Alert for Sugar Land residents (Houston, Point: HOA, homes, purchase)

[AK123]

I'm not buying the story from "equalityofman". I think there are other motives.

There are plenty of apartments in the area. There are also plenty of homes for rent, priced very well. I know because I have family staying in some.

And this affects more than just people in the subdivisions right there. What about the people in Shiloh Lake Estates? What about New Territory? What about Orchard Lake Estates? Old Orchard? They didn't buy in the area anticipating this sort of thing at all. They bought to get away from it, and get to good schools.

More lame arguments and bad logic.

[Vicman]

Originally Posted by EasilyAmused

If there's no public transport to Sugarland, where do all the waiters, valets, shop clerks, grocery baggers etc live? Why do they have to stay in the city in the 50 year old run down housing?

If the schools are so great, shouldn't everyone have a chance to go? Not just the 65 grand a year millionaires?

Easilyamused: The central city is becoming gentrified, and many low income residents are moving to older suburbs. Many of Houston's infamous run-down apartment complexes opened in the 1960s and 1970s.

Anyhow common sense dictates that one shouldn't build a large housing development in an area already bursting at the seams: One should build it in a less developed area which has room to breathe.

You said: "If the schools are so great, shouldn't everyone have a chance to go? Not just the 65 grand a year millionaires?" - Then have magnet programs instituted. Part of what makes a school good is involved parents, and this is more likely to happen in homeowner's areas. In some really transient areas the lack of parental involvement is a problem.

[AK123]

Just a friendly reminder, especially for those of you who don't live in the area yet feel you must inject your input -- Read the whole thread and you might find your questions answered.

Originally Posted by txstate

Some people are just blind to facts. Thanks for the insight.

Posted previously in the thread:

Originally Posted by AK123

The developer of the project wants $2mil in tax funds to help build it.
And yes the rents would be very low in comparison to other area apts. Spin it any way you want, but it is still technically low-income housing.

Originally Posted by EasilyAmused

If there's no public transport to Sugarland, where do all the waiters, valets, shop clerks, grocery baggers etc live? Why do they have to stay in the city in the 50 year old run down housing?

Posted previously in the thread:

Originally Posted by AK123

Sugar Land does have apartments. There are several complexes on Hwy 6 or nearby in the Sugar Land city limits. I can think of four rather large ones right off the top of my head.

And not to mention that a lot of people in these jobs you name are students, especially in a young place like Sugar Land. How often do you frequent retail/restaurants in the area?

Originally Posted by EasilyAmused

If the schools are so great, shouldn't everyone have a chance to go? Not just the 65 grand a year millionaires?

Funny coming from someone in West Memorial. I'd like to see what you'd think if the same thing were to be proposed for your area, was zoned to your subdivision's schools, and years down the road your home was no longer valued what you expected, once property values were to go down and the schools decline.
And the 65k millionaire comment is rather insulting, and a major generalization/stereotype. What the???

[VickiMBA]

Originally Posted by equalityofman

And FYI I bought my home for 94,000 in park pointe 4 years ago. And at that time we were zoned to Kempner HS.

REALLY? I searched through MLS resale records for Park Pointe for the three-year period between 1/1/2004 and 12/31/2006, and the LEAST EXPENSIVE HOME SOLD FOR $125,000 in August 2005. All other sales during that period--and even to date--sold for higher, with the exception of one home that closed this year for $119,000. That's out of 99 homes SOLD IN PARK POINTE since 1/1/2004.

Hypothetically, even if you DID purchase your home four years ago for $94,000 (which I've already shown that you didn't), your mortgage payment would only be $550-563/month based on interest rates rates during the time plus $172/month in escrows.

So, my question is this: If your claim is true, why would you want to sell your current home, just to pay the same amount in rent--and on top of that lose a major tax deduction?

[EasilyAmused]

Originally Posted by AK123

Funny coming from someone in West Memorial. I'd like to see what you'd think if the same thing were to be proposed for your area, was zoned to your subdivision's schools, and years down the road your home was no longer valued what you expected, once property values were to go down and the schools decline.

What?????We have tons of low income apartments zoned to SBISD schools here in West Memorial. Memorial High School has them too. We even have *gasp* city buses. The property values have been going up steadily for decades. "They" haven't brought the value down one bit. Stratford, were they all go, was ranked 14th in the city. Yes, there's a percentage of some pretty shady residents in those apatments, but the majority are hard working families that want their kids in nice safe schools.

I lived around plenty of low income apartments when I lived in Briargrove and Tanglewood as well. River Oaks has it's share near them as does West U and Bellaire. They aren't that big of a deal....if it's that big of a deal for you, you're going to have to keep moving out and more out. 77042/77079 & 78705/78701 to???

This city is exploding in population, you can't expect all "poor people" to live inside the Beltway.

And I maintain, the older apartment buildings are more dangerous than 99% of their residents. Heck, some of them still have tarps on the roof.

[Vicman]

There were low income apartments around Briargrove and Tanglewood, but many either were torn down or were rezoned to schools that are different than the schools serving Briargrove and Tanglewood. Have you seen how the school zones changed when Pilgrim Elementary became a K-8 and St. George Place Elementary opened?

Anyway, yes, West Memorial has some low income housing, but it is not particularly concentrated there and there is not any *additional* low income housing being built. If low income housing is clustered, as we see in the Westfield/Bammel area and in Gulfton, the quality of life of the area can be affected.

What the Sugar Land residents are saying is that any additional low income housing in that particular area will increase the strain on the already overcrowded schools and the roads, even if there is expansion scheduled.

Likewise in far southern Houston many areas are totally undeveloped, METRO is servicing them, and schools are being opened at a slower pace. Southern Houston is more suited for a 150-unit development.

Easily, many low income residents are already moving outside the Beltway, especially in the southwest and west sides. Some areas within the Beltway are still undeveloped.

Originally Posted by EasilyAmused

What?????We have tons of low income apartments zoned to SBISD schools here in West Memorial. Memorial High School has them too. We even have *gasp* city buses. The property values have been going up steadily for decades. "They" haven't brought the value down one bit. Stratford, were they all go, was ranked 14th in the city. Yes, there's a percentage of some pretty shady residents in those apatments, but the majority are hard working families that want their kids in nice safe schools.

I lived around plenty of low income apartments when I lived in Briargrove and Tanglewood as well. River Oaks has it's share near them as does West U and Bellaire. They aren't that big of a deal....if it's that big of a deal for you, you're going to have to keep moving out and more out. 77042/77079 & 78705/78701 to???

This city is exploding in population, you can't expect all "poor people" to live inside the Beltway.

And I maintain, the older apartment buildings are more dangerous than 99% of their residents. Heck, some of them still have tarps on the roof.

[buzzwhacker]

Does anyone know the results of last nights hearing downtown? I wasn't able to attend. Thanks!

[AK123]

Originally Posted by EasilyAmused

What?????We have tons of low income apartments zoned to SBISD schools here in West Memorial. Memorial High School has them too. We even have *gasp* city buses. The property values have been going up steadily for decades. "They" haven't brought the value down one bit. Stratford, were they all go, was ranked 14th in the city. Yes, there's a percentage of some pretty shady residents in those apatments, but the majority are hard working families that want their kids in nice safe schools.

I'm not talking about schools like Thornwood Elem. The homes in that zone have lower prices for a reason.

Looking at Rummel Creek Elem, only 6% of students are eligible for discounted/free lunch. It's my understanding this is the desired elementary in the area? At Stratford High, it's 20%. Which is higher, but still not too bad.

At Oyster Creek Elementary in Sugar Land (the school in the zone of the proposed development) it's already 18%. I'm sure this went up as more developments have been added to the area, and adding more is not a good idea.

It's also my understanding that some parents in 77079 use private schools. That's fine, but if my desire was to use private schools I would have just stayed in Briargrove Park. One of the reasons for moving to the suburbs was to be able to have my children in the public school system. I'm sure most others in the suburbs have the same reasoning. We're not trying to turn the suburbs into the city. We don't need it to mirror the city. I don't understand why some people don't get that. And we surely don't want to become a 77068.

[AK123]

Originally Posted by buzzwhacker

Does anyone know the results of last nights hearing downtown? I wasn't able to attend. Thanks!

I was there. This was just the first hearing and nothing was decided; the point of this hearing was for the TDHCA to take public comments.

The room was filled and many had to stand. The hearing wasn't just for the Goldshire development, but several others applying for tax credit with the TDHCA. However, after nearly two hours of people getting their three minutes to make comments, it was obvious the vast majority of people there were those who showed in opposition to the Goldshire Townhomes (a count taken was something around 80+ people). There were about 3-4 others who spoke in opposition of some other developments in another area, another 2-3 others who spoke in favor a development planned for the elderly population in another area.... and everyone else who spoke was in strong opposition to Goldshire Townhomes. There was lots of clapping after each of those speeches, and a united stand of Sugar Land residents. There were some great speeches. One of the more passioned speeches was by an African-American lady from one of the neighboring subdivisions who did not want this near her home. Some of the subdivisions represented by the speakers included Village of Oak Lake (this seemed to be the largest group, as the development is proposed basically in the middle of their neighborhood), Summerfield, Stratford Park, Old Orchard/Orchard Lake Estates, Chelsea Harbour, and even the master-planned community of Telfair. It was mentioned once the developer and residents of Aliana get word of this (if they haven't already), there will be another large master-planned community on our side. One speaker was an employee of FBCAD, another was someone with many connections in the local real estate market and Sugar Land city council. One surprise was that the business owner who appears to be leasing this very plot of land for her horse-training and boarding facility showed, and pleaded that she not be forced to move her business and horses elsewhere so that this complex (which is clearly unwanted by the residents of the area) could be built.

It was mentioned more than once that those who showed were just a tiny fraction of those opposed, as many could not make it or get out of work early. Plus we were given less than a two-week notice.

Like someone else there mentioned, after all of this if the TDHCA gives them any public money for this, they are on crack.

But please, do not yet become complacent. This may just be the beginning.

If you haven't already, Sugar Land residents can still write in their opposition to the proposed Goldshire Townhomes on Old Richmond Rd in Sugar Land (file # 09166)

Link to find your elected officials:
Who Represents Me--Home

Link to submit a complaint to TDHCA about the proposed development:
Complaint Submission Form

TDHCA email contacts to send your opposition to:
Sharon.Gamble AT tdhca.state.tx.us
Robbye.Meyer AT tdhca.state.tx.us


Thanks Sugar Land!!!

[buzzwhacker]

THANKS SO MUCH! That is a great recap. It is encouraging to hear about the people that could attend. I will use the contacts you have posted and support through e-mail. I hope to be able to attend the next public hearing, if they have one. As I have said earlier, the area is becoming saturated with apartments and another one - low income or not - is just too much.