over. The David and Sharie show got the boot from Parker and got slapped up side the head by city attorney David Feldman on their way out as the door was hitting them in the ass. Fired from Keller Williams and fired from the HAHC, both for ethical violations. So, if you are the now defunct David and Sharie Show, in the words of Donald Trump - You're Fired! Sharie was the laughing stock of the HAHC anyway. Some of the most surprising commission members have been blabbing about how ridiculous Sharie's comments were and how they dreaded David's appearance arguing against homeowners over the stupidest, most trivial things. We heard they had a party to celebrate her departure and MAP popped the cork on the champagne because she was rid of the wacko Beales' before anyone filed formal ethics complaints and a true investigation began into their unsavory conduct. :P

Excuses, excuses, excusses. This thing has been going on for months. Unless you are willing to call your neighbors idiots (which I think you are), then you would have to admit that every homeowner in the Heights knew about this and knew the survey vote was coming. After all the huffing and puffing, and a lot of realtor and builder cash spent on mailers, websites and meeting, the anti-preservationists didn't come close. You can spin all kinds of fantasy scenarios about the majority of Heights residents leaving for their winter homes on Thanksgiving, or thinking that the survey form was junk mail, or that there is some guy that owns 346 consecutive lots who would have thrown the vote the other way but for the rules, and so on. But the hard facts are that you couldn't get it done. Wake up and smell the coffee. People in the Heights didn't send in their surveys because they are intelligent, understood the issues and made a conscious decision to keep their historic districts with the revised ordinance.

And have you heard who announced they are running for Mayor? So far, no one. In fact, no one is even being talked up as a potential threat to MAP. Whether that is because MAP is popular outside the anti-preservationist and the few whinny council members who don't like a mayor who is more Margaret Thatcher than Bill White, well, that is for you all to worry about.

And your efforts went on for how long before you could manage you lie and cheat your way to getting the designation? YEARS AND YEARS!! We also loved when Sharie baybay said, out loud, at a public hear, that she pestered her neighbors 7 or 8 times to get them to sign. And what the heck is a survey vote?? Either its a survey or its a vote. And my neighbors did think a card was coming that would be their vote. They didn't understand what the survey was by the city. They certainly didn't think the city would call their vote a survey. Why would they? It wasn't what the ordinance said they would receive. So, I guess if you are calling them idiots because they didn't know what it was the city sent them because it wasn't a card, it was a survey (which frankly most people just throw out when they receive them in the mail) and it didn't have a yes or no vote...then I suppose in your little mind, they would be idiots. But I give my neighbors much more credit to know the difference between a card, with which one would vote on and an opinion survey and I give them credit in reading the ordinance to know what to expect. But then again, they aren't omnipotent like you, oh wise one. Your little group is the ones who don't seem to know the difference between a card, with a vote and an opinion survey. And you don't seem to have much reading comprehension either or you would know that the LAW wasn't followed. But of course, we know you know the difference very well and you read the ordinance because your Coalition of Crazy helped draft it. You just couldn't follow the ordinance because it would show you don't have the support you claim you do. So once again, you had to cheat.

And while we are talking about neighbors, your groups whole premise is that your neighbors are idiots so you have to decide what is right for their property because they obviously can't. On the other hand, we know our neighbors are perfectly capable, intelligent folks who don't need you to decide anything for them or their property.

Enjoy your little victory party because it soon will be over and you will have to show actual, real, verifiable support for your position. And you can't or you wouldn't have been afraid to send a real ballot with a yes and no option.

It is far, far from a done deal. Out of curiosity, which of the council members are you calling whiny? The ones who think you should follow the laws of the state and of the city? Funny how they think the law should be followed, eh? It's always something.

No point debating politics with you. You have no idea what you are talking about related to announcing and filing and raising funds. I make it a habit of not discussing politics with folks who are to ignorant to warrant the discussion.

One Term Mayor

Anyone But Annise

Anyone But Ed

In the 2009 election in which Mayor Parker achieved a runoff, 178,777 of 935,000 registered voters cast a vote. So, after months of campaigning, millions of dollars spent on adds, and untold news articles about the upcoming election, only 19.1% bothered to cast a vote. Mayor Parker received 31% of those votes. So, less than 6% of voters cast ballots for Mayor Parker. In contrast, over 20% cast 'NO' votes in a hastily called and time limited survey in the west district, a better percentage than the City elections.

Makes you go, 'Hmmm'.

More election fun facts:

In the 2009 election, running unopposed, Ed Gonzalez received only 16.28% of the votes of registered voters in District H.

We must have been on the same wave length this morning. :-)))) I just posted the same, with lots of detail but didn't point out that Parker had less than 6%.

Here is the link again to these stats:

http://www.harrisvotes.com/HISTORY/110309/Cumulative/cumulative.pdf

Srsly, what is the avg percent of the population that votes in an election? Using that as a guide, I'd say it was a landslide in favor of removing the designation.

The percentage of the total population over age 18 who voted in the 2008 election, a very high turn-out year, was only 58%. Presidential elections have the highest turnout compared to non-Presidential election year turnout. If you look at voting stats for Harris County, for someone in our area like, say Shelia Jackson Lee, the turn-out of voters in 2010 was slightly less than 37%. Lee won with 70% of the vote with 3 others running against her. Stats in the John Whitmire race were around 38%, only had 1 candidate to run against him and in a Republican year with supposedly high turnout due to voter unrest, and as a Democrat, he won with 60% of the vote. Both local area politicians, both popular, one Congressional, one State. Neither race had total turn out of even 40% of voters. The odd year voter turnout stats for local elections are even worse.

Let's looks at 2009, a non-congressional, odd year election - local stats for races like MAP and Council, in round numbers. Percentage of registered voters voting in the mayoral race - 19%. This is the overall indication of the number of voters, presuming most vote for the mayor and it averaged across the city. Then, starting with the district races, Stardig - 23%, Johnson - 14%, Clutterbuck - 23%, Adams - 19%, Sullivan - 18%, Hoang - 15%, Pennington - 25%, Gonzalez - 16%, Rodriguez - 13%. Notice, the higher voting percentages in the "power-money" districts, of A, C, and G - all over 20%, (Memorial, River Oaks, Southhampton, Tanglewood, etc.) Then take a look at the stats for the At-Large, elected city wide. At-Large 1 - Costello's race - 19%, At-Large 2 - Lovell's race - 19%, At-Large 3 - Noriega - 19%, At-Large 4 - Bradford - 19%, At-Large 5 - Jones - 19%. All city wide elections - 19%, 178,777 ballots cast of the 935,073 registered voters.

In summary, City-Wide turnout in 2009 - 19%. Local race for Council turn out between a low of 13% to a high of 25%. Lowest turnouts for high minority population districts. Middle of the road turn-out, middle class districts. Highest in the upper middle to wealthy districts. Pretty typical stuff. So yes, 20-25% voter turnout for our little vote given all the underhanded tricks employed by Parker and Company is a landslide for anything local. Even if we consider voter turnout compared to even year, non-Presidential elections, we would have prevailed because it was only one side. They were too chicken to show the "support" vote so it was a one-sided vote and we still had better turn-out than the mayor got for her own election. If both sides had voted, and comparing our stats to the 2010 elections for a Representative Lee and Sen. Whitmire, if we had the same turn out they did, a 20-25% vote to repeal the distict, they couldn't have won. At best, they would have had 17 to 18%.

Here is link for the results from the Harris County Clerk's website - didn't make up these numbers. They are the real deal and the fact is we got out the vote better for just one side, than the politicians who are going to vote on this did for their own elections - LOL!

http://www.harrisvotes.com/HISTORY/110309/Cumulative/cumulative.pdf

s2mh can keep repeating "we won, they lost" but given the numbers for a local election, there does seem to be an explanation for the low turnout. I guess all those who didn't vote for in the 2009 election, MAP's election - and they actually had a real vote, so voters must have been living under a rock to not know they had to vote. We got to vote with a ballot, called a survey, which looked identical to the petition they already signed, conducted in the two weeks before Christmas, followed up with a postcard from the sitting mayor that said don't vote. Indeed, no reasonable explanation for that kind of turnout!

According to the Leader, Heights West only got 20% in favor of repealing the district. There is absolutely no way to rationalize that other than the fact that the anit-preservationist message failed.

No way to rationalize the 20% huh? You keep telling yourself that. It is a big help to us for you to think that way. Just because you have no other explantion, doesn't mean there isn't one. We realize that people with questionable ethics don't understand that process has everything to do with it and there are folks who actually care about the methods employed in this sham of a vote who understand it too. So keep repeating to yourself, "they only got 20%, no way to rationalize, we won, they lost, they only got 20%, no way to rationalize, we won, they lost, they only got 20%, no way to rationalize, we won, they lost, they only got 20%, no way to rationalize we won, they lost." You'll believe it eventually and we will thoroughly enjoy proving the rationalization you think is non-existent. And we are looking forward to pulling the trigger on the future plans. Please visit your therapist because you are going to need your xanax and your anti-aniety med. Shoot, you might even need a script from the doc for anti-psychotic drugs by the time we are done.

One Term Mayor

Anyone But Annise

Anyone But Ed

You get an F for reading comprehension. I said bungalows that are in good condition sell like hotcakes. I also said that bungalows in need of significant repair that are put out to bid in bank owned/foreclosure sales generate lots of interest. Bungalows that need significant renovation that are not put out for bids in as-is/foreclosure/bankowned sales have never sold like hotcakes, even back when builders were out buying them. If your friend is having trouble selling, it is more than likely because they have a realtor that has given them an unrealistic expectation of what their house is worth in order to get hired. I have said that people will not get as much money for neglected bungalows as they did when builders were buying them. But, most people will still make out like a bandit if they bought 10-20 years ago. And the lending environment has much more to do with slow moving renovations than the historic ordinance. It has become very difficult, if not impossible, to do a construction loan with a first lien mortgage. The only way you can do it is with some of the FHA products. But, those have maximums that are @270. So, the cost of renovation plus the sale price have to equal @270 (plus any cash the buyer can bring to the table). If you are trying to sell a bungalow that needs extensive renovation and have it listed for $275k, you are going to have a hard time finding a buyer, even if builders were still allowed to knock it down. But if you listed the same house for $225k, you would get a lot of interest. Of course people who are listing neglected bungalows for $275k probably bought 10-15 years ago for 90-120k and will only see their investment double. If only I could be so lucky to have such a burden like that.

According to the Leader, Heights West only got 20% in favor of repealing the district. There is absolutely no way to rationalize that other than the fact that the anit-preservationist message failed.

Okay everybody, let's just pretend to agree that s3mh is the area expert on the real estate and lending industry. He knows what sells, and why. He knows how much to pay and what these bungalows are worth. Blah, blah, blah... Never mind that I never mentioned the condition of my friends bungalow but since he is knows all, omnipotent, really, he must also know that too. I never said it was neglected but why deal with facts now, right? We just hate those sticky little factoids anyway.

Here's the reality, unless a property has been renovated and expanded, it isn't a hotcake anymore. They are sitting on the market with no buyer in sight. Properties that were once desirable for renovation and expansion just don't have the same appeal and buying pool. That leaves a whole lot of property that isn't the value it once was, prior to June. That's okay with our little friend s3, but generally not okay with those property owners. I'm not sure who he thinks his audience is on this forum though. Clearly his speculation about the condition of these homes, how smart their realtor is, and how long ago they were purchased, and for how much is something that he he needs promote to validate his overpriced purchase. A couple of months ago, one property in the east district, waited for their 90-day waiver obtained before the moratorium, demolished the dilapadated structure on it and got $30,000 more than he had asked for it as a renovation candidate which he tried to sell for more than a year with no takers. Sold it for $280,000. Not really an indication that the market for property that needs to be torn down or renovated can't get the $275,000 it used to, as ole s3mh claims. Just that if you can tear it down because it isn't a worthy candidate for renovation, you can still get what it is worth. If you can't, you're screwed, thanks to the ordinance.

Back to s3mh, DUDE, your vast knowledge of the lending industry is very interesting. Only FHA can is doing renovation loans now? Is that what you are saying? And you know this how? Are you a mortgage broker? A realtor? Or just a property owner with a single experience for your expertise? Or maybe your hysterical preservation buddies, David and Sharie Beale have told you these very interesting facts. You might want to check your sources though. Folks checked at Keller Williams, the firm that fired them, and they said that the Beales haven't sold enough real estate to say they have. One or two transactions over several years doesn't exactly make them experts in the real esate biz. And apparently Sharie dear wasn't much of an expert on historic preservation either since she was asked to resign from the HAHC commission. Or was that for ethics violations, I forget? No matter. She had to go and your friend MAP decided not to just let her term run out. She was an albatrose around Parker's neck and once the ordinance passed, and Parker didn't need her little minions to support her anymore, she gave the boot to Beale. She should have known she was getting the axe when the City Attorney lectured the entire commission about ethics and it addressed the exact same complaints about the Beales and their questionable practices. I laughed myself silly after Feldman lectured them and David Beale had to decline his speaking opportunity or his little wifey would have to recuse herself from voting. It was priceless - but I digress.

My friends are waiting for the excellent offer that one of your friends is going to make for their well maintained, previously well priced (pre-ordinance change) hotcake bungalow that hasn't gotten a contract in 7 months. Please email the offer for their highly desirable property. After all, some family might want a 2/1 bungalow, right? They might even be willing to settle for a full price offer so spread the word that they are willing to forego an offer at 10-20% over list. They are very reasonable folks.

One Term Mayor

Anyone But Annise

Anyone But Ed

Just got off the phone with a dear friend who has had their BUNGALOW on the market since the moratorium. Several buyers have bailed or not been willing to make an offer because of the ordinance. Their bungalow is really cute. Definitely a candidate for some kind soul to come along and spend more money than it will be worth once renovated. They read your comments. They would like one of your friends to buy their bungalow for 10-15% over the list price. They would even settle for a buyer like you who offered 20% over the list price. Please make an offer. Since you obviously know that the "market is huge for bungalows" and your and your friends are so desparate for bungalows you are willing to pay any price, they need you to write an offer tomorrow. Please put them out of their misery of rejection by potential buyers who aren't clued in to the extreme value of their property. These buyers crazy realtors don't seem to be able to convince their clients that not only should they not pay less than the list price, they should pay significantly more than the seller is asking because after all, everyone can get a townhome or a new construction period looking home with all the modern ameneties but very few have the honor of buying such a desirable property, particularly at a price far more then the seller's dreamed they can get for it. My friends hotcake property is so cold you could use it as a freezer pack for your beer cooler. You and your friends can email your offer to: info@ResponsibleHistoricPreservation.org. I'm sure those three realtors would be more than happy to submit the offer on your behalf for any bungalow you want to buy, especially since they will make more 10-15% more in commission from you and your friends too. What a deal!

Update since the last posting. Email from my friends. It seems we've created quite a domestic dispute. One is more than happy to settle for the 10 to 15% over list offer. However, their spouse is a CPA, number-cruncher type and thinks, based on your exuberance for bungalows like theirs that 20 to perhaps even 25% would be more like it. You know those pencil pushing, bean counter, accounting types. It's always about the dollars and sense, uhhh, I mean cents. I have encouraged them to hold the line at 10 to 15%. They don't want to seem overly greedy but truthfully, if you offer 20% over the list, I secretly think they will get over the appearance of being money-grubbing bungalow owners, selling out to the highest bidder and cash the check anyway. I'll bet you could even convince them to retract their ballot to repeal the district, but keep it quiet. You wouldn't want to have another accusation of buying support for the ordinance. Leave that to Parker. She's good at it. A pro, actually. You couldn't possibly compete with her although we haven't forgotten your threats that those who opposed the ordinance changes for our neighborhood won't be able to get their projects approved. That comment must mean you are either on the HAHC or have exceptional influence in the historic preservation office so you have likely learned MAP's SOP first hand so making promises to gain support for your draconian ordinance likely comes easily for you.

My friends are eagerly awaiting their more than full price offer for their little hotcake.