A new proposed map has been released, and like many people, I actually am having a hard time figuring out the exact boundaries. That’s because the file is kind of funky and I’m not 100% confident in my ability to define a given squiggle as I-45 or Houston Avenue or Studewood.
It does seem that the Woodland Heights will be in a district apart from the rest of the Heights, and apart from most neighborhoods that have or are seeking historic protection.
My neighborhood email listserv has been buzzing with commentary, including this comment:
The Woodland Heights is now divorced from Houston Heights and almost every other neighborhood sensitive to historic preservation. Sorry, but apart from inhabitation by homo sapiens, and within common geo-political boundaries, Bayland and Jensen Dr. share precious few communities of interest. ~JS
Well, someone has a healthy fear of the others, whoever those others might be.
We all want the water to come out of the spout in the morning, and the trash to get picked up at least once a week. We all want the fire trucks, police cars, and ambulances to be able to get to us quickly and safely. Some of us may live in beautiful bungalows, and others in apartment complexes (and, by the way, you’ll find some great bungalows east of I-45, and some fairly threadbare apartments to the west, as well as the other way around), but people can be supporters of historic protection without living in a structure or neighborhood in need of protection. Plenty are. Even some owners of large-scale industrial sites in the proposed district support historic preservation in neighborhoods with something to preserve.
I was deeply offended by the statement that we do not belong to a community of interest with a group of people who differ from us only by virtue of living further east.
My only redistricting issue, the only request I have for the map-drawers and map-approvers, is that I would like the lines drawn so JS who sent that comment around is in a different district from me.