TAMU Capacity Study & TX Housing

9,121 Views | 64 Replies | Last: 3 mo ago by BCSWguru
Craig Regan 14
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tu ag • 12:16p, 8/29/24
tu ag said:
I know that 10 to 15 years ago the urban planners all said fewer students would have cars by now. That wasn't true.

They also said all the dense building on Northgate would reduce traffic. I'm unsure about what the result is, but I doubt it has done much.

Result is more traffic. How does Government help traffic? Medians...because that helped. Ug. Spend millions to just make traffic flow "safer" and slow us all down.

All our infrastructure, schools, traffic, public services, etc are not as good as they once were. Yet we pay higher taxes and the cost of living is crazy.

Government officials have one answer (regardless of party). More taxes. Why? Where is the evidence it works? Show me the data!

We need two things.
1 - Lower tax rates and
2 - untie the property tax rate to home valuations.

State controls the 2nd, but local city and county officials can keep the first down. Will they? I doubt it. They havent shown they are creative leaders yet.

Lower revenue might help force creative solutions. I know everyone else has to work this way when the $ isn't just a stroke of the pen away...why not our elected conrades.l?
You kinda hit the nail on the head there except for one small part:

I took many a course on Urban Planning and Political Science at A&M and generally the first rule of Urban Planning - aside for "crap runs down hill" - which is more of a joke about infrastructure.

But the first rule is: You cannot change human nature, only adapt to it.

People in TX do not want to be stuffed into apartments - unless they are nice and spacious. Think a 3 bedroom 1200 sqft place with 3 or bathrooms. Even then they want a cool downtown place to hang out. NG is not for hanging out but a night life. Other a place to make money EG - good jobs


If you do not provide that they will look to where they can get it.

That is why moving out to the county is the only real option here. There is TONS of land following hwy 60 W toward Snook and the Brazos. You have a FED opportunity zone that goes all the way to the river.

  • BTU would handle the utilities
  • Brazos County/COCS split the infrastructure but you do not need alot because the HWY is literally right there.
  • A&M could offer a payment in lieu of taxes but you have no way to "force them" to do so. Not without a long drawn out fight that only favors A&M.

Everything else is just noise. The above is really the only true solution.

If you do not believe me - look at the homes going up in Snook... just over the river. AgShacks a plenty.

So you either just throw up your hands and stop trying to solve every problem with tax dollars and the let the market work or dont... and open they public purse but to what end?
Reply Quote
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Brian Alg • 8:42a, 8/30/24
Brian Alg said:
To make sure I understand the proposal, the West side innovation district would be on TAMU's campus. Is that right?

If yes, what do you have in mind with respect to coordination between TAMU, CoB, and CoCS?


Well, I envision a master planned, all hands on deck approach. Tamu similar to what they've previously identified for the west side in this latest plan and others. CoCS with private development to complement; CoB the same going to Rellis on the 47 corridor (they already have a planned district) and those county parcels (airport ish) going to the river. The west side affords relatively short access to campus proper. Relatively.

I'm talking about a 30 year outlook, coordinated by all of us.
Reply Quote
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Buford T. Justice • 8:44a, 8/30/24
Buford T. Justice said:
Generally speaking, the student hub on the west side of town is growing, but with proper guidance, it could really be developed into something that would attract many more students to that side of town. I'm thinking from Bush/2818 southward down to Wellborn Road and further southward to Rock Prairie Road.

But, as I type, could see that going northward along the western edge of Wellborn Road back to Bush.




Yes. This.
Reply Quote
iisanaggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Charpie • 8:58a, 8/30/24
AG
Charpie said:
BluHorseShu said:
Captn_Ag05 said:
Bob Yancy said:
There are two stories in the Eagle this morning that are both very interesting. But, taken together, are a fascinating look at what's been happening in our why.

Would love to hear the forum's perspective on:

"Study: A&M Main Campus Should Limit Enrollment," and

"Comptroller Warns Texas Must Build Thousands of New Homes"
I was surprised when A&M said last year that they did not want to build any more on-campus housing, despite the growth. I agree the report that they should build some new on-campus housing that is no frills and affordable for students that do not have the ability to pay for the luxury high rises. I'd like to see more housing consolidate in the Northgate area, so the parking lot at Wellborn and University would be a logical place to build a residential parking garage and no frills mid-rise. I think it is also time to look at replacing FHK.

While we are discussing housing, any news on 203 Church or the old gas station lot at University and Boyett?

On A&M growth, as long as they continue to provide high quality graduates, I am okay with more growth in the engineering program. I'd also utilize the RELLIS campus more to help with the congestion on main campus.
As long as A&M can keep up with the support of students and infrastructure. As an insider, its falling behind. The last consultant report that consolidated engineering advising was not good for student success in my opinion and I fear we will see the repercussions in the next few years. UG advising in general on campus really needs to be assessed. High turnover, long wait times and inexperienced advisors can be a detriment to student retention and success. When students are just seen as numbers and we dispense with the personal relationships to help them, trouble abounds.


As a mom of a former current student, I agree 100 percent. My kid was supposed to get accommodations for tests and homework (my daughter is legally blind) and literally only got them her fish year. Last year was awful. None of her profs cared about her accommodations and disability services was so behind that she couldn't even get an appointment. She was supposed to have note takers. I wound up having to post on a Facebook group of Aggie Parents willing to pay for note takers for her classes. She wound up leaving A&M this year. Heartbreaking for me as her mom, but I completely I understand why. In her words, "I fell in love with the idea of A&M. The kids are great. The traditions are awesome But there are too many of us to get the services that we need." And don't get me started on weedout classes.


I am so sorry that your daughter's experience at A&M was not a good one. Please, please send your story to President Mark Welsh, Vice President of Student Affairs Joe Ramirez, Vice President of Planning, Assessment, and Strategy Joe Pettibon, and the dean of whatever college she was in. This is the kind of issue that needs immediate attention. Not only is it disgraceful to not provide accommodations, but it could also open them up to litigation.
Reply Quote
7
Drilltime
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:04a, 8/30/24
In the last 35 years TAMU has increased enrollment by 32,000 while adding only two dorms with 1920 beds. TAMUs enrollment at the main campus has been growing by over 1800 per year for over a decade and the proposal to add 2500 more beds over some period of years will have not impact. We need more from TAMU. The pause will help, but it's just a pause and the mass of housing that's needed to get to 90-100k students would take a great deal of time, money, and most importantly leadership that doesn't currently exist.

The fundamental issue for College Station is that it's running out of developable land. TAMUs growth was not a problem when we had land because our highly efficient apartment industry rose to the challenge. But the land needed to do that no longer exists, so what happens now is "displacement" of single family housing. If we don't build 1800 beds per year, students take another single family home and it's generally in working class neighborhood (cheapest for investors and closest). "Working Class" means technicians, graduate teaching and research faculty, medical assistants, many teachers, university admins, IT professionals, and others who are critical to the ability of the city to attract employers. The question is no longer, where will the students live. It's, where will anybody else who can't afford a $400k home live? Our message to TAMU regarding displacement of our remaining 24,000 traditional homes and neighborhoods by students needs to be perfectly clear - no mas. TAMU needs a different plan.

The students typically paid $500 per bed last year. Based on the January update of the Census Bureau's American Communities' Survey, about 18,500 of our 31,500 adult households could not afford to compete with four students (who have a combined equivalent household income of $97k/yr). There is no question that students will displace more of our workforce families if we don't find a way to build apartments that are lower cost than houses, or offer services and a living environment they prefer.

There are two important ideas in the comments above that might actually provide enough new student housing to make a difference. We need another student nodal neighborhood with higher density. This is cannot be another high rise like Northgate with construction costs over $1000/bed. We need to rezone some large areas to whatever height yields the lowest cost per bed, most likely in the 3-4 story range. I think that's the Giggem City concept Yancey is talking about. The triangle between Bush, Welborn and 2818 is ideal due to its age, size and proximity, and the fact it is already students. An enormous amount of student housing would be created if investors found it profitable to redevelop it from 2-story to 4-story. Another is the Post Oak Mall/Wolf Penn area which would be easier due to having to deal with less owners, but it's much smaller. These are both examples of redevelopment to more density, but in places that do not displace more single family neighborhoods. Craig Reagan's suggestion to do something similar, but out in the county is also valid and probably much easier to do in greenfield land that still available just outside the city limits. But it raises other complicated issues College Station and would require cost sharing, transportation infrastructure, services agreements, and increased taxes in the county (good luck with that).

Whether it's redevelopment of a large area to greater density, or movement to the county, the cost burden for utility upgrades or services on College Station will be enormous, and there's no way to recover it as TAMU does not pay taxes. Residential housing does not pay for itself in any city, and all cities depend on taxation of their commercial businesses to compensate for the cost to house and service the employees they bring to the city. But our commercial business that's bringing almost all of our people pays nothing. Running out of land has brought all of this to a head. We need a massive increase in student housing, and either redevelopment or greenfield development on the scale TAMU is creating is beyond the financial capacity of College Station.

The "pause" will help, but it's just a pause. Our city planners need to engage developers, apartment owners, investors, utility providers, Tex DOT, the Student Government Association, and others to develop a plan that makes sense to investors or it won't happen. And TAMU has to be in the middle of that effort. If they won't engage or continue to deny responsibility for the service and debt burden they've created - don't even start the effort. "He who choses the path, choses the place it goes to." We can't afford to take this trip by ourselves.

Reply Quote
8
Buford T. Justice
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Drilltime • 11:13a, 8/30/24
AG
I've said this before, the land that Easterwood Airport sits on cannot be a sacred cow. There is only one airline operating out of the airport, and private aviation can go to Coulter Field.

Reply Quote
Craig Regan 14
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Drilltime • 11:21a, 8/30/24
Yall are forgetting that the land you are talking about is A&M land

They have control over what goes there and they have made it clear they are not interested in managing "dorms" or a city … etc

Again, you have to look toward HWY 60 headed west toward the Brazos.

Again, it is a FED opportunity zone and the county and cities can drive dev there.

It keeps traffic off what is already a choked 2818. And it is a straight shot to campus. You can put thousands of kids out there and run buses all day.

The answer is HWY 60. Not within COCS limits. Snook is already getting homes and DEV on their side of the river.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
maroon barchetta
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Craig Regan 14 • 11:33a, 8/30/24
Fan Field gets used seven weekends per year at capacity, and a few other times during the year for smaller events/needs. Plus overflow parking for the Bush School.

Start there. Get back to parking gameday customers off site and shuttling them in.
Reply Quote
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Drilltime • 11:51a, 8/30/24
Drilltime said:
In the last 35 years TAMU has increased enrollment by 32,000 while adding only two dorms with 1920 beds. TAMUs enrollment at the main campus has been growing by over 1800 per year for over a decade and the proposal to add 2500 more beds over some period of years will have not impact. We need more from TAMU. The pause will help, but it's just a pause and the mass of housing that's needed to get to 90-100k students would take a great deal of time, money, and most importantly leadership that doesn't currently exist.

The fundamental issue for College Station is that it's running out of developable land. TAMUs growth was not a problem when we had land because our highly efficient apartment industry rose to the challenge. But the land needed to do that no longer exists, so what happens now is "displacement" of single family housing. If we don't build 1800 beds per year, students take another single family home and it's generally in working class neighborhood (cheapest for investors and closest). "Working Class" means technicians, graduate teaching and research faculty, medical assistants, many teachers, university admins, IT professionals, and others who are critical to the ability of the city to attract employers. The question is no longer, where will the students live. It's, where will anybody else who can't afford a $400k home live? Our message to TAMU regarding displacement of our remaining 24,000 traditional homes and neighborhoods by students needs to be perfectly clear - no mas. TAMU needs a different plan.

The students typically paid $500 per bed last year. Based on the January update of the Census Bureau's American Communities' Survey, about 18,500 of our 31,500 adult households could not afford to compete with four students (who have a combined equivalent household income of $97k/yr). There is no question that students will displace more of our workforce families if we don't find a way to build apartments that are lower cost than houses, or offer services and a living environment they prefer.

There are two important ideas in the comments above that might actually provide enough new student housing to make a difference. We need another student nodal neighborhood with higher density. This is cannot be another high rise like Northgate with construction costs over $1000/bed. We need to rezone some large areas to whatever height yields the lowest cost per bed, most likely in the 3-4 story range. I think that's the Giggem City concept Yancey is talking about. The triangle between Bush, Welborn and 2818 is ideal due to its age, size and proximity, and the fact it is already students. An enormous amount of student housing would be created if investors found it profitable to redevelop it from 2-story to 4-story. Another is the Post Oak Mall/Wolf Penn area which would be easier due to having to deal with less owners, but it's much smaller. These are both examples of redevelopment to more density, but in places that do not displace more single family neighborhoods. Craig Reagan's suggestion to do something similar, but out in the county is also valid and probably much easier to do in greenfield land that still available just outside the city limits. But it raises other complicated issues College Station and would require cost sharing, transportation infrastructure, services agreements, and increased taxes in the county (good luck with that).

Whether it's redevelopment of a large area to greater density, or movement to the county, the cost burden for utility upgrades or services on College Station will be enormous, and there's no way to recover it as TAMU does not pay taxes. Residential housing does not pay for itself in any city, and all cities depend on taxation of their commercial businesses to compensate for the cost to house and service the employees they bring to the city. But our commercial business that's bringing almost all of our people pays nothing. Running out of land has brought all of this to a head. We need a massive increase in student housing, and either redevelopment or greenfield development on the scale TAMU is creating is beyond the financial capacity of College Station.

The "pause" will help, but it's just a pause. Our city planners need to engage developers, apartment owners, investors, utility providers, Tex DOT, the Student Government Association, and others to develop a plan that makes sense to investors or it won't happen. And TAMU has to be in the middle of that effort. If they won't engage or continue to deny responsibility for the service and debt burden they've created - don't even start the effort. "He who choses the path, choses the place it goes to." We can't afford to take this trip by ourselves.



Very compelling. Setting aside the comment about Texas A&M's leadership, which I respect and admire- I'm hard pressed not to support this statement holistically. There may be compelling reasons Tamu can't pause more, and if so, that only amplifies the need to plan accordingly and act decisively together.

Respectfully,

Bob Yancy
Reply Quote
1 edit
Hornbeck
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:02p, 8/30/24
AG
A&M does not care about issues with city infrastructure, tax rates, property valuation, etc., etc. They continue to admit more students, gain more tuition and fees, and don't have to worry about where those students will lay their head, that's someone else's problem. They have made it clear that they don't want to be the landlord for more students. Personally, I think there's plenty of single family housing that can be bought up cheaper than CS in Bryan. We are already seeing this in the developer buying up lots of lots off S. College. South Bryan is about to see an explosion in their house valuations. I'm sure their city council will lower tax rates to not price families and businesses out, right?
Reply Quote
9
Craig Regan 14
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Drilltime • 12:55p, 8/30/24
Edit**

You forget that the COCS does not service utility's out there

BTU does

Just sayin'
Reply Quote
maroon barchetta
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:52p, 8/30/24
Don't forget, part of west campus is reserved for a proposed $100 Million museum.

That will thing will practically print money.
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
Brian Alg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 11:00a, 9/2/24
Setting aside Drilltime's misunderstanding of how home prices work. Setting aside the proposal to have 3 bureaucracies centrally plan the local economy for the next 30 years. Which is all super bananas and I would be happy to get into why. But I figure most people aren't as interested in economics as I am.


It is disturbing to me that anyone in city leadership is pining for a smaller university. And I know it isn't limited to just one person. I get the impression it is fairly common talk in the corners of local politics that have been most successful in the last 10 years.

Texas A&M is the engine of prosperity in this town. If someone is wishing TAMU would shrivel up or go away, they are expressing that they are against the flourishing of College Station.

I wish we had city leadership that actually likes the university. I'd like to see city leadership that is interested in living in a thriving town functioning in harmony with the university. That means allowing for complementary industry, housing, and commerce that fits the unique opportunities that wonderful university brings.

Wishing Texas A&M would "pause" or shrink is degrowth stuff. How has that mentality has taken hold in the city's leadership?
Brian Alg

Brazos Coalition for Responsible Government and Moderator Restraint
Reply Quote
2
maroon barchetta
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Brian Alg • 11:02a, 9/2/24
Nobody is suggesting the university should shrivel up and go away.

Hyperbole much?
Reply Quote
4
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Brian Alg • 11:11a, 9/2/24
AG
Brian Alg said:
Setting aside Drilltime's misunderstanding of how home prices work. Setting aside the proposal to have 3 bureaucracies centrally plan the local economy for the next 30 years. Which is all super bananas and I would be happy to get into why. But I figure most people aren't as interested in economics as I am.


It is disturbing to me that anyone in city leadership is pining for a smaller university. And I know it isn't limited to just one person. I get the impression it is fairly common talk in the corners of local politics that have been most successful in the last 10 years.

Texas A&M is the engine of prosperity in this town. If someone is wishing TAMU would shrivel up or go away, they are expressing that they are against the flourishing of College Station.

I wish we had city leadership that actually likes the university. I'd like to see city leadership that is interested in living in a thriving town functioning in harmony with the university. That means allowing for complementary industry, housing, and commerce that fits the unique opportunities that wonderful university brings.

Wishing Texas A&M would "pause" or shrink is degrowth stuff. How has that mentality has taken hold in the city's leadership?
In the old city stats site data we used to bandy about on here before that site shut down, they had a stat showing two out of three beds in CS were rented.

City leaders were slow on the uptake before realizing that meant a lot of homes selling in the north of the city were going to landlords. New construction in the south continued to be families but prices skyrocketed. Soon, older CoSta neighborhoods became infested with student rentals.

All of this was exacerbated by Ag shacks which were buy-teardown-rebuild projects by investors. That raised more alarm bells.

So you have a very interventionist minded city council doing things like Roos and no more then 4 unrelated per dwelling ordinances and so forth. It can all come across as anti growth, anti TAMU. But they'll insist they're just trying to preserve neighborhoods. The problem remains though 2/3 of the population are renters.
Reply Quote
B$Weigem
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:38a, 9/2/24
AG
There is no way for campus to accommodating parking needs. Thus, Off campus students should be made to ride buses and limit on campus parking.
Reply Quote
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Brian Alg • 5:19p, 9/2/24
Brian Alg said:
Setting aside Drilltime's misunderstanding of how home prices work. Setting aside the proposal to have 3 bureaucracies centrally plan the local economy for the next 30 years. Which is all super bananas and I would be happy to get into why. But I figure most people aren't as interested in economics as I am.


It is disturbing to me that anyone in city leadership is pining for a smaller university. And I know it isn't limited to just one person. I get the impression it is fairly common talk in the corners of local politics that have been most successful in the last 10 years.

Texas A&M is the engine of prosperity in this town. If someone is wishing TAMU would shrivel up or go away, they are expressing that they are against the flourishing of College Station.

I wish we had city leadership that actually likes the university. I'd like to see city leadership that is interested in living in a thriving town functioning in harmony with the university. That means allowing for complementary industry, housing, and commerce that fits the unique opportunities that wonderful university brings.

Wishing Texas A&M would "pause" or shrink is degrowth stuff. How has that mentality has taken hold in the city's leadership?


I certainly love my Alma mater. I'm an Aggie, and both my kids are Aggies. Both of their spouses are Aggies and if I have anything to say about it, my grandkids will be, too. I moved here in '89 after the Air Force to finish my degree and never left. This community and its economic and educational anchor, Texas A&M, afforded my family and I incredible opportunities for which I'm eternally grateful.

But no organization governed by humans is perfect. We can always strive to improve, and must. The growth of Texas A&M, while generating incredible prosperity, has also generated incredible strain. Traffic and roadway capacity, housing, infrastructure such as wastewater, fresh water, electricity and more are feeling that strain.

Yes- I think it's appropriate to pause the growth in growth. Not curtail it. Not reduce it. But pause the annual growth in enrollment until infrastructure and housing can catch up. In the alternative, Texas A&M could make payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT) to the community to help defray the strain.

Here's one example: from 1938 to 1972 Texas A&M provided fire service to the university and the city. From 1972 to today, the city has covered both- and done so admirably with one of the few fully accredited fire departments in the state. An internal city audit revealed in excess of $3,000,000 spent on fire service inclusive of annual O&M and sunk costs, as I recall. Mind you, 76% of the multi-story buildings in the city limits of College Station are on campus, yet save for contract payments for Easterwood Airport fire protection, Texas A&M pays nothing. PILOT payments by universities are becoming more common because universities pay no taxes. I as one member of council would be deeply appreciative if an enhanced effort was made to assist the city in offsetting the very real ramifications of rapid growth.

Your point is well taken. The last time I looked, which was years ago, Texas A&M's budget was what? $3.4 billion? City Hall's is about 1/7th of that. When a massive organization in a small, land restricted area grows unchecked, there are real world impacts that must be considered.

Apparently others share this opinion or a) a capacity study never would've happened, and b) it would not have reached conclusions that growth has outpaced capacity.

Respectfully yours, and with an abiding love for the greatest university on the globe.

Bob Yancy '95
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
Reply Quote
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 5:38p, 9/2/24
techno-ag said:
Brian Alg said:
Setting aside Drilltime's misunderstanding of how home prices work. Setting aside the proposal to have 3 bureaucracies centrally plan the local economy for the next 30 years. Which is all super bananas and I would be happy to get into why. But I figure most people aren't as interested in economics as I am.


It is disturbing to me that anyone in city leadership is pining for a smaller university. And I know it isn't limited to just one person. I get the impression it is fairly common talk in the corners of local politics that have been most successful in the last 10 years.

Texas A&M is the engine of prosperity in this town. If someone is wishing TAMU would shrivel up or go away, they are expressing that they are against the flourishing of College Station.

I wish we had city leadership that actually likes the university. I'd like to see city leadership that is interested in living in a thriving town functioning in harmony with the university. That means allowing for complementary industry, housing, and commerce that fits the unique opportunities that wonderful university brings.

Wishing Texas A&M would "pause" or shrink is degrowth stuff. How has that mentality has taken hold in the city's leadership?
In the old city stats site data we used to bandy about on here before that site shut down, they had a stat showing two out of three beds in CS were rented.

City leaders were slow on the uptake before realizing that meant a lot of homes selling in the north of the city were going to landlords. New construction in the south continued to be families but prices skyrocketed. Soon, older CoSta neighborhoods became infested with student rentals.

All of this was exacerbated by Ag shacks which were buy-teardown-rebuild projects by investors. That raised more alarm bells.

So you have a very interventionist minded city council doing things like Roos and no more then 4 unrelated per dwelling ordinances and so forth. It can all come across as anti growth, anti TAMU. But they'll insist they're just trying to preserve neighborhoods. The problem remains though 2/3 of the population are renters.


Recall that while a prior council did institute the ROO, the ROO does have a grandfather clause whereby those renting to NMT4 now may continue to do so. Also, that right conveys should the property change hands, provided the new owner keeps their registration current.

Also recall that this council instituted the HOO, High Occupancy Overlay, and embarked upon the largest mass rezoning in city history to accommodate student housing. Over 1700 properties were included and more are coming in Phase II of the project. Provided there is adequate parking, et al these properties can accommodate More Than 4 students per dwelling.

This council and staff had to do something. Were our actions perfect? By no means. We made the best call we could given the very real consequences of explosive population growth.

By instituting a High Occupancy District like a Gig 'Em City in concert with Tamu, Bryan and Brazos County, we could lay a strategic framework for how this community will grow for the next 50 years. By incentivizing the private sector to build it out, coupled with Texas A&M west campus reorientation investments, we could accommodate ANY pace of growth provided it was done right.

My $.02

Respectfully,

-yancy
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
Reply Quote
Brian Alg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to maroon barchetta • 11:44a, 9/30/24
maroon barchetta said:
Nobody is suggesting the university should shrivel up and go away.

Hyperbole much?
I thought it was funny how the three posts after yours

  • referred to students living near the university as an infestation
  • argued that students should not be allowed to drive cars to school
  • argued for a (presumably government imposed) temporary blocker on development

So odd that so many today indicate it is possible to "temporarily" meddle with complex systems without creating a tidal wave of unintended negative consequences.


The main reason I decided to resurrect this thread is I bumped into a bit from JRR Tolkien that reminds me of the mindset that is commanding politics in College Station for now.
Quote:
But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right. Not so much because they had flirted with Sauron; as because with or without his assistance they were 'embalmers'. They wanted to have their cake and eat it: to live in the mortal historical Middle-earth because they had become fond of it (and perhaps because they there had the advantages of a superior caste), and so tried to stop its change and history, stop its growth, keep it as a pleasaunce, even largely a desert, where they could be 'artists' and they were overburdened with sadness and nostalgic regret.
I pray this mentality wanes. Council uses zoning laws to attempt to keep the areas around campus in stasis. So many of the things people complain about here, including traffic, housing affordability, and students in single family home style neighborhoods, would be alleviated once council starts allowing sensible residential development near campus. And if council also allowed entrepreneurs to leverage the commercial opportunities there, especially those serving and employing students and new grads, it would be a huge boon.

Tolkien's words above shed some light on why someone might want to consign development to the other side of the airport and only after a number of years. But what an awful impulse.

This town, especially near campus, could be a more vibrant place for people to live, create, and thrive before, during, and after their time as students. So unfortunate that current council instead pursues embalming and stasis.
Brian Alg

Brazos Coalition for Responsible Government and Moderator Restraint
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Brian Alg • 9:39p, 9/30/24
Howdy Brian,

Looking just at the Southside issue in response to your comment- I understand why those folks advocate for protecting their neighborhood. If you buy a house in a neighborhood and it changes from single family to high density student living, I think most homeowners would react similarly. My $.02

Have a good evening.

Yancy
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
hopeandrealchange
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Drilltime • 7:07a, 10/1/24
Drilltime said:
In the last 35 years TAMU has increased enrollment by 32,000 while adding only two dorms with 1920 beds. TAMUs enrollment at the main campus has been growing by over 1800 per year for over a decade and the proposal to add 2500 more beds over some period of years will have not impact. We need more from TAMU. The pause will help, but it's just a pause and the mass of housing that's needed to get to 90-100k students would take a great deal of time, money, and most importantly leadership that doesn't currently exist.

The fundamental issue for College Station is that it's running out of developable land. TAMUs growth was not a problem when we had land because our highly efficient apartment industry rose to the challenge. But the land needed to do that no longer exists, so what happens now is "displacement" of single family housing. If we don't build 1800 beds per year, students take another single family home and it's generally in working class neighborhood (cheapest for investors and closest). "Working Class" means technicians, graduate teaching and research faculty, medical assistants, many teachers, university admins, IT professionals, and others who are critical to the ability of the city to attract employers. The question is no longer, where will the students live. It's, where will anybody else who can't afford a $400k home live? Our message to TAMU regarding displacement of our remaining 24,000 traditional homes and neighborhoods by students needs to be perfectly clear - no mas. TAMU needs a different plan.

The students typically paid $500 per bed last year. Based on the January update of the Census Bureau's American Communities' Survey, about 18,500 of our 31,500 adult households could not afford to compete with four students (who have a combined equivalent household income of $97k/yr). There is no question that students will displace more of our workforce families if we don't find a way to build apartments that are lower cost than houses, or offer services and a living environment they prefer.

There are two important ideas in the comments above that might actually provide enough new student housing to make a difference. We need another student nodal neighborhood with higher density. This is cannot be another high rise like Northgate with construction costs over $1000/bed. We need to rezone some large areas to whatever height yields the lowest cost per bed, most likely in the 3-4 story range. I think that's the Giggem City concept Yancey is talking about. The triangle between Bush, Welborn and 2818 is ideal due to its age, size and proximity, and the fact it is already students. An enormous amount of student housing would be created if investors found it profitable to redevelop it from 2-story to 4-story. Another is the Post Oak Mall/Wolf Penn area which would be easier due to having to deal with less owners, but it's much smaller. These are both examples of redevelopment to more density, but in places that do not displace more single family neighborhoods. Craig Reagan's suggestion to do something similar, but out in the county is also valid and probably much easier to do in greenfield land that still available just outside the city limits. But it raises other complicated issues College Station and would require cost sharing, transportation infrastructure, services agreements, and increased taxes in the county (good luck with that).

Whether it's redevelopment of a large area to greater density, or movement to the county, the cost burden for utility upgrades or services on College Station will be enormous, and there's no way to recover it as TAMU does not pay taxes. Residential housing does not pay for itself in any city, and all cities depend on taxation of their commercial businesses to compensate for the cost to house and service the employees they bring to the city. But our commercial business that's bringing almost all of our people pays nothing. Running out of land has brought all of this to a head. We need a massive increase in student housing, and either redevelopment or greenfield development on the scale TAMU is creating is beyond the financial capacity of College Station.

The "pause" will help, but it's just a pause. Our city planners need to engage developers, apartment owners, investors, utility providers, Tex DOT, the Student Government Association, and others to develop a plan that makes sense to investors or it won't happen. And TAMU has to be in the middle of that effort. If they won't engage or continue to deny responsibility for the service and debt burden they've created - don't even start the effort. "He who choses the path, choses the place it goes to." We can't afford to take this trip by ourselves.



As a rental property owner I would like to point out one thing you are overlooking.

The rent rates have been going up the past 4-5 years mainly because of the out of control property taxes.
That cost has to be passed along to whom ever rents the home.
I hear our leaders whining about the cost of housing all of the time.
Do they not understand the out of control property taxes are the main problem?
Reply Quote
6
milner79
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Captn_Ag05 • 8:55a, 10/1/24
Captn_Ag05 said:
I was surprised when A&M said last year that they did not want to build any more on-campus housing, despite the growth. I agree the report that they should build some new on-campus housing that is no frills and affordable for students that do not have the ability to pay for the luxury high rises. I'd like to see more housing consolidate in the Northgate area, so the parking lot at Wellborn and University would be a logical place to build a residential parking garage and no frills mid-rise. I think it is also time to look at replacing FHK.

Sacrilege! There's a lot of Aggie history traced to FHK. A lot of great Aggies got their, um, start in FHK.
Reply Quote
Smeghead4761
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Buford T. Justice • 11:58a, 10/1/24
Buford T. Justice said:
I've said this before, the land that Easterwood Airport sits on cannot be a sacred cow. There is only one airline operating out of the airport, and private aviation can go to Coulter Field.

Easterwood is on University land. It's not going to get turned into student housing.
Reply Quote
2
maroon barchetta
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Smeghead4761 • 12:07p, 10/1/24
Smeghead4761 said:
Buford T. Justice said:
I've said this before, the land that Easterwood Airport sits on cannot be a sacred cow. There is only one airline operating out of the airport, and private aviation can go to Coulter Field.

Easterwood is on University land. It's not going to get turned into student housing.


Yeah. Thats a ridiculous suggestion.

Let's move everything to Coulter and then build dorms or student apartments at Easterwood! Right next to the fire school!!!

Yeah……no.
Reply Quote
BiochemAg97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to maroon barchetta • 8:26p, 10/1/24
AG
maroon barchetta said:
Smeghead4761 said:
Buford T. Justice said:
I've said this before, the land that Easterwood Airport sits on cannot be a sacred cow. There is only one airline operating out of the airport, and private aviation can go to Coulter Field.

Easterwood is on University land. It's not going to get turned into student housing.


Yeah. Thats a ridiculous suggestion.

Let's move everything to Coulter and then build dorms or student apartments at Easterwood! Right next to the fire school!!!

Yeah……no.


And nuclear reactor, observatory, radio active waste storage. Sounds like a great place for student housing.

It is the short half life radiological waste, so they just keep it out there until the radioactivity drops enough that they can dispose of it. Not the long term stuff that sticks around for millennia.
Reply Quote
1 edit
JP76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to hopeandrealchange • 8:47p, 10/1/24
SFH in BCS has appreciated 45-50% in the past 4 years. A mixture of cheap money and investors chasing returns with student rentals has caused some of this rise coupled with hedge funds and institutional money. BCAD is just piggybacking on market demand and having a field day.
Reply Quote
Brian Alg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 5:43a, 10/22/24
Bob Yancy said:
Howdy Brian,

Looking just at the Southside issue in response to your comment- I understand why those folks advocate for protecting their neighborhood. If you buy a house in a neighborhood and it changes from single family to high density student living, I think most homeowners would react similarly. My $.02

Have a good evening.

Yancy
The post about Northgate got me thinking about what you said here.

For sure, there are things to like about houses with large lots and big yards, single story bars, cheap parking, etc. But there are also things to like about larger square footage buildings where more people can live near campus and open a business that leverages opportunities the campus provides (maybe with a bar or church on the first floor).

You, and apparently a lot of people, think the best way to decide how to weigh those opportunities is to leverage whatever political power you can muster and run roughshod over the rights of property owners.
I think the best way to decide how to use the precious area around campus is to let people voluntarily figure it out by buying, selling, making voluntary agreements with neighbors, etc.

It is similar to the situation with I<3Aggiland signs and convention centers.

You, having the political ability, seize the opportunity to take taxpayers' money and spend it how you see fit.

I would prefer to let people decide how to spend their own money. Maybe they will choose to support signs and centers. Maybe they would rather spend on something else. But I think it should be up to them.

I understand that my views belong to an ideological minority. Y'all appear to see government as a tool
  • to get control of others' property without having to buy it.
  • to spend others' money without having to earn it.

I see government, ideally, as a mechanism to defend the rights of men including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Brian Alg

Brazos Coalition for Responsible Government and Moderator Restraint
Reply Quote
4
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Brian Alg • 1:49p, 10/22/24
Brian Alg said:
Bob Yancy said:
Howdy Brian,

Looking just at the Southside issue in response to your comment- I understand why those folks advocate for protecting their neighborhood. If you buy a house in a neighborhood and it changes from single family to high density student living, I think most homeowners would react similarly. My $.02

Have a good evening.

Yancy
The post about Northgate got me thinking about what you said here.

For sure, there are things to like about houses with large lots and big yards, single story bars, cheap parking, etc. But there are also things to like about larger square footage buildings where more people can live near campus and open a business that leverages opportunities the campus provides (maybe with a bar or church on the first floor).

You, and apparently a lot of people, think the best way to decide how to weigh those opportunities is to leverage whatever political power you can muster and run roughshod over the rights of property owners.
I think the best way to decide how to use the precious area around campus is to let people voluntarily figure it out by buying, selling, making voluntary agreements with neighbors, etc.

It is similar to the situation with I<3Aggiland signs and convention centers.

You, having the political ability, seize the opportunity to take taxpayers' money and spend it how you see fit.

I would prefer to let people decide how to spend their own money. Maybe they will choose to support signs and centers. Maybe they would rather spend on something else. But I think it should be up to them.

I understand that my views belong to an ideological minority. Y'all appear to see government as a tool
  • to get control of others' property without having to buy it.
  • to spend others' money without having to earn it.

I see government, ideally, as a mechanism to defend the rights of men including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


With all due respect I think that's a bit unfair. I value property rights tremendously and securing those rights is a key tenet of government. I strongly support higher density structures and going vertical and middle housing zones where it makes sense and where investors are willing to risk precious capital to make it happen. But I also believe in zoning and cities growing in a manner that preserves their character.

I don't think those two sets of beliefs are mutually exclusive. I think homeowners have a right to the peaceful enjoyment of their home and neighborhood, and to watch it build out over time in a way that preserves the original character of the neighborhood they originally bought into. Isn't that why we have zoning? Hasn't it proved to be an effective means of growing cities in a planned way?

Respectfully,

Yancy
Reply Quote
1
TAMU1990
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:38p, 10/28/24
AG
Bryan needs to be revitalized and building more student housing there should be an option
Reply Quote
1
BCSWguru
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TAMU1990 • 9:32p, 10/28/24
They don't need to do anything.
Reply Quote
1
Refresh
Page 2 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.