Bob Yancy said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Where is Mr. Yancy to provide a fiscally conservative explanation?

---

Sorry just saw this.

We are doing a test program for the soccer match and George Strait concert. It is just a test, not permanent policy. I was in support of it.

The strain on your public safety budget relative to these massive events almost cannot be overstated. It's all hands on deck just managing traffic flow and keeping the peace when a hundred thousand humans descend on a city of 130,000.

While we cheer such events for the positive benefits they bring to our city, police and fire and city staff writ large see it as the logistical challenge it is. They also serve and protect us as we have fun and get rowdy, while they miss time with their families. I think it's important to see it in that context.

Anyway, your city hall is strained for operations & maintenance resources. There is money to build things, but there's no wiggle room to run things. This is because the state puts unreasonable and arbitrary constraints on how we spend the comparatively low $.51 tax rate we all pay.

Cities charge for parking in every state in the union. It's not new. Folks are parking in these neighborhoods because of their proximity to campus.

Doing a test run to see if we can offset some of the fiscal pressure created by these events seemed worth the test run to me. That was the call I made and for a pilot program over two events, I stand by the decision.

Respectfully yours,

-yancy

---

Can you direct me to all these cities that charge homeowners living in a residential zoned area to park in front of their own home?

Bob Yancy said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Where is Mr. Yancy to provide a fiscally conservative explanation?

---

Sorry just saw this.

We are doing a test program for the soccer match and George Strait concert. It is just a test, not permanent policy. I was in support of it.

The strain on your public safety budget relative to these massive events almost cannot be overstated. It's all hands on deck just managing traffic flow and keeping the peace when a hundred thousand humans descend on a city of 130,000.

While we cheer such events for the positive benefits they bring to our city, police and fire and city staff writ large see it as the logistical challenge it is. They also serve and protect us as we have fun and get rowdy, while they miss time with their families. I think it's important to see it in that context.

Anyway, your city hall is strained for operations & maintenance resources. There is money to build things, but there's no wiggle room to run things. This is because the state puts unreasonable and arbitrary constraints on how we spend the comparatively low $.51 tax rate we all pay.

Cities charge for parking in every state in the union. It's not new. Folks are parking in these neighborhoods because of their proximity to campus.

Doing a test run to see if we can offset some of the fiscal pressure created by these events seemed worth the test run to me. That was the call I made and for a pilot program over two events, I stand by the decision.

Respectfully yours,

-yancy

---

At least you reply.
This was not a good decision. Standing by it and doubling down makes it worse not better. So many reasons it is a poor decision-all stated here already I believe. Funding city hall ops? Nobody planned for this when it was built? If so, THIS was the plan? The tax rate did not surprise anyone so how is this just now an issue?

Also, why did you not exempt the residents and their family members-and visitors? That is a horribly bad and frankly, unforgivable oversight. You had to know that this parking was used by residents and their family/visitors. To exclusively punish citizens who live there is-as you certainly know-completely unfair simply to gain a marginal and unnecessary amount of tax revenue.

Bob-citizens are not guinea pigs or lab rats. This is not well thought out and the reasons you state, even if genuine, already do not override the abuse of the citizens living there and really address and issue that does not exist. The only thing I believe is that you are trying to fund city hall-likely due to shortsightedness in prior planning.

Respectfully, you need to take a step back on this one and see you are treating your citizens in a cavalier manner. There is zero benefit to the citizens in this, a detriment to those in the area-and a benefit only to city hall quite likely due to poor planning- which should be resolved with a much better thought out way that does not punish the citizens you represent.

So as not to have my post nuked again I will be nicer and just say this will be no benefit to those elected to represent the citizens of College Station. This one has really angered many people and rightfully so. I will not say it is stupid. I see the intent, but it is completely misguided and the explanation given is excuses, not actual real reasons. When that happens, you know you have failed.

Respectfully, Amazed Citizen

Bob Yancy said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Where is Mr. Yancy to provide a fiscally conservative explanation?

---

Sorry just saw this.

We are doing a test program for the soccer match and George Strait concert. It is just a test, not permanent policy. I was in support of it.

The strain on your public safety budget relative to these massive events almost cannot be overstated. It's all hands on deck just managing traffic flow and keeping the peace when a hundred thousand humans descend on a city of 130,000.

While we cheer such events for the positive benefits they bring to our city, police and fire and city staff writ large see it as the logistical challenge it is. They also serve and protect us as we have fun and get rowdy, while they miss time with their families. I think it's important to see it in that context.

Anyway, your city hall is strained for operations & maintenance resources. There is money to build things, but there's no wiggle room to run things. This is because the state puts unreasonable and arbitrary constraints on how we spend the comparatively low $.51 tax rate we all pay.

Cities charge for parking in every state in the union. It's not new. Folks are parking in these neighborhoods because of their proximity to campus.

Doing a test run to see if we can offset some of the fiscal pressure created by these events seemed worth the test run to me. That was the call I made and for a pilot program over two events, I stand by the decision.

Respectfully yours,

-yancy

---

Bob,
On another note-how much does A&M and/or the various event organizers pay the city for their services for these events? Also, what is the actual cost the police the Southgate area? Last question-when was it determined to use these funds to help fund city hall?

maroon barchetta said:

---

Quote:

---

Anyway, your city hall is strained for operations & maintenance resources. There is money to build things, but there's no wiggle room to run things. This is because the state puts unreasonable and arbitrary constraints on how we spend the comparatively low $.51 tax rate we all pay.

---

Think about whether this is the deflection you want to use: throwing blame at the state when the city purchases unnecessary Instagram props for vanity and makes bad land and property deals.

KBTX reported that residents in the area where y'all want to charge for parking are against it.

Have you considered the opinions of the constituents you represent?

---

A lot of disparate topics to unpack there… I'll try…

Not deflection. I owned up to the decision to test pilot this for two events;
And the state IS to blame for the unreasonable and arbitrary constraints it places on municipal finance;
And there hasn't been one bad land deal consummated since I've been on council. We've made massive capital gains for the taxpayers and closed out a business park, having sold all available lots;
The "I love Aggieland" sign enjoys the overwhelming approval of the citizens and is now often featured on national TV during sporting events by visiting networks including ESPN. Invaluable community marketing and promotion for the $83,000 it cost;
I don't recall a lot of opposition the night we debated on street fee parking, but I've heard quite a bit since, and yes, I am and always will listen closely to constituents and act on their concerns. They are my neighbors and my boss.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Y

Bob Yancy said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Quote:

---

Anyway, your city hall is strained for operations & maintenance resources. There is money to build things, but there's no wiggle room to run things. This is because the state puts unreasonable and arbitrary constraints on how we spend the comparatively low $.51 tax rate we all pay.

---

Think about whether this is the deflection you want to use: throwing blame at the state when the city purchases unnecessary Instagram props for vanity and makes bad land and property deals.

KBTX reported that residents in the area where y'all want to charge for parking are against it.

Have you considered the opinions of the constituents you represent?

---

A lot of disparate topics to unpack there… I'll try…

Not deflection. I owned up to the decision to test pilot this for two events;
And the state IS to blame for the unreasonable and arbitrary constraints it places on municipal finance;
And there hasn't been one bad land deal consummated since I've been on council. We've made massive capital gains for the taxpayers and closed out a business park, having sold all available lots;
The "I love Aggieland" sign enjoys the overwhelming approval of the citizens and is now often featured on national TV during sporting events by visiting networks including ESPN. Invaluable community marketing and promotion for the $83,000 it cost;
I don't recall a lot of opposition the night we debated on street fee parking, but I've heard quite a bit since, and yes, I am and always will listen closely to constituents and act on their concerns. They are my neighbors and my boss.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Y

---

Did you not know the cost to finance city hall BEFORE you built it? A fair question. That assumes it is even fair to use the funds from charging for parking in a residential neighborhood to pay for it ( it is not.)

No exceptions for residents!

Flyers out today.

Bob Yancy said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Quote:

---

Anyway, your city hall is strained for operations & maintenance resources. There is money to build things, but there's no wiggle room to run things. This is because the state puts unreasonable and arbitrary constraints on how we spend the comparatively low $.51 tax rate we all pay.

---

Think about whether this is the deflection you want to use: throwing blame at the state when the city purchases unnecessary Instagram props for vanity and makes bad land and property deals.

KBTX reported that residents in the area where y'all want to charge for parking are against it.

Have you considered the opinions of the constituents you represent?

---

A lot of disparate topics to unpack there… I'll try…

Not deflection. I owned up to the decision to test pilot this for two events;
And the state IS to blame for the unreasonable and arbitrary constraints it places on municipal finance;
And there hasn't been one bad land deal consummated since I've been on council. We've made massive capital gains for the taxpayers and closed out a business park, having sold all available lots;
The "I love Aggieland" sign enjoys the overwhelming approval of the citizens and is now often featured on national TV during sporting events by visiting networks including ESPN. Invaluable community marketing and promotion for the $83,000 it cost;
I don't recall a lot of opposition the night we debated on street fee parking, but I've heard quite a bit since, and yes, I am and always will listen closely to constituents and act on their concerns. They are my neighbors and my boss.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Y

---

Absolutely incredible. Yancy came up with THIS? I actually cannot believe this part of the idea was his. This is so incredibly tone deaf-or just plain callous-that I just do not see Bob condoning this, not his normal style at all.

Point blank question Bob-do you agree with this portion of the program you approved implementing? If so, what is your justification for supporting this particular area of the plan?

I have to ask who, exactly, do these people believe they are? You would actually charge a resident for parking in front of their own home? This is easily avoidable so money is the only motive (and almost no real revenue btw) so it is really more of a flex than an actual profit incentive.

So-Bob, is this really part of what you were on board with?

no exceptions for residents, lol. you get what you vote for.

BCSWguru said:

---

no exceptions for residents, lol. you get what you vote for.

---

That really does not seem right.

"No exceptions for residents" seems like a fancy way of saying "Here's a new tax for people in this neighborhood".

AggieBaseball06 said:

---

"No exceptions for residents" seems like a fancy way of saying "Here's a new tax for people in this neighborhood".

---

Coming next fall to a football game near you.

"Pilot program" my rear end.

Hittag1492,

You and other homeowners directly affected should consider reaching out to the Institute for Justice.

They are a non-profit that takes on government overreach. They have a large office in Texas and a nationwide presence. They do a lot of research

Right at the top of every page it has a "button" to click on that says report abuse. I am not directly affected so I do not have a claim.

To me it sounds unconstitutional to prevent a homeowner from charging for parking in their own driveway while city comes in and starts charging for special events. If the city truly believes there is safety concern then they are negligent for allowing cars to park there on gamedays. We know its a farce because they are not going to limit the number of vehicles parked on the street, just start charging.

https://ij.org/about-us/state-offices/texas-office/

Hey Bob -who exactly voted for this? And when was this vote taken?


You were one of them so who were the others?

Harvell was a no apparently.

Edit to add : apparently it was only introduced as a discussion on 5/25/24 - there are no further city minutes from any meeting posted - nor was a vote listed on this date - so when was action finalized on this and by who's authority? And no public discussion?

• 

Also what are the areas of the neighborhoods that are going to revive such monies as suggested in the proposal?

Even though Mr. Yancy is the only one with the guts to post on here, we know that all of you read it.

I'm one that didn't have a problem with charging for parking on those streets.

No exceptions for residents means no vote from me for every person on the council.

Every one of you needs to be gone for that rule.

When election time comes, I'll be reminding people about this on every social media platform that I'm on.

I'm not Nextdoor, but I'm going to register just to make sure that it gets out there again.

People pay taxes for that side of the curb, Brian. I'm usually on your side of many arguments., but in this case, I disagree. The city's claim that it's reducing congestion is also extremely dubious. The City is just on a money grab, and it's shameful.

Hittag1492 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Quote:

---

Anyway, your city hall is strained for operations & maintenance resources. There is money to build things, but there's no wiggle room to run things. This is because the state puts unreasonable and arbitrary constraints on how we spend the comparatively low $.51 tax rate we all pay.

---

Think about whether this is the deflection you want to use: throwing blame at the state when the city purchases unnecessary Instagram props for vanity and makes bad land and property deals.

KBTX reported that residents in the area where y'all want to charge for parking are against it.

Have you considered the opinions of the constituents you represent?

---

A lot of disparate topics to unpack there… I'll try…

Not deflection. I owned up to the decision to test pilot this for two events;
And the state IS to blame for the unreasonable and arbitrary constraints it places on municipal finance;
And there hasn't been one bad land deal consummated since I've been on council. We've made massive capital gains for the taxpayers and closed out a business park, having sold all available lots;
The "I love Aggieland" sign enjoys the overwhelming approval of the citizens and is now often featured on national TV during sporting events by visiting networks including ESPN. Invaluable community marketing and promotion for the $83,000 it cost;
I don't recall a lot of opposition the night we debated on street fee parking, but I've heard quite a bit since, and yes, I am and always will listen closely to constituents and act on their concerns. They are my neighbors and my boss.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Y

---

Absolutely incredible. Yancy came up with THIS? I actually cannot believe this part of the idea was his. This is so incredibly tone deaf-or just plain callous-that I just do not see Bob condoning this, not his normal style at all.

Point blank question Bob-do you agree with this portion of the program you approved implementing? If so, what is your justification for supporting this particular area of the plan?

I have to ask who, exactly, do these people believe they are? You would actually charge a resident for parking in front of their own home? This is easily avoidable so money is the only motive (and almost no real revenue btw) so it is really more of a flex than an actual profit incentive.

So-Bob, is this really part of what you were on board with?

---

Yes. I agreed to the pilot program for two events. Full stop. No excuses. It is not unprecedented at all for cities to do this, but I understand how residents might be against it. I'll continue to weigh inputs like yours and others and make a decision going forward based on those inputs.

Respectfully

Bob Y

Brian Alg said:

---

But everyone here seems to be ignoring that the city is talking about charging for parking on the city's side of the curb. That's a different thing. Some of y'all are even advocating for hang tags to indicate that homeowners in that area have special parking entitlements for spots on the side of the curb that they do not own. This is bananas.

---

I don't pay to park in front of my house right now and neither does any person in the entire B/CS. The city doesn't even want to charge anyone for parking on the curb most Sundays through Saturdays. But this one opportunity when they know we will have a bunch of visitors in town and people needing to park near the stadium, they see an opportunity to tax and levy fees. Total bull crap.

What's next? "We hear little Johnny is having a birthday party this Saturday down Francis Street. We will implement pay for parking that weekend ..."

Brian Alg said:

---

We are talking about the side of the curb that these people *do not own*.

I love what the IJ does. They do great work fighting government overreach and protecting people's rights and property.

If the city is telling the homeowner what they can do with the homeowners' side of the curb, they're overstepping. In that matter, they are awful and deserve to get kicked in the shins.

But everyone here seems to be ignoring that the city is talking about charging for parking on the city's side of the curb. That's a different thing. Some of y'all are even advocating for hang tags to indicate that homeowners in that area have special parking entitlements for spots on the side of the curb that they do not own. This is bananas.

---

.

The city does not OWN anything, the people do. The city has no money-it is the peoples. The whole notion of this fiasco is hilarious. That is why they had to hide this under the BS of "solving a traffic/pedestrian safety issue" because otherwise they known-they cannot do it. At least Bob was honest-they want it to fund city hall maintenance because they did not plan properly for that when they built it-of course not. The mentality people have that they believe the "government" owns anything or "gives" you anything/ has money or creates it-these officials love you. Government can only take. The citizens built and paid for that road and have every right to it. Charging someone to park in front of their own home on the premise that the city " owns"that side of the curb might be the funniest-and saddest-thing said in this entire thread.

Bob Yancy said:

---

whoop1995 said:

---

Hey Bob -who exactly voted for this? And when was this vote taken?


You were one of them so who were the others?

Harvell was a no apparently.

Edit to add : apparently it was only introduced as a discussion on 5/25/24 - there are no further city minutes from any meeting posted - nor was a vote listed on this date - so when was action finalized on this and by who's authority? And no public discussion?

• 

---

It was a workshop item back in late April, the 25th I think. Workshop items are sometimes voted on, or sometimes we just arrive at a consensus. As I recall we did not vote because it was a pilot program only for two events.

I recall everyone supported the idea except my colleague that you referenced.

To make it permanent or do away with it, it'll be a regular agenda item in the near future and we will certainly vote.

Respectfully,

Bob Y

---

So no citizens. Bob-geez man. You would have never even thought to say this in the past. Surprising and a bit sad. Very disappointing. I thought you would be able to keep your bearings and head straight-this topic is revealing more than just a parking issue.

Bob Yancy said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Quote:

---

Anyway, your city hall is strained for operations & maintenance resources. There is money to build things, but there's no wiggle room to run things. This is because the state puts unreasonable and arbitrary constraints on how we spend the comparatively low $.51 tax rate we all pay.

---

Think about whether this is the deflection you want to use: throwing blame at the state when the city purchases unnecessary Instagram props for vanity and makes bad land and property deals.

KBTX reported that residents in the area where y'all want to charge for parking are against it.

Have you considered the opinions of the constituents you represent?

---

A lot of disparate topics to unpack there… I'll try…

Not deflection. I owned up to the decision to test pilot this for two events;
And the state IS to blame for the unreasonable and arbitrary constraints it places on municipal finance;
And there hasn't been one bad land deal consummated since I've been on council. We've made massive capital gains for the taxpayers and closed out a business park, having sold all available lots;
The "I love Aggieland" sign enjoys the overwhelming approval of the citizens and is now often featured on national TV during sporting events by visiting networks including ESPN. Invaluable community marketing and promotion for the $83,000 it cost;
I don't recall a lot of opposition the night we debated on street fee parking, but I've heard quite a bit since, and yes, I am and always will listen closely to constituents and act on their concerns. They are my neighbors and my boss.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Y

---

Absolutely incredible. Yancy came up with THIS? I actually cannot believe this part of the idea was his. This is so incredibly tone deaf-or just plain callous-that I just do not see Bob condoning this, not his normal style at all.

Point blank question Bob-do you agree with this portion of the program you approved implementing? If so, what is your justification for supporting this particular area of the plan?

I have to ask who, exactly, do these people believe they are? You would actually charge a resident for parking in front of their own home? This is easily avoidable so money is the only motive (and almost no real revenue btw) so it is really more of a flex than an actual profit incentive.

So-Bob, is this really part of what you were on board with?

---

Yes. I agreed to the pilot program for two events. Full stop. No excuses. It is not unprecedented at all for cities to do this, but I understand how residents might be against it. I'll continue to weigh inputs like yours and others and make a decision going forward based on those inputs.

Respectfully

Bob Y

---

.

One question you missed. How much does A&M and the event organizers already pay the city for holding events such as these?

Thanks, Bob, for being the only person to answer anything.

Even though I agree with most of the posters above that this is a giant cluster, I truly appreciate you owning your side and being transparent with us.

Bob

How much money does this take as this question has never been answered and why wouldn't HOT money be used as I would think police and fire would be a necessity in promoting tourism for a sporting expense? It seems like the city has a lot of HOT money that is generated from this event or two.

https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/development/sales-tax/hotel.php

Bob Yancy said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Quote:

---

Anyway, your city hall is strained for operations & maintenance resources. There is money to build things, but there's no wiggle room to run things. This is because the state puts unreasonable and arbitrary constraints on how we spend the comparatively low $.51 tax rate we all pay.

---

Think about whether this is the deflection you want to use: throwing blame at the state when the city purchases unnecessary Instagram props for vanity and makes bad land and property deals.

KBTX reported that residents in the area where y'all want to charge for parking are against it.

Have you considered the opinions of the constituents you represent?

---

A lot of disparate topics to unpack there… I'll try…

Not deflection. I owned up to the decision to test pilot this for two events;
And the state IS to blame for the unreasonable and arbitrary constraints it places on municipal finance;
And there hasn't been one bad land deal consummated since I've been on council. We've made massive capital gains for the taxpayers and closed out a business park, having sold all available lots;
The "I love Aggieland" sign enjoys the overwhelming approval of the citizens and is now often featured on national TV during sporting events by visiting networks including ESPN. Invaluable community marketing and promotion for the $83,000 it cost;
I don't recall a lot of opposition the night we debated on street fee parking, but I've heard quite a bit since, and yes, I am and always will listen closely to constituents and act on their concerns. They are my neighbors and my boss.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Y

---

Absolutely incredible. Yancy came up with THIS? I actually cannot believe this part of the idea was his. This is so incredibly tone deaf-or just plain callous-that I just do not see Bob condoning this, not his normal style at all.

Point blank question Bob-do you agree with this portion of the program you approved implementing? If so, what is your justification for supporting this particular area of the plan?

I have to ask who, exactly, do these people believe they are? You would actually charge a resident for parking in front of their own home? This is easily avoidable so money is the only motive (and almost no real revenue btw) so it is really more of a flex than an actual profit incentive.

So-Bob, is this really part of what you were on board with?

---

Yes. I agreed to the pilot program for two events. Full stop. No excuses. It is not unprecedented at all for cities to do this, but I understand how residents might be against it. I'll continue to weigh inputs like yours and others and make a decision going forward based on those inputs.

Respectfully

Bob Y

---

.

One question you missed. How much does A&M and the event organizers already pay the city for holding events such as these?

---

Texas A&M gets paid because it's their venue. Texas A&M also makes quite a bit for parking. No one pays the city, except hotel tax and sales tax, which are significant. As for the event itself, it's a cost to the city. It's all hands on deck for public safety and traffic control.

---

Perfect. So this is accounted for!

How much does this typically cost then? Would be very similar to a football game so should be well known.

How much tax revenue is brought in -see above, should be similar to a football game and known.

What other avenues were discussed to make money aside from this?

Why was this put to the public as a traffic control/pedestrian safety issue when it , according to your statements, is clearly a funding issue? City hall funding is mentioned by you prominently above-moreso than anything else by far.

You also mention funding city hall upkeep. This has nothing to do with the cost of these games (would be a VERY long leap to try to do that). Why was this not accounted for when it was built. Bob, that was not that long ago and very little has changed. I find it very hard to believe this is anything but either short-sightedness, or when city hall was planned, the expense was knowingly ignored assuming the money could just be taken later from taxpayers in various ways such as this.

You want us to trust and believe you and everyone that was voted in are truly trying to do the right thing, are smart, and have their heart in the right place. When we see decisions and short sighted planning like this-why should we? We would actually like to, but the burden is on you-not us. Why would a voter look at this and think you and that entire group are truly planning ahead properly and making good, sound decisions with the citizens best interest at heart?

Serious question, not an accusation.

[Mr. Yancy has been very good about answering questions on this thread and posters are going to be respectful when replying on this board. -Staff]