Jeez, if only there were a big box anchor in the development that would have paid for the rock prairie overpass and spured this whole concept on...oh wait.
Seriously though, a little look further back in history will inform the LONGSTANDING boondoggle this part of town has been.
For those that have a subscription:
http://theeagle.com/news/local/weingarten-cs-close-to-a-deal/article_64e02ef4-a8e0-5462-b7be-d894eea4e97d.htmlFor those that don't here is the AI summary.
Weingarten vs. College Station Walmart Development Dispute: History & OutcomeBackgroundIn the early 2000s, Weingarten Realty Investors purchased land at Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road. The property was designated in the City of College Station's Comprehensive Plan for big box retail, aligning with Weingarten's intent to build a Walmart Supercenter. The company offered to pay for a traffic impact study and fund key infrastructure, including the Rock Prairie Road overpass.
Zoning ConflictDespite the zoning compatibility, City Council denied Weingarten's rezoning request in 2006 due to public opposition to Walmart. A subsequent approval added restrictive conditions that Weingarten claimed made the development financially unworkable.
Lawsuit & Legal ActionsWeingarten filed a federal lawsuit in 2008, alleging the City acted arbitrarily and damaged the property's value. A U.S. District Court allowed the case to move forward, but in 2010 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed it, ruling that City Council members had legislative immunity in zoning decisions.
Settlement & Land TransferIn 2011, the City settled with Weingarten for $1.6 million, down from the original $10 million claim. Both parties had spent roughly $2 million in legal fees.
Weingarten subsequently sold approximately 98 acres to Scott & White Healthcare, a tax-exempt entity, which built a hospital and clinic. The City was involved in brokering this sale, which removed the land from the commercial tax rolls. Unlike the original proposal, Scott & White was not required to fund the traffic improvementsmeaning the cost of infrastructure upgrades was ultimately passed along to the general taxpayer, rather than borne by a developer.
Outcome & Legacy- The City avoided a large damages award but incurred significant legal costs.
- The loss of taxable retail land and public burden of infrastructure costs drew long-term criticism.
- Planned retail and transportation enhancements were abandoned, despite initial private funding offers.
- The case is often cited as a cautionary tale in planning, politics, and unintended consequences.