Bob Yancy said:

---

tu ag said:

---

Your ideas aren't bad.
But this isn't the solution most voters want.
They want their money back from this awful cluster the council and City Manager dropped on them.

---

Our beloved alma mater definitely didn't do us any favors on this one. Have to call it straight.

That notwithstanding give me solutions or suggestions, please. Forward looking if you would, please sir/maam?

Respectfully requested

Yancy

---

why did "we" buy it if they were going to use it?

why not let "them" buy it?

I assume you thought you'd get rent from them as it would still be off the tax rolls, correct?

pretty short sighted to spend that kind of cash on a "loose" agreement (and then try to pass the buck).

He wasn't on the council when the city made the purchase. Maybe he is talking about the leadership at the time getting duped. Maybe he is talking about discussions between the city and TAMU shortly after (when he was on council).

The impression I got from the the city at the time of the purchase was that the city paid a premium for the location because city leadership wanted to be able to veto any mall redevelopment they didn't like. The city didn't say anything about a partnership with TAMU.

Like I said above, the "good ole boy handshake deal" part of that equation really upsets me. Why? Because if you want to build something or get anything permitted around here it is particularly onerous. Lots of paperwork, lots of pain in the butt.

But, if you're John Sharp, you can get the city to spend $7.3M plus common maintenance fees, and leave those dudes hanging in the wind. No paperwork, no contract, nothing. That's par for the course in Brazos County though. It's not what you know, it's *who*.

You literally have to pay someone (or more like someone's) to police that. This is going to be a slippery slope.

Hornbeck said:

---

I would love something like Pike Place Market here.

Will it be more like Pike Place, or more like Jockey Lot or Trader's Village in Houston?

My money is on it will turn out more like the latter than the former. This is why we can't have nice things here.

---

I loved Jockey Lot! Where else can you get a goat, some chickens and a flying squirrel while finding a good deal on some knock off Ray-Bans!

Bob Yancy said:

---

Never lost money on a real estate transaction in my life. Hurts like hell to think the first one would be on the taxpayer's dime when I'm a fiduciary. Don't think I can do it. The right deal has to be out there.

---

I appreciate the sentiment, but this is not forward thinking. Much like driving a new car off the lot, the loss took place the moment the deal was executed. It wasn't and isn't your loss, even if you vote to sell it for market value. Regardless of what happens to the property, accountability for this loss is owed (and due), but that is not the focus of this thread, so how much we overpaid for it isn't either.

We own a piece of Post Oak mall, for which there is currently no tenable plan.

My preferences, in order:

1) If fiscally justified, use it for expense avoidance. Meaning Public Offices / Facilities. The surplus could be leased to Bryan, CSISD, BISD, Blinn, TAMU, Brazos or private until/if they are needed for future CS offices. The foot traffic would help the mall. I don't see the loss in tax revenue as real, as these offices already need to be located somewhere that a business could otherwise be. I do see this significantly reducing or entirely avoiding an enormous initial investment for such a facility. The location is excellent for a commute. I'd support a study of needed CS facilities over the next 10-20 years with this model vs the traditional route. And we should be able to negotiate the maintenance fees with a development plan that brings this much foot traffic.

2) If consistent with other parks and rec expenditures, turn it into a rec center. It would not be profitable, but parks aren't supposed to be profitable. The question is, how much would it offset other (new) park spending? Maybe not 1:1, but it doesn't have to be 1:1 if the QOL gained is also higher than 1:1. Careful fiscal studies need to be executed. The right rec center would potentially add significant QoL. Possibilities include multi-use courts for Pickleball, basketball, volleyball, studios for yoga, dance, exercise, martial arts, racquetball, batting cages, adult fitness structures, with kids activities like large playscapes (ala Morgan's Wonderland), picnic tables / party areas, turf room (ala Legends), putting green(s). It could be a destination for fitness, parties, meetups, family, weekends in extreme heat and bad weather. The proximity to highway 6 is excellent for this type of use. There are lots of neighboring food and retail options for complementary activities that wouldn't exist in any other location. And we should be able to negotiate the maintenance fees with a development plan that brings this much foot traffic.

3) Sell it to a buyer with a use that aligns with the mall. I'm considering office space, public facilities, and any kind of project that will attract crowds in that list. A storage facility doesn't work. The mall is already an issue. I imagine an abandoned mall is a much more expensive issue. We should avoid contributing to a chain of events that ends up costing a lot more in the long run.

4) Lease it for a non-mall use.

5) Sell it for a non-mall use.

"Just hold it indefinitely" is not on my list.

I appreciate that most on here want to jump straight to selling "to anyone regardless of use", and that outcome is on my list. I'd just prefer to see if we can use it for fiscally sound expense avoidance or fiscally reasonable QOL before jumping there.

All that is correct, but you and I both know that the people making the decisions will make the numbers support whatever cause they want. There won't be any legitimate, independent, business plan with numbers that are real and non-biased.

The only way we can get out of this with a trustworthy and definite endpoint is to sell something that we should have never owned in the first place.

Do we think pickleball is something that's here to stay? Or is it just a fad that's blown up in the last year and will decrease in popularity and level off soon?

MyNameIsJeff said:

---

Do we think pickleball is something that's here to stay? Or is it just a fad that's blown up in the last year and will decrease in popularity and level off soon?

---

I think it's a fad

Stucco said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Never lost money on a real estate transaction in my life. Hurts like hell to think the first one would be on the taxpayer's dime when I'm a fiduciary. Don't think I can do it. The right deal has to be out there.

---

I appreciate the sentiment, but this is not forward thinking. Much like driving a new car off the lot, the loss took place the moment the deal was executed. It wasn't and isn't your loss, even if you vote to sell it for market value. Regardless of what happens to the property, accountability for this loss is owed (and due), but that is not the focus of this thread, so how much we overpaid for it isn't either.

We own a piece of Post Oak mall, for which there is currently no tenable plan.

My preferences, in order:

1) If fiscally justified, use it for expense avoidance. Meaning Public Offices / Facilities. The surplus could be leased to Bryan, CSISD, BISD, Blinn, TAMU, Brazos or private until/if they are needed for future CS offices. The foot traffic would help the mall. I don't see the loss in tax revenue as real, as these offices already need to be located somewhere that a business could otherwise be. I do see this significantly reducing or entirely avoiding an enormous initial investment for such a facility. The location is excellent for a commute. I'd support a study of needed CS facilities over the next 10-20 years with this model vs the traditional route. And we should be able to negotiate the maintenance fees with a development plan that brings this much foot traffic.

2) If consistent with other parks and rec expenditures, turn it into a rec center. It would not be profitable, but parks aren't supposed to be profitable. The question is, how much would it offset other (new) park spending? Maybe not 1:1, but it doesn't have to be 1:1 if the QOL gained is also higher than 1:1. Careful fiscal studies need to be executed. The right rec center would potentially add significant QoL. Possibilities include multi-use courts for Pickleball, basketball, volleyball, studios for yoga, dance, exercise, martial arts, racquetball, batting cages, adult fitness structures, with kids activities like large playscapes (ala Morgan's Wonderland), picnic tables / party areas, turf room (ala Legends), putting green(s). It could be a destination for fitness, parties, meetups, family, weekends in extreme heat and bad weather. The proximity to highway 6 is excellent for this type of use. There are lots of neighboring food and retail options for complementary activities that wouldn't exist in any other location. And we should be able to negotiate the maintenance fees with a development plan that brings this much foot traffic.

3) Sell it to a buyer with a use that aligns with the mall. I'm considering office space, public facilities, and any kind of project that will attract crowds in that list. A storage facility doesn't work. The mall is already an issue. I imagine an abandoned mall is a much more expensive issue. We should avoid contributing to a chain of events that ends up costing a lot more in the long run.

4) Lease it for a non-mall use.

5) Sell it for a non-mall use.

"Just hold it indefinitely" is not on my list.

I appreciate that most on here want to jump straight to selling "to anyone regardless of use", and that outcome is on my list. I'd just prefer to see if we can use it for fiscally sound expense avoidance or fiscally reasonable QOL before jumping there.

---

Some good ideas, but I don't like some of #2. I don't think the city needs to add programs and facilities that will compete with and possibly greatly affect the economic health of probably 20 private businesses that already offer yoga, dance, exercise, martial arts, racquetball, batting cages, adult fitness structures, with kids activities like large playscapes with the advantages of using taxpayer property and money.

Going forward I think the best thing to do with the property is to put it on the market and sell it, take the hit, and never do it again.

could you please provide the annual cost of owning that property


utilities
depreciation
Insurance
Maintenace fees

Thank you

That just runs completely sideways to my "smaller government" beliefs.

I agree that you could do that, but I don't trust the same folks (partially) that got us into this mess to do that. Make sense?

I get that you want to engage on potential ideas going forward to brainstorm possible solutions, and I appreciate that, I think we all appreciate that gesture. But, there is no magic wand in real estate and development to turn something bad into something good. A big determining factor on the money you make/can make in a real estate endeavor is what your acquistion cost is/was, "you make your money at time of purchase." I experience this all the time in my line of work. As soon as we purchased this "asset" at $7.3 large, we lost and were underwater immediately. Regardless of whether A&M "screwed" us or not (whatever happened there), we overpaid for the asset, so we put ourselves behind the eight ball from the jump.

Do not use our hard earned money to try and rectify this situation and turn an extremely bad initial decision into a continuous bad decisions by pushing more of our hard earned money into the "middle of the table" hoping we catch a "river" card that saves our hand and bails us out - it aint going to happen. And, if some of the ideas tossed around like pickleball, etc. are actually good, plausible, and profitable ideas, then the private sector will determine that, and they will offer to pay what the asset is worth to make their endeavors profitable.

All that to say, let the private sector, who risk their livelihoods and sign recourse guarantys on development & construction loans, pursue this "asset" not the City, who can say "aww shucks, that turned out to be a bad decision." When that happens in the private sector, you are out of business, because there is way too much at stake.

Actually, put it up for private sale with little to no hoops, and see what happens. Then, please have the powers at be communicate with sincerity, a genuine apology. We the people want to see the COCS take ownership of this mistake, tell us it was a mistake, and apologize, and communicate what checks & balances will be put in place for something like this to never happen again. If that turns out to be the case then this $7.3mm mistake could turn in to a $5mm mistake (if privately sold for ~$2.5mm), but if it prevents the COCS from making $7.3mm mistakes or larger in the future, then I guess that is a win/savings.

Finally, do not get involve in real estate or development. Leave that up to the private sector. So, no, I do not want to see the City try and wiggle their way out of this by putting on the construction and development hat, so, in regard to solutions of how to turn this ship around, with the City as the captain of the asset, there is none that exist.

Thanks for reading. Cheers.

Bob Yancy said:

---

AggiePhil said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

We are building a new $40 million dollar Public Works facility that I oppose.

---

Hi, Bob. Where is this being built?

---

Looking for sites currently.

---

Haven't looked at it, but would there not be enough land to expand facilities on the 47 1/2 acres of city owned land off of Graham road?