Captn_Ag05 said:

---

I also really liked the idea that Oldham had for the hotel at Boyett and University and incorporate that property into the city owned lot for one comprehensive look. I am thinking something like a Graduate by Hilton that is now in many (most?) SEC towns with a sit down restaurant option.

But whatever hotel they would have put there would have been a nice addition and I hope that it is still on the table for them.

I worry the city totally botched that, however. Still mind boggling what was recommended to council vs the OG proposal.

---

powerbelly said:

---

I know you have already made up your mind. That's obvious.

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

I know you have already made up your mind. That's obvious.

---

"We don't need young urban professionals?!"

There's no "gee let me think about that" on that one.

---

Bonathan said:

---

@Bob Yancy:

I'm a young urban professional that just moved away from College Station. I think that your AI research has not really captured why I couldn't hang around anymore. I stayed from college until I was 33 years old. I bought a house in suburbia (in Bryan, because it was affordable), I didn't need a hipster condo neighborhood.

Some of the main reasons I left:

• Wages are bad. I worked 2 full time jobs to live comfortably, at the expense of my health and social life.
• I'm not into sports and don't like to drink a ton anymore, so I had to drive to Houston or Austin to do anything fun. Live music, museums, comedy, bars with activities, etc. just doesn't exist in College Station. Demographics and Geography create these conditions, but CoCS being notoriously difficult to deal with doesn't help.
• Nothing to do outdoors here. No mountain, no decent lakes or rivers, hot and humid. You can't fix this, but piling cash into the shape of a mountain would be less stupid than spending it on Macy's and a convention center.
• The airport sucks. Losing United was a huge loss...yet another reason to drive to Houston or Austin. I think if Astin didn't suck so bad they could have worked with United to replace CLL-IAH with CLL-DEN, which would have kept a lot of people happily flying locally.
• Politics. I had to get out of Trumpland.

This list shows that many of the reasons I left are beyond your control. Rather than throwing Tax $$ around on pipe dreams and pet projects, spend it on infrastructure. Work to recruit a major employer that will make TAMU compete for wages, get another airline, Amtrak service, create an environment where the city works to help deals close, not torpedo them.

---

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

On your second point, it is really surprising that we don't have more of a live music and/or comedy scene. Young aspiring musicians and comedians should love to come to a place with 75,000 college students that use social media to try and create and grow a following.

I don't think it is the cities job to bring these types of establishments obviously, but it is strange we haven't had more interest in those types of venues. Perhaps the city could offer economic incentives for such a thing. That doesn't mean I want them getting into the business of developing or building venues.

---

BCS-Ag said:

---

I think the district students should live in IS the city of College Station.

Look, this whole idea of carving out student-only enclaves doesn't really apply here because the math just doesn't work in it's favor. Texas A&M has about 77,000+ students enrolled (fall 2024 numbers), while College Station's entire population is roughly 125,000. Even if you add in Bryan (~90,000), students are still close to half of the combined population and in College Station proper they're the majority. Only about 21% of undergrads live on campus, which means tens of thousands of students are spread across the city already.

So, by the numbers, it's not a case of "where should students live?" it's "where should the relatively smaller number of permanent residents live?" Students already are the dominant demographic, and have been for since the founding of the city.

Maybe instead of asking how to corral students into special zones, we should be talking about offering incentives to the locals to live in certain districts since they're the minority here.

---

doubledog said:

---

This is a map of student housing in Evanston IL (Northwestern) that is available today.
Note how many units are available within the city limits of Evanston.
Not an apples to apples comparison, but it does give us some perspective.

---

TAMU1990 said:

---

BCS-Ag said:

---

I think the district students should live in IS the city of College Station.

Look, this whole idea of carving out student-only enclaves doesn't really apply here because the math just doesn't work in it's favor. Texas A&M has about 77,000+ students enrolled (fall 2024 numbers), while College Station's entire population is roughly 125,000. Even if you add in Bryan (~90,000), students are still close to half of the combined population and in College Station proper they're the majority. Only about 21% of undergrads live on campus, which means tens of thousands of students are spread across the city already.

So, by the numbers, it's not a case of "where should students live?" it's "where should the relatively smaller number of permanent residents live?" Students already are the dominant demographic, and have been for since the founding of the city.

Maybe instead of asking how to corral students into special zones, we should be talking about offering incentives to the locals to live in certain districts since they're the minority here.

---

It's called south college station. It already exists.

---

ElephantRider said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

histag10 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

I know you have already made up your mind. That's obvious.

---

"We don't need young urban professionals?!"

There's no "gee let me think about that" on that one.

---

Why do you need them? Educate me.

---

Young urban professionals are today's and tomorrow's job creators, innovators and doers. They grow with a city, marry and raise families with children that populate our schools. They invest in the community, stepping up over time in their residential choices, helping drive demand and ROI that's crucial for a healthy housing market. They help businesses thrive as employees, fueling success which leads to further employment. They contribute to a production economy, not just a consumer based one, which is where we are headed fast if we don't watch it.

They teach our kids, staff your hospital, fire station and police headquarters. They design and build your house. They sell you your car, market your business, write and deliver your nightly news, design our websites, draft our contracts, et al, et al, et al.

The working class and young urban professionals run a city. Us retired people benefit daily from the city they run.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

A bigger issue will be finding employers to pay young professionals enough in the area to actually be able to buy a house, get married, or have kids (especially in newly developed "district" areas). The university is largest employer, right? Their pay is far less in most positions than one can make doing the same thing in any other city.

---

Private sector surpassed public sector employment in B/CS a few years ago and I'd doubt it ever reverses. But yes, Texas A&M is of course still the largest employer.

We haven't enacted a significant economic development agreement since FUJIFILM, which is beyond me. Primary jobs are a crucial component of a healthy city and we need to be pursuing that aggressively.

The SMR nuclear energy project at Rellis and the semiconductor plant, if it ever happens, will change the job environment in a hurry.

And if we get smart and rectify our broken housing market, real estate will become at least marginally more affordable and give folks opportunity to stay.

Private sector jobs and more affordable housing were much more plentiful in the 90s, relative to population at that time. Parents in their 50s and 60s today are those that fell in love with this community and decided to work and raise a family here. We need to recapture that.

We made a conscious decision to eschew growth some time ago. We crept into an unfriendly business environment, constrained housing supply and adopted the failed policies of Austin's "don't build it and they won't come" mentality. As long as I'm in elected office, I'll work to defeat that and usher in a new era of smart growth.

Growth is a blessing, and whether one agrees with that or not, it cannot be stopped- Only deflected to outlying jurisdictions or temporarily constrained at a terrible cost to those living here.

In all transparency, if smart growth policies aren't what anyone reading this wishes to pursue, then I'm probably not the guy to vote for.

Transparently and Respectfully,

Bob Yancy '95

---

Says the guy actively trying to kill a road project

---

pacecar02 said:

---

I agree with a lot of Bonathans points

Wages in town are not competitive at all, period.

---

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

Mr. Yancy - on this point I would talk to the developer or just look at the money. The latest Parallel project that just started recently at 250 Church Ave, is somewhere around a $150 million project. A company that studies these things for years before making moves and investing that sort of capital are going to have a little better idea than random internet comments or people replaying what their cousin told them or their aunt posted on Facebook.

Anytime a new chicken place or hotel opens, the Facebook keyboard warriors go and complain that it is the last thing we need and we need (insert unique restaurant idea here). Never are those people willing to invest their capital to make it happen, they just complain online. And then the hotel and chicken places stay in business while the more unique restaurant or business often closes.

The market speaks loudly - if you're willing to listen.

---