for not taking care of the old Macy's that the city bought and should have never bought.
The mall is suing the city of CS
32,969 Views |
194 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by Hornbeck
Gonna be good!
And they should! I was in the parking lot a few weeks ago for the farmer market that they put on there and had to park closer to Macy area, and it's poorly maintained at best and a damn shame in most areas. Slapping up boards on the glass doors is about all they've done. The weeds are grown over the beds and most of the plants are dead.happyinBCS said:
for not taking care of the old Macy's that the city bought and should have never bought.
Meanwhile I get noticed from CofCS to mow my grass!
CRBongo
The city, and any public entity, should not ever purchase property except where it is needed for its current or future use.{happyinBCS said:
for not taking care of the old Macy's that the city bought and should have never bought.
...or leave your trash can out one extra day.crbongos said:
Meanwhile I get noticed from CofCS to mow my grass!
I assume the maintenance money for the Macy store went to pay for construction in the "ball park" that will never be.
So, the city said it will pay for maintenance on its property but is not allowed to use public funds to maintain a privately owned mall.
But they can use public funds to spend 7 million for it , and they knew full well when they bought it there would be shared maintenance costs or should have known. Sounds like the ballpark issue.
But they can use public funds to spend 7 million for it , and they knew full well when they bought it there would be shared maintenance costs or should have known. Sounds like the ballpark issue.
Sounds like a little incompetency in city management.happyinBCS said:
So, the city said it will pay for maintenance on its property but is not allowed to use public funds to maintain a privately owned mall.
But they can use public funds to spend 7 million for it , and they knew full well when they bought it there would be shared maintenance costs or should have known. Sounds like the ballpark issue.
australopithecus robustus
Joined:
Oct 23, 2009
Posts:
2,336
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The more overreaching issue is that our city continues to not fully understand the role of government and where their job stops and the public's begins......
At what point does the city manager get held accountable? The city of Bryan is running laps around us at this point. We deserve better. Far better.
aggiefan2002 said:
At what point does the city manager get held accountable? The city of Bryan is running laps around us at this point. We deserve better. Far better.
You deserve what you voted in.
This is getting good!
ETA: What kind of a bonehead buys a store in a mall but doesn't expect to pay mall maintenance fees? Also, CBL is under no obligation to cater to city rules. That's CoCs's (and ultimately mine as a taxpayer's) problem. Curious as to Mr. Yancy's take on all this….
ETA: What kind of a bonehead buys a store in a mall but doesn't expect to pay mall maintenance fees? Also, CBL is under no obligation to cater to city rules. That's CoCs's (and ultimately mine as a taxpayer's) problem. Curious as to Mr. Yancy's take on all this….
The city council is responsible for the city manager so you should start there.
Whoever is running the city should be fired and investigated! This purchase is ridiculous. Not to mention, in regards to another deal, their possible gaslighting of us in telling us the approved land was not suitable for use as a ballpark but is great for their new ideas.
maroon barchetta said:aggiefan2002 said:
At what point does the city manager get held accountable? The city of Bryan is running laps around us at this point. We deserve better. Far better.
You deserve what you voted in.
Most of us have no clue who is responsible, so we have no clue how to hold them accountable.
City council?
The mayor?
I would suggest that the leadership of the city, who can approve big expenditures, would be the people responsible.
The mayor?
I would suggest that the leadership of the city, who can approve big expenditures, would be the people responsible.
"We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us"maroon barchetta said:aggiefan2002 said:
At what point does the city manager get held accountable? The city of Bryan is running laps around us at this point. We deserve better. Far better.
You deserve what you voted in.
Between this fiasco and the the lack of requiring a soil test on the baseball site, the city manager should be disciplined if not fired..phillytex24 said:
Whoever is running the city should be fired and investigated! This purchase is ridiculous. Not to mention, in regards to another deal, their possible gaslighting of us in telling us the approved land was not suitable for use as a ballpark but is great for their new ideas.
[That is a different topic but the rest of the post will stay on the thread. -Staff] the asinine amount of money spent on Macy's was more than offset by awesome land sales around the city. Everything is good. The city doesn't need to pay NNN's or maintain their property that they purchased with our money. The rest of us better not spend 5 seconds out of code on the smallest of items, or we'll have 5 nasty grams in the mail in a matter of hours. I know the councilman wont comment here because this matter is now in litigation, but do you realize how bad this makes all of you at city hall look? How much litigation do you guys need to get hit with before you wake up one day and realize there is a problem?
People need to get out and vote and put people on the dais that will actually make decisions in the real best interests of the city at large. Not eggheads from the faculty that have zero practical knowledge about anything, or business people that are nothing but puppets for the powerful.
People need to get out and vote and put people on the dais that will actually make decisions in the real best interests of the city at large. Not eggheads from the faculty that have zero practical knowledge about anything, or business people that are nothing but puppets for the powerful.
RafterAg223 said:
[That is a different topic but the rest of the post will stay on the thread. -Staff]the asinine amount of money spent on Macy's was more than offset by awesome land sales around the city. Everything is good. The city doesn't need to pay NNN's or maintain their property that they purchased with our money. The rest of us better not spend 5 seconds out of code on the smallest of items, or we'll have 5 nasty grams in the mail in a matter of hours. I know the councilman wont comment here because this matter is now in litigation, but do you realize how bad this makes all of you at city hall look? How much litigation do you guys need to get hit with before you wake up one day and realize they are the problem?
People need to get out and vote and put people on the dais that will actually make decisions in the real best interests of the city at large. Not eggheads from the faculty that have zero practical knowledge about anything, or business people that are nothing but puppets for the powerful.
[We don't let threads get filled up with pictures or gifs that do not add anything to the thread on this board. -Staff]
I had heard they were going to put in an Esports Facility there.
This is correct?
This is correct?
"I am neither an Athenian nor a Greek, but a citizen of the world"-Plato, attributed to Socrates, Theaetetus-
Bill Clinternet said:
I had heard they were going to put in an Esports Facility there.
This is correct?
LOL, they have been having "talks" and making "progress" for well over a year now. If I gave those types of updates on critical items in my staff meetings….
Skimming through the suit that was filed, it states that prior to the purchase the City knew that owning mall property required paying a share of the maintenance for the common areas. The common area fees were part of the agreement that the City signed when they bought the property.woodiewood1 said:Sounds like a little incompetency in city management.happyinBCS said:
So, the city said it will pay for maintenance on its property but is not allowed to use public funds to maintain a privately owned mall.
But they can use public funds to spend 7 million for it , and they knew full well when they bought it there would be shared maintenance costs or should have known. Sounds like the ballpark issue.
If the City knew they could not meet the terms of the deal, why did they buy the property?
Sounds like just utter incompetence on the city's part or terrible work in scrubbing the purchase agreement and title commitment by the city attorney.MeKnowNot said:Skimming through the suit that was filed, it states that prior to the purchase the City knew that owning mall property required paying a share of the maintenance for the common areas. The common area fees were part of the agreement that the City signed when they bought the property.woodiewood1 said:Sounds like a little incompetency in city management.happyinBCS said:
So, the city said it will pay for maintenance on its property but is not allowed to use public funds to maintain a privately owned mall.
But they can use public funds to spend 7 million for it , and they knew full well when they bought it there would be shared maintenance costs or should have known. Sounds like the ballpark issue.
If the City knew they could not meet the terms of the deal, why did they but the property?
Truth is- most every one of us would be fired from our jobs if we behaved and performed the way CoCS "leadership" does. God I hate using that term to describe what they do.
Until CS quits electing defunct academics the city will always have problems. You can't take a person who couldn't survive the private world and put them in charge of the public one.
***ETA***
This is why City of Bryan is running laps around CoCS in nearly every measurable metric.
Until CS quits electing defunct academics the city will always have problems. You can't take a person who couldn't survive the private world and put them in charge of the public one.
***ETA***
This is why City of Bryan is running laps around CoCS in nearly every measurable metric.
aggiefan2002 said:
At what point does the city manager get held accountable? The city of Bryan is running laps around us at this point. We deserve better. Far better.
Yeah, instead of getting involved in private property purchases, the City of College Station needs to lease out parkland to developers and lure them in with massive tax breaks.
Incompetence at the ranks of the city manager and assistant city manager, coupled with a total lack of oversight by the supposedly "experienced" Mayor and the city council, is evident.
The governance and management of the City of College Station are currently at an all-time low.
There have been unfavorable land deals, vacant buildings, evident incompetence, ineffective negotiations, and strained relations with Texas A&M, the City of Bryan, and Brazos County.
The situation seems to have hit rock bottom. The areas they excel in include spending money, increasing taxes, and implementing new regulations.
It's time for a substantial change in leadership at City Hall, starting from the top tiers.
The governance and management of the City of College Station are currently at an all-time low.
There have been unfavorable land deals, vacant buildings, evident incompetence, ineffective negotiations, and strained relations with Texas A&M, the City of Bryan, and Brazos County.
The situation seems to have hit rock bottom. The areas they excel in include spending money, increasing taxes, and implementing new regulations.
It's time for a substantial change in leadership at City Hall, starting from the top tiers.
Let's recall the Mayor.
Mumbo Jimbo said:
Let's recall the Mayor.
That worked real well last time they tried it….
Isn't there a rumor about this deal falling through in favor of A&M building their own facility at RELLIS in Bryan instead?
To answer your question as to my position, you need only read my written response to the Eagle, which asked this question of all candidates during the campaign last year. It is pasted below and hasn't changed:
1. In light of the money-losing city purchase of the old Chimney Hill shopping center, what are your thoughts on the city's purchase of the former Macy's store in Post Oak Mall? (150 words)
Commercial real estate is highly speculative. Even career real estate professionals advise that it's a risky business. Municipalities should be extremely cautious with taxpayer dollars. Entering land deals should come with transparency regarding the intent and should, in most cases, be limited to land for fire stations, roadways, and other usual and customary municipal land uses. The Macy's purchase invites scrutiny and criticism because we don't know the intent of the purchase, and because a recent sale of the property indicates city hall might be overpaying for it. The ultimate land use could prove to be acceptable and successful for our city. I hope so, but we just don't know. Such a lack of transparency and any potential waste of taxpayer dollars should be avoided in the future.
1. In light of the money-losing city purchase of the old Chimney Hill shopping center, what are your thoughts on the city's purchase of the former Macy's store in Post Oak Mall? (150 words)
Commercial real estate is highly speculative. Even career real estate professionals advise that it's a risky business. Municipalities should be extremely cautious with taxpayer dollars. Entering land deals should come with transparency regarding the intent and should, in most cases, be limited to land for fire stations, roadways, and other usual and customary municipal land uses. The Macy's purchase invites scrutiny and criticism because we don't know the intent of the purchase, and because a recent sale of the property indicates city hall might be overpaying for it. The ultimate land use could prove to be acceptable and successful for our city. I hope so, but we just don't know. Such a lack of transparency and any potential waste of taxpayer dollars should be avoided in the future.
I'll comment on the purchase of Macy's, and just did. But, you are correct, I'll not comment on ongoing litigation.
Respectfully,
Respectfully,
Bob, props to you, sir, for speaking up. Seriously, I for one appreciate your weighing in.
The optics of this are terrible, and bordering on incompetency, IMHO. We seem to be throwing good money after bad in this case. I understand that there have been real estate transactions that were a net positive, but the really large black eyes the City keeps taking leads me to believe that a "Sunk Cost Fallacy" is pervading city staff, who recommend these transactions. If that is the case, I have but one question:
Where is the accountability for this?
The optics of this are terrible, and bordering on incompetency, IMHO. We seem to be throwing good money after bad in this case. I understand that there have been real estate transactions that were a net positive, but the really large black eyes the City keeps taking leads me to believe that a "Sunk Cost Fallacy" is pervading city staff, who recommend these transactions. If that is the case, I have but one question:
Where is the accountability for this?