LTAWACS Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 The residents are myopic indeed. Thanks for posting. Very dramatic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talltexan83 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2013/12/jury-sides-with-residents-in-ashby-case/?cmpid=bna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 'Twill be a happy Christmas in Southampton: A verdict has been reached in years-long fight between residents and the developer of a planned 21-story high rise in the Rice University area. A jury has unanimously sided with residents who've filed a lawsuit opposing the construction of the Ashby High Rise at 1717 Bissonnet. As for the future of the high rise, the judge will now determine whether the project is a permanent nuisance, and if the judge says yes, it could stop the project...This case is sure to set a precedent for the future of development here in Houston. http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9363856 Squeaky wheels....grease... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 It will be interesting to see if the developer appeals, and if so, on what grounds. How much can they be willing to sink into this proposal? What will be even more interesting is the extent to which this ruling really does set a precedent. I'm sure the people in River Oaks who are unhappy with the proposed office building on San Felipe are paying extremely close attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinite_jim Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 It will be interesting to see if the developer appeals, and if so, on what grounds. How much can they be willing to sink into this proposal? What will be even more interesting is the extent to which this ruling really does set a precedent. I'm sure the people in River Oaks who are unhappy with the proposed office building on San Felipe are paying extremely close attention.In order for the jury to award tort monies, tort has to be proven not speculated. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 (edited) Keep in mind that this win for 20 of the 30 Plaintiffs does not mean that the Project will not get built, even if it is upheld on appeal. Judge Wilson will hold a separate hearing on whether or not to permanently enjoin the Project. If there is no injunction issued, the Project could go forward with the payment of damages that were determined by the jury today. Attached is the Charge of the Court with the jury's findings.58775292.PDF Edited December 17, 2013 by nate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator80 Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Wow. I guess all of those goofy signs worked after all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Ugh I hope it gets built.. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TowerSpotter Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Ugh I hope it gets built..Yeah such a bummer....I think there is still a bit of hope. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Huge Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 You have seriously got to be kidding me.I have no words. Where did these jurors come up with these random/outrageous dollar amounts? Even down to 'xx,xxx.58 cents'. Cents? Really?? Who the hell do you think you are? Man, now I REALLY hope this thing gets built so bad and it actually DOES lower their precious property values to the tune of more than they are awarded and they end up having to stay living under the "Tower Of Terror" because moving out would equal a huge loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Huge Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 I wanna know who handpicked that "appraiser", he was probably greased by the deep pockets of the residents.I HIGHLY doubt that if this project gets built i will be able to waltz into SouthHampton and buy a house for 22% less than what I can now. If anything, like other posters have already stated, it will just make everything even more expensive than it is now.Buncha hogwash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt16 Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Without injunctive relief, the project would just move forward anyway and the developer would appeal or settle the jury award. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triton Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Wait wait wait... they are getting paid damages for something that hasn't even been built and may not be allowed to be built. Okay. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Wait wait wait... they are getting paid damages for something that hasn't even been built and may not be allowed to be built. Okay. I believe the damages are payable only if the project is built. Buckhead (the developer) has said they will appeal, but I don't think they said on what grounds. I'm no lawyer, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that appellate courts are hesitant to overturn (unanimous) jury verdicts except when there has been an error of some sort, or something that compromised the fairness of the trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucleareaction Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 My lord... Read the article and understand it before replying! When all is said and done, how much is $1.6m in damages compared to the cost of construction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capnmcbarnacle Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 You have seriously got to be kidding me.I have no words. Where did these jurors come up with these random/outrageous dollar amounts? Even down to 'xx,xxx.58 cents'. Cents? Really?? Who the hell do you think you are? Man, now I REALLY hope this thing gets built so bad and it actually DOES lower their precious property values to the tune of more than they are awarded and they end up having to stay living under the "Tower Of Terror" because moving out would equal a huge loss. I'm sure they got these numbers from various appraisers and expert witnesses who put a number on the loss of market value. Both sides got the chance to present testimony from their own expert witnesses and the jury got to decide who they believed. There is nothing too surprising about this verdict. If you are the guy next door, is having a 20 story building over your backyard a nuisance? I see how the jury would think it is, and it's easy to get an appraiser to give an opinion on a loss in value if it gets built. It's also clear the jury thought other people were too far away to be effected and gave them nothing. That being said, I'd be very surprised if the judge permanently enjoins this project. The residents will get compensated for the loss of use and enjoyment of their property and Buckhead will build their building. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 If the Tower doesn't get built, I will ring a church bell and claim it the day that no-zoning died in Houston. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talltexan83 Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 I still believe the primary tactic of the residents is to delay this project until legal fees, shift in capital markets, shift in demand, etc force Buckhead to take another route. I know Buckhead has very publicly stated they will fight this as far as it can go (Supreme Court?), but the costs they're incurring have to be getting outrageous? Do you think they'll eventually sue to recoup those expenses? I'm also betting they can sell the parcel for a very healthy profit (not bad for a "worse case scenario"). I did have another general question: Hines vs Buckhead: In a project like this, how much does the relative profile/experience of the firm come into play when we're talking about securing financing or quality contractors? Has Buckhead completed a project like this before? Does that even matter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triton Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Now I fear we'll have to turn our eyes to the Hines tower near River Oaks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 I still believe the primary tactic of the residents is to delay this project until legal fees, shift in capital markets, shift in demand, etc force Buckhead to take another route. I know Buckhead has very publicly stated they will fight this as far as it can go (Supreme Court?), but the costs they're incurring have to be getting outrageous? Do you think they'll eventually sue to recoup those expenses? That's what I don't understand. Given the resistance of the neighborhood, why would they continue to push the tower? Why not work with the neighborhood to come up with something everyone can live with? Who are they benefiting by being confrontational? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Now I fear we'll have to turn our eyes to the Hines tower near River Oaks. Ugh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aarosurf Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 The San Felipe tower still has no signs of breaking ground, which makes me worry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 They should rent the ashby lot out for frat parties until they are ready to start building. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 They should rent the ashby lot out for frat parties until they are ready to start building. Good idea. It might also make a good location for regular art festivals. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ig2ba Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 That's what I don't understand. Given the resistance of the neighborhood, why would they continue to push the tower? Why not work with the neighborhood to come up with something everyone can live with? Who are they benefiting by being confrontational? Themselves and other developers in the future. And any business who relies on predictability of regulations and the rule of law. Besides these groups, nobody really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 I still believe the primary tactic of the residents is to delay this project until legal fees, shift in capital markets, shift in demand, etc force Buckhead to take another route. I know Buckhead has very publicly stated they will fight this as far as it can go (Supreme Court?), but the costs they're incurring have to be getting outrageous? Do you think they'll eventually sue to recoup those expenses? That's what I don't understand. Given the resistance of the neighborhood, why would they continue to push the tower? Why not work with the neighborhood to come up with something everyone can live with? Who are they benefiting by being confrontational? I think it will be very difficult to please the residents while allowing the developers to make a profit. I mean, what if the developers wanted to build a hideous one story building? They could argue that would lower their home values too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Those effin residents ... we should start a fund to assist with the developer's legal fees. In return the developer can name a floor or a park bench in honor of the largest donors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper88 Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 So, why did we have no-zoning in the first place? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky-guy Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 (edited) Those effin residents ... we should start a fund to assist with the developer's legal fees. In return the developer can name a floor or a park bench in honor of the largest donors.The LTAWACS Amenities level Edited December 18, 2013 by Sky-guy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Property rights are a two way street. That's the law. 12-0 jury verdict in short order reflects the law. Buckhead can build this thing. The ruling didn't block them from building. It just states that if they do, they must compensate others for lost value and damages. The fact that some residents weren't compensated because they were too far away to be impacted by things like foundation issues demonstrates to me that the jury was paying attention to the facts presented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.