I am thinking of sending the following to the members of City Council:
Two years ago, Glenbrook Valley was invited by the city of Houston to participate in the Project Leadership Institute. A group of homeowners participated in a series of workshops which helped us understand historic neighborhood designation in Houston and the process we should follow to gain such designation.
Over the next two years, we created an inventory of our homes (1256), created a database which pulled owner information from HCAD and crosschecked the dates the homes were built with old city directories. We took photographs of every home, categorized them, and identified each as contributing, non-contributing, or potentially contributing.
We held community meetings, had informational lemonade stands, and participated in community events, such as HobbyFest. We wrote articles for our newsletter, which is mailed to every resident, and we sent historic designation information repeatedly by mail to every homeowner. All our printed information, including the ordinance and petitions, was created in both English and Spanish. We created a website, which functioned as both a Civic Club website and a document repository.
Most importantly, we committed thousands of volunteer hours walking door-to-door, talking to our neighbors and asking them to support our cause. Naturally, we encountered opposition and challenge, but our collective response has been to ask people to please review their materials and make an informed decision.
After writing an extensive narrative, we submitted our completed historic designation application with all the supporting documentation, and Glenbrook Valley is one of the neighborhoods currently in pending status.
While I understand the impetus for changing the historic designation ordinance and truly support these changes, I find the “opt out” options under discussion puzzling. An ordinance is an ordinance. Because a law changes doesn’t mean individual citizens can petition to be excluded.
Even if historic neighborhoods do end up being allowed to change their minds, that change should require the degree of due diligence that the historic designation took. Certainly, there are dissenters in Glenbrook Valley who challenge our application for historic designation, and I believe they should have the responsibility to do the research and education necessary to further their case. Homeowners who oppose historic designation should have to make a convincing argument as to why a neighborhood should not be preserved and that that process should be as comprehensive and thoughtful as historic designation.
There may be compelling reasons that promote the greater good of the neighborhood and the city itself why some areas should not be preserved. Having a window during which neighborhoods may indicate they are changing their minds might be appropriate; however, I believe that HAHC and City Council should mandate an application process for withdrawal of historic status and consider those applications as carefully as it considers historic designation applications.
**********
Comments are welcome!
Thumbs up. I’m all for disagreeing, but I’m not for undoing tons of hours of work to be part of an ordinance by simply whining and doing a fraction of the work.
Yes, funny the anti-preservation crowd reels at the prospect of having to get 51% to begin reconsideration process, but thinks 67% to create a district should be the norm. We got no short cuts to create a district, there certainly should be no short cuts to undue them. Ordinances regarding building codes and other things change too, can I opt out of those?
What proponents did was tons of easy work to have a sympathetic mayor and council woman advance your cause.
Anyone who truly felt their cause had merit would have tried to expand deed restrictions and it would have achieved the same.
How hard is it really, to ask someone to sign a piece of paper without any knowledge of what they were actually signing? hard work would have been to disclose EVERYTHING about the regulations, then have a property owner decide.
Would you like to go on record on this blog as having educated those who signed?
Thank you for your opinion.
Robert, please do not call us “anti-preservation”. We are FOR preservation, just not through force intimidation and deceit. We believe that through education about Glenbrook Valley, bringing the community together and stricter deed restrictions will enable us to move forward in our efforts to focus on the real issues.
The city ordinance is over reaching. No one wants the city involved in their neighborhood and wasting thousands of tax payers money (especially with all the legal issues already coming their way) when it could be spent on other more important things. Like creating traffic buffers and beautification.
The Hist Dist board does not live here in our neighborhood. Their concerns are not our concerns. Please do not be fooled into thinking they will make exceptions for anyone who helped push this through once they find themselves in a pickle.
People are changing their minds thanks to the little preview they have been getting with trying to get a simple permit. Where you would normally go get it in a jiffy, it will now have to go through the same process of any other long list of requests. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you the appx time lapse when it comes to dealing with the city. I still can’t get them to fix the darn street lamps after numerous phone calls. Heck I can’t get our council member to call us back on other issues we are facing. What makes anyone think they are going to hear our concerns about Hist Dist issues once they start arising here?
Coming together as a community, as you and others here always talk about, is the only real way to preserve. We have no desire to tear our house down nor do we encourage any of our friends and neighbors who have bought here to do so either. On the contrary. We need more realtors like you to promote and bring in the right kind of people that will enhance it.
I know we welcomed you inside our home a couple of times and maybe you didn’t like that we made some major changes inside. People do not know what it takes to maintain these older homes. Some have more problems than others. We have done what we can to even bring our home up to code a little at a time. To say that we are anti-preservation, is just disingenuous.
We have no vested interest in this. I know it might be hard to understand why we are un willing to give up our property rights over without having a say in it but we truly feel it will not help the neighborhood the way the proponents envision.
We truly love this neighborhood. I can’t say that enough. We have been here for almost 11 yrs. There are no special interest groups with vested interest with us either. Yes we have asked for help from not just our friends and neighbors but NOT from any one who wishes to come in this neighborhood to demolish homes and build Mcmansions or an Ashbey high rise.
If people are truly for this 100% (well, of the 51%) after reading the whole ordinance AND understand all it’s changes, then we have no choice but to comply and go along. Reality is 10%-15% of residents in GBV truley want a Hist Dist and all that it comes with it. The rest, just signed a peice of paper.
In the meantime, there is no need to personally bash someone for doing what they feel is right.
Sorry, the above comment was by Leticia, not Joe
It is great to see people so passionate about the neighborhood even if everyone isn’t on the same page about the benefits on the designation.
What isn’t so great, however, is when some try to minimize the monumental task and work others have contributed to the community simply because they don’t believe in the project. Or when false and baseless accusations of forgery are leveled against neighbors. Then of course there is the assertion that referencing the original owner’s names on the homes alluded to some sinister character flaw in those pushing historic designation. Referring to older homes as the “Smith house” or the “Jones house” after the original owners is a very common practice, especially in the south. It is a practice, however, that understandable may seem foreign to those not raised in backgrounds where it is a practiced norm.
A number of people have already gone through the certificate of appropriateness process and gotten their approvals. A member of the HAHC does in fact live in the community, I could go on and on but it would do no good to change minds at this point.
The bottom line is this. Nearly 60% of the neighborhood signed petitions in support of the designation. The application, however, was turned in with closer to 53% and that is the number that “counts” apparently. After numerous discussions with different city officials it is my understanding that there will be no reconsideration process in Glenbrook Valley. The application will move forward with 53% regardless of how many we try to add or how many others try to take away. Any stake holder, both pro or con, can and should speak their mind at the Houston Archeological and Historic Commission hearing in November. They will hear the support and the concerns and make their decision. Any dissention and any support needs to be voiced then and there because the application is moving forward to that step.
The comments posted on this topic are no longer fun or furthering anyone’s cause, so they are being turned off.
Gather your thoughts and present them during the hearing next month.
Now, go play nice.