Proposed apartment complex on Broadwa...

Proposed apartment complex on Broadway (old 146) & McCabe

Posted in the La Porte Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Seymour Butts

Houston, TX

#1 Mar 4, 2010
I saw the public notice sign up on the lot between the church and car wash notifying the public about a request for either taxes or "credits" (may not be exact,I am a little fuzzy on it this morning) for the apartment complex that is something like a 128 units according to the sign.

Can someone in the "know" enlighten me what this is about? I must admit beyond the sign I know absolutely nothing about this project. The hearing is April 6th in Houston I think.

Is this the program where the developer gets "assistance' with the construction in exchange for making the units qualifiable for low income assistance? NOTE: I AM NOT OPPOSED TO LOW INCOME UNITS. I actually think the newer low income unit complexes are very nice compared to years gone by (as long as they are maintained). My concern would be if this is the case, what will happen to the other apartment complexes in the area that in all probablilty would empty even further than they already are. Don't know if many of you have seen it, but I have no idea how some of those complexes are still open. I would hate for them to close and then not be maintained resulting in another abandoned eyesore complex on this end of town.
La Porte waters

Pasadena, TX

#2 Mar 4, 2010
Seymour Butts wrote:
I saw the public notice sign up on the lot between the church and car wash notifying the public about a request for either taxes or "credits" (may not be exact,I am a little fuzzy on it this morning) for the apartment complex that is something like a 128 units according to the sign.
Can someone in the "know" enlighten me what this is about? I must admit beyond the sign I know absolutely nothing about this project. The hearing is April 6th in Houston I think.
Is this the program where the developer gets "assistance' with the construction in exchange for making the units qualifiable for low income assistance? NOTE: I AM NOT OPPOSED TO LOW INCOME UNITS. I actually think the newer low income unit complexes are very nice compared to years gone by (as long as they are maintained). My concern would be if this is the case, what will happen to the other apartment complexes in the area that in all probablilty would empty even further than they already are. Don't know if many of you have seen it, but I have no idea how some of those complexes are still open. I would hate for them to close and then not be maintained resulting in another abandoned eyesore complex on this end of town.
This was talked about at City Council La Porte last time. I think this is a concern on two fronts. First, wetlands loss and consequent increased flooding of existing housing will increase. Second, there are a number of lower income apartment complexes which are not fully occupied at present and so, the market need for this seems poor. Also, there is an existing ordinance preventing apartments from being built within 1000 ft of existing apartments. THis would prevent this being built. Let Louis Rigby and others know we cannot support this project in this area.
here is your answer

Montgomery, TX

#3 Mar 4, 2010
Seymour Butts wrote:
I saw the public notice sign up on the lot between the church and car wash notifying the public about a request for either taxes or "credits" (may not be exact,I am a little fuzzy on it this morning) for the apartment complex that is something like a 128 units according to the sign.
Can someone in the "know" enlighten me what this is about? I must admit beyond the sign I know absolutely nothing about this project. The hearing is April 6th in Houston I think.
Is this the program where the developer gets "assistance' with the construction in exchange for making the units qualifiable for low income assistance? NOTE: I AM NOT OPPOSED TO LOW INCOME UNITS. I actually think the newer low income unit complexes are very nice compared to years gone by (as long as they are maintained). My concern would be if this is the case, what will happen to the other apartment complexes in the area that in all probablilty would empty even further than they already are. Don't know if many of you have seen it, but I have no idea how some of those complexes are still open. I would hate for them to close and then not be maintained resulting in another abandoned eyesore complex on this end of town.
Plan is for subsidized apartments. City has known about this for quite some time.
LPresidents

Montgomery, TX

#4 Mar 4, 2010
La Porte waters wrote:
<quoted text>
This was talked about at City Council La Porte last time. I think this is a concern on two fronts. First, wetlands loss and consequent increased flooding of existing housing will increase. Second, there are a number of lower income apartment complexes which are not fully occupied at present and so, the market need for this seems poor. Also, there is an existing ordinance preventing apartments from being built within 1000 ft of existing apartments. THis would prevent this being built. Let Louis Rigby and others know we cannot support this project in this area.
is this a possibility why they moved the school where it is? i see all kinds of inside deals written all over this. makes you wonder??
question

Montgomery, TX

#5 Mar 4, 2010
here is your answer wrote:
<quoted text>
Plan is for subsidized apartments. City has known about this for quite some time.
Is this one of John Black's projects?

Since: Jan 10

La Porte, TX

#6 Mar 4, 2010
I know the city wants it to help justify the large expense we are fixing to spend on sidewalks and road improvements to McCabe road because of Bayshore.

This project would also help the Lutheran church tremendously.

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#7 Mar 4, 2010
LPresidents wrote:
<quoted text>
is this a possibility why they moved the school where it is? i see all kinds of inside deals written all over this. makes you wonder??
We need a big sign at all the entrances to the City, "La Porte, inside deal sanctuary."

Remember when there were signs saying La Porte was a bird sanctuary?

I guess that FLEW out the window!
La Porte waters

Pasadena, TX

#8 Mar 4, 2010
LPresidents wrote:
<quoted text>
is this a possibility why they moved the school where it is? i see all kinds of inside deals written all over this. makes you wonder??
Lots of things make you wonder. I heard that the Bayshore land purchase actually occurred in APRIL 2008--- 5 months BEFORE the hurricane, not January 2009 as LPISD publicized.
LaPorteCitizen

Pasadena, TX

#9 Mar 4, 2010
We have a new school, that's done.
We are building new roadway and sidewalks, done and part done.
We have this large parcel of land that the city invested improvements into to entice a developer who failed out of the deal. done.
Those cows are out the barn door.

We have very old, dilapidated apartment complexes that obviously are not going to get fixed up, and we have already seen two large public housing/low income housing developments torn down in that area. What is wrong with a new low income apartment dwelling complex being built where it is needed? Isn't a lot of government money behind such a project? Wouldn't La Porte be getting more per dollar invested? We already serve a low income housing population there, but in a disconnected way. Is it okay to just keep the trailer Parks, Weekly motel, dilapidated old apartment buildings, and never upgrade?
Could building section 8 housing in new upgraded code construction be a better outcome? Better housing available for the need already in place, would force the upgrade, or the tear down, or the code conformity, of the properties that need to do so.
LPresident

Montgomery, TX

#10 Mar 4, 2010
LaPorteCitizen wrote:
We have a new school, that's done.
We are building new roadway and sidewalks, done and part done.
We have this large parcel of land that the city invested improvements into to entice a developer who failed out of the deal. done.
Those cows are out the barn door.
We have very old, dilapidated apartment complexes that obviously are not going to get fixed up, and we have already seen two large public housing/low income housing developments torn down in that area. What is wrong with a new low income apartment dwelling complex being built where it is needed? Isn't a lot of government money behind such a project? Wouldn't La Porte be getting more per dollar invested? We already serve a low income housing population there, but in a disconnected way. Is it okay to just keep the trailer Parks, Weekly motel, dilapidated old apartment buildings, and never upgrade?
Could building section 8 housing in new upgraded code construction be a better outcome? Better housing available for the need already in place, would force the upgrade, or the tear down, or the code conformity, of the properties that need to do so.
all those apartments on old 146 are privatley owned, so the owner is at fault for not fixing them up. second, it is a known fact that lower income housing brings all kinds of activity that people don't want. as long as the apartment manager does not put up with bullshit, then maybe it could work. it works at bayou villa apartments. i know because i lived there for a year. brenda did not put up with bullshit!! she is an ex-houston cop. also, when the new orleans people came over here, she put a stop to them renting from there because all the problems they were having with them. i don't consider someones money a test of character, everybody is different. BUT, historically speaking, trouble seems to be rampant in low income properties. thats a fact.
LPresident

Montgomery, TX

#11 Mar 4, 2010
LaPorteCitizen wrote:
We have a new school, that's done.
We are building new roadway and sidewalks, done and part done.
We have this large parcel of land that the city invested improvements into to entice a developer who failed out of the deal. done.
Those cows are out the barn door.
We have very old, dilapidated apartment complexes that obviously are not going to get fixed up, and we have already seen two large public housing/low income housing developments torn down in that area. What is wrong with a new low income apartment dwelling complex being built where it is needed? Isn't a lot of government money behind such a project? Wouldn't La Porte be getting more per dollar invested? We already serve a low income housing population there, but in a disconnected way. Is it okay to just keep the trailer Parks, Weekly motel, dilapidated old apartment buildings, and never upgrade?
Could building section 8 housing in new upgraded code construction be a better outcome? Better housing available for the need already in place, would force the upgrade, or the tear down, or the code conformity, of the properties that need to do so.
another thing, those brand new updated code apartments are going to get tore up from the kind of people that live there. who is going to be financialy responsible for the cost of repairs? the tax payers? the owners of the apartments?
teacher lady

Houston, TX

#12 Mar 4, 2010
Just remember Vista Baywood. It was so crime and drug infested. I felt sorry for the few nice people who lived there.
Seymour Butts

Houston, TX

#13 Mar 4, 2010
LaPorteCitizen wrote:
We have a new school, that's done.
We are building new roadway and sidewalks, done and part done.
We have this large parcel of land that the city invested improvements into to entice a developer who failed out of the deal. done.
Those cows are out the barn door.
We have very old, dilapidated apartment complexes that obviously are not going to get fixed up, and we have already seen two large public housing/low income housing developments torn down in that area. What is wrong with a new low income apartment dwelling complex being built where it is needed? Isn't a lot of government money behind such a project? Wouldn't La Porte be getting more per dollar invested? We already serve a low income housing population there, but in a disconnected way. Is it okay to just keep the trailer Parks, Weekly motel, dilapidated old apartment buildings, and never upgrade?
Could building section 8 housing in new upgraded code construction be a better outcome? Better housing available for the need already in place, would force the upgrade, or the tear down, or the code conformity, of the properties that need to do so.
The issue is not the construction of the new housing with me it is the old. I persoanlly said many times I wish the old apartments would have blown away during the hurricane. Not wishing anything towards the residents of the apartments, but that the apartments would have to have been modernized or torn down. Using my advanced ciphering calculator (fingers) I believe that seven complexes are in that immediate area not including the condos/townhomes across the street. Of those seven one complex is completely vacant and has not been occupied for years (but is maintained). Another two complexes look like ghost towns and look like they need to go. In addition to these complexes you also have Tammie Jay which is pretty ghost town like as well. Thus, we do not have a searing need for more units, current complexes are nowhere near capacity.

Would a nice new complex be welcomed to the area? I think it would be as long as you could work out a real plan for eliminating some of the old complexes. A nice integration of multifamily and single family housing can actually be beneficial to areas with proper urban planning.

The reality is, these older types of complexes never will be torn down as long as anyone is willing to pay rent. I imagine most of these units have been paid for for years at this point and will be run into the ground. When they get worse, the rent may go down or just never go up as other units raise the rent. In short they will fill those units with anyone breathing or not, as long as the check clears. Regardless of the implications for everyone else in the surrounding community.

Cities in general (not just La Porte) seem to have a very hard time with getting rid of unsafe/abandoned complexes. I think one of the complexes torn down was named Vista Baywood, if I remeber correctly and the second was Kings Bay. Having personally been inside Kings Bay units the place was a dump and should have been torn down 15 years before it was (Vista Baywood was nicer, although it was pretty empty the last couple of years as well). Kings Bay had been closed, and was theoreticaly going to be converted to senior condos/apartments if I remeber correctly, though they did not get far. Once the complex went south it still took years to get it torn down and a lot of money, fines and threats.

Some of those owners would work for years finding every loophole possible to keep from leveling our existing complexes (some already do), and as long as they followed or knew how to work the loop hole system the city would be pretty ineffective at getting rid of them if they were to be in a delapitated/vacant state.
Seymour Butts

Houston, TX

#14 Mar 4, 2010
I also doubt they could do this legally, but it would be nice if they could build in some amount of content insurance (included in rent) on each unit in the new complex if it comes to fruition. Thus giving the residents a cushion should another disaster hit, as opposed to another 120 some odd families standing in the FEMA application line. Not saying they do not deserve help, just that if building in a "high risk" area appropriate precautions would be nice.

Since: Dec 09

La Porte

#15 Mar 4, 2010
I checked the city’s web site – the agenda for next Monday night includes a resolution opposing this project. Just the facts.
HAHA

Houston, TX

#16 Mar 4, 2010
La Porte waters wrote:
<quoted text>
This was talked about at City Council La Porte last time. I think this is a concern on two fronts. First, wetlands loss and consequent increased flooding of existing housing will increase. Second, there are a number of lower income apartment complexes which are not fully occupied at present and so, the market need for this seems poor. Also, there is an existing ordinance preventing apartments from being built within 1000 ft of existing apartments. THis would prevent this being built. Let Louis Rigby and others know we cannot support this project in this area.
Louis Rigby doesn't have the courage or skill to do any thing at the city counicl. He may have the right idea but he never wins on any issue.
just sayin

Pasadena, TX

#17 Mar 4, 2010
LaPorteCitizen wrote:
We have a new school, that's done.
We are building new roadway and sidewalks, done and part done.
We have this large parcel of land that the city invested improvements into to entice a developer who failed out of the deal. done.
Those cows are out the barn door.
We have very old, dilapidated apartment complexes that obviously are not going to get fixed up, and we have already seen two large public housing/low income housing developments torn down in that area. What is wrong with a new low income apartment dwelling complex being built where it is needed? Isn't a lot of government money behind such a project? Wouldn't La Porte be getting more per dollar invested? We already serve a low income housing population there, but in a disconnected way. Is it okay to just keep the trailer Parks, Weekly motel, dilapidated old apartment buildings, and never upgrade?
Could building section 8 housing in new upgraded code construction be a better outcome? Better housing available for the need already in place, would force the upgrade, or the tear down, or the code conformity, of the properties that need to do so.
You have no idea what these low income housing complexes do to a school.
just sayin

Pasadena, TX

#18 Mar 4, 2010
Captan Ron wrote:
I checked the city’s web site – the agenda for next Monday night includes a resolution opposing this project. Just the facts.
Thank God for that. Now lets see them vote against it.
old woman

La Porte, TX

#19 Mar 4, 2010
Seymour Butts wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue is not the construction of the new housing with me it is the old. I persoanlly said many times I wish the old apartments would have blown away during the hurricane. Not wishing anything towards the residents of the apartments, but that the apartments would have to have been modernized or torn down. Using my advanced ciphering calculator (fingers) I believe that seven complexes are in that immediate area not including the condos/townhomes across the street. Of those seven one complex is completely vacant and has not been occupied for years (but is maintained). Another two complexes look like ghost towns and look like they need to go. In

addition to these complexes you also have Tammie Jay which is

pretty ghost town like as well. Thus, we do not have a searing need for more units, current complexes are nowhere near capacity.
Would a nice new complex be welcomed to the area? I think it would be as long as you could work out a real plan for eliminating some of the old complexes. A nice integration of multifamily and single family housing can actually be beneficial to areas with proper urban planning.
The reality is, these older types of complexes never will be torn down as long as anyone is willing to pay rent. I imagine most of these units have been paid for for years at this point and will be run into the ground. When they get worse, the rent may go down or just never go up as other units raise the rent. In short they will fill those units with anyone breathing or not, as long as the check clears. Regardless of the implications for everyone else in the surrounding community.
Cities in general (not just La Porte) seem to have a very hard time with getting rid of unsafe/abandoned complexes. I think one of the complexes torn down was named Vista Baywood, if I remeber correctly and the second was Kings Bay. Having personally been inside Kings Bay units the place was a dump and should have been torn down 15 years before it was (Vista Baywood was nicer, although it was pretty empty the last couple of years as well). Kings Bay had been closed, and was theoreticaly going to be converted to senior condos/apartments if I remeber correctly, though they did not get far. Once the complex went south it still took years to get it torn down and a lot of money, fines and threats.
Some of those owners would work for years finding every loophole possible to keep from leveling our existing complexes (some already do), and as long as they followed or knew how to work the loop hole system the city would be pretty ineffective at getting rid of them if they were to be in a delapitated/vacant state.
Kings Bay is active and well-located on old 146. Tammie J is filled with people-I saw five police cars there last month.
Seymour Butts

Houston, TX

#20 Mar 5, 2010
old woman wrote:
<quoted text>
Kings Bay is active and well-located on old 146. Tammie J is filled with people-I saw five police cars there last month.
I would not call Tammie J full, I looked last night a couple times when I drove by in the afternoon and evening. I would guess it is about 50% full based on lights on in units and cars present (being generous in guestimation). It looks like they have workers in some of the units, it did close after the hurricane for a while.

The "motel" on old 146 is Kings Bay, always has been. The complex that was abandoned/vandalized/burned/to rn down that had the cyclone fence erercted around it on the opposite side of the street was also Kings Bay, they were originally owned by the same people years ago.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

La Porte Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Yeah...SOTUS rules Texas Republicans abortion l... 5 hr Heavy Fed 16
North L 7 hr fubar 10
If Trump does what he says... 7 hr Elaine 12
Ethnic slur or American idiom? (Nov '11) 8 hr fubar 29
Coward Republicans Hiding Tue Heavy Fed 30
Let there be water... Tue Heavy Fed 46
OG Mudbone Tue Loraine 1

La Porte Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

La Porte Mortgages