www.theeagle.com/local/CS-looking-to-mix-up-homes--retail-in-project
Some interesting quotes:
"The development would specifically target low-income, recent Texas A&M graduates."
"College Station Mayor Ben White said he thinks many graduates move away because they think the city isn't "cool" enough."
"The city hasn't been involved in many projects that include offering land to private developers, White said, but if it works, more could follow."
"I have got to believe, conceptually, it's a sound concept," White said.

These two are the most interesting:
"Gwin said the economy shouldn't pose a problem for the project because development in the area is already seeing a comeback."

"[City of Austin's real estate manager] Copic said the city recently sought proposals for another mixed-use development with affordable housing and received only one response. Financial institutions don't seem interested in lending money for those types of projects right now, she said."

What happens if it doesn't work? I wonder how the developers will feel about the land offering by the city. They will like the free land, but I wonder what kinds of strings are attached or wha hurdles of dealing with the city will be worth it for a project like this? I just hope the future tax revenue makes it worth it for the citizens to be in this 'business', which is something (business) the city generally shouldn't be in, I think.

Really? Where are jobs for these graduates?

What she said, and I don't think "low-income" means what they think it means.

quote:

---

The development would specifically target low-income, recent Texas A&M graduates.

"I believe those students, they're leaving here with one of the best educations in the world. And what's happening is they are making other locations great," Gwin said.

College Station Mayor Ben White said he thinks many graduates move away because they think the city isn't "cool" enough. He said the project would be designed to appeal to young, single professionals who aren't ready to buy a home but are ready for the next step after student living.

---

So the goal of this project is to keep talented Aggies local after graduation? I am confused. Aggies move away for employment opportunity, not to get away from College Station's lack of "cool." And if there are good enough employment opportunities to keep an Aggie local after graduation Stylecraft is already here to meet their starter-home needs. If they are not ready to buy there are some great apartments at Crescent Point.

Perhaps the CoCS should get in the high-tech business incubator business if they want to keep high IQ Aggies local. This would result in growing our quality job base far more than a cool condo complex.

[This message has been edited by FortySomethingAg (edited 1/24/2010 10:36a).]

C'Mon people..CoCS doesn't not have the ability to have logical thoughts. The sole reason we moved away was the lack of jobs for the working professional. I'd move back in a heartbeat if there was any positions in my field.

At first glance it appears to me that rent restrictions, green building requirements, and the mixed use requirements decrease the value proposition to the point that "free land" makes no difference. There are tons of vacant speculative office space all over town, and specialty retail fronting on minor thoroughfares like Holleman doesn't fly as the project at Holleman / Dartmouth attests...it was only built because the city required if the developer was going to get approval to build the multifamily part.

And I can't see where than land is "free", didn't the city pay quite a bit for it? If the money came from HUD block grants or their ilk, meaning "use it or lose it", I'm OK with it from a taxpayer standpoint.

One thing that's a pipe dream, though, is this project being "targeted" to low-moderate income post grads. That may be the goal, but Fair Housing laws will completely torpedo that, especially if the land purchase was wholly or partially funded with HUD funds. The mayor apparently doesn't have a lot of real estate experience or he wouldn't have said what he did because it's very similar to what Fair Housing enforcement calls "steering". I may be mistaken but I think I heard Crompton say the same thing in the past, correct me if I'm wrong. If true, both are obviously trying to spin this deal to lessen the public concern of aggregating low income housing rather than providing the single family version of the same. To be fair, some real estate folks say the same things, but quickly cease when they are either educated or later realize they could lose their license for doing it.

I could be wrong about everything I've written above if more info on this deal comes out. But based on what I've seen so far, that's my opinion.

The only way they are going to keep grads in town is to help bring big and/or high tech companies to town. There are plenty of people (like me) who would take a lower offer to stay in College Station, but there aren't enough jobs for that. All the affordable housing in the world won't make me stay for a minimum wage job at the local Dairy Queen.

[This message has been edited by aero ag 2010 (edited 1/24/2010 11:07a).]

I shook my head all the way through the article. There is SO MUCH wrong with everything about it.

I like that the city is trying to keep as many recent grads in CS as they can, but creating housing in hopes that jobs will follow is a severely flawed way to encourage economic development.

The city should redirect its efforts to finding ways to attract high tech companies, companies involved in research and development, company headquarters, start-ups, etc. Housing will take care of itself without involvement from the city.

Three words

Airport, Airport, Airport.

I know two companies that started in CS/Bryan but moved to Houston to be closer to an airport with more connections.

This is a foolish project. The city buys the land and then controls what development goes on to a "t," that sure doesn't sound like an economic winner.

Somehow, David Gwin always claims to know exactly what people want. Apparently, he knows even better than the marketplace and consumers/residents themselves!

The city needs to stop purchasing land in an economic recession, and should frankly be careful of ever doing it unless truly necessary. This is not a necessary project.

Much of it, I think, comes from the planning trend/scheme of "Smart Growth" which dictates that high-density, green development will ween people off of their cars and into public transportation, all while believing that people can somehow live walking distance from where they also work and shop. In the magic of this theory, you supposedly reduce congestion because these people stop using their cars, right? The "greenness" comes from the dedication of semi-private or even wholly public parkland as a part of the high-density development. We've already seen plenty of this in College Station.

The gist of it, the scheme, is that city governments ought to have complete control over what actually goes into such development so that they can shape how people live their lives. I do not feel that this is something city government should be involved in, because I'd much rather have residents and small businesses more involved in the marketplace to determine what the community really desires out of their town.

It is a trend in College Station for the city to push projects like these... the Wolf Pen Creek development, anyone?

Hopefully I can do enough of a job in my council campaign of pointing out how this sort of misguided planning attitude could end up ruining the core of our city if liberally applied.

The approach they are taking may not be practical - but I see what they are sort of saying.

As a someone who graduated a little over a year ago, and got job/stayed in CS after graduation the living situation does seem a bit odd.

I'm not making enough money yet to afford a mortgage payment at the same time as my student loans.

From what I have seen from looking around, all the houses for rent in BCS are - appropriately so - prices with students in mind, ie $450-600/room usually.

Apparentments are another option, but if you are done with the College Scene it's can be tuff.

I lucked out and live in a house with a roomate, who also graduated years ago and can swing a mortgage.

But I know an handful of other recent graduates and they all sorta said the same thing. It's just an odd situation in this town since it is college based.

[This message has been edited by Grizzlap (edited 1/24/2010 11:10p).]

As housing prices rise in CS because of relatively high, steady demand and the city's supply-limiting, smart-growth policies, workers are forced to live farther away and commute. This results in more traffic congestion.

The Holleman mixed-use project is a potentially successful effort to expand affordable housing in CS, and has only moderate risk until the property is developed. Until the development actually occurs, the downside is very slight. It is unlikely the value of the parcel will decrease significantly while the city owns it. We should hold our water until the Request For Proposal comes out and evaluate the responses. I would hope that a full, publicly-disclosed feasibility study will be performed for the specific, selected RFP response prior to developing the property.

Until the property is developed, the City could always sell the property and recoup most if not all of the investment. It is my understanding that HUD CDBG and stimulus (CDBG-R under the ARRA) funds purchased the property.

The debate to be had on this issue is not just the end use for this property, but how the city uses federal grant funds to address low income housing and neighborhood infrastructure. This is a planning year for College Station as they create a new 5-year plan for HUD funds for the 2010-2014 period, and we should provide public input to the process at the public meetings and participate in the public needs survey. We're talking about $9M in funding over the next five years. Personally, I would encourage the city to undertake more infrastructure improvements in low-income, recently-annexed areas, and use the housing funding for less risky undertakings like homeowner rehabilitation and special needs multi-family development that would not normally be provided by the market. Take the survey:

http://www.cstx.gov/index.aspx?page=3535

[This message has been edited by Grizzlap (edited 1/24/2010 10:59p).]

The trick is to disperse lower-income and medium income housing into higher end developments. After a few years of appreciation, the low income house now has a higher value because it will be in a more exclusive neighborhood. This allows it's occupants to trade up and improve their economic status.

Somewhere along the line the house is sold to new buyers who remodel and improve the house to the same standards as the surrounding houses. Everybody wins...except the NIMBY's who won't allow mixed income housing.

I responded to the survey Grizzlap posted above, and it took less than 5 minutes. I encourage everyone here to enter their own response as well.

Does anyone else hear "GHETTO" or "PROJECTS" when someone says low income or multi-family ?

I am good with deveopment for the students, but not for hurricane fugees to stay and make a mess of things (CRIME !!!)

There are plenty of starter home types of neighborhoods for Graduates.

I don't think they are talking about graduates, I think they are talking HUD and what not.

VOTE NO. VOTE OUT THE CURRENT CITY COUNCIL

Some are vastly overestimating what is a pretty simple situation. They received a bunch of Recovery Act money that has HUD strings attached. HUD money has to benefit low income families. They have alot of dough to spend and have to figure out a way to 'justify' it to HUD. They'll build an economic engine with O's money, and slap some low income apartments on top to make it legal.

Disgust at the thought of the city purchasing property and directing development aside.

I am incredulous regarding how on earth (in today's USA) low-income tenants could be limited to recent TAMU graduates. That seems inherently discriminatory, thus impractical. At the very least CoCS would incur more enormous legal expenses in fighting this.

Also, regarding the theory (trick noted above) that bringing in low-income housing ends up being a win in terms of the property appreciating, not sure history supports that. Having been an investor in a similar scheme peddled by Merrill Lynch in the 80's I recall many folks loosing bunches of $$$ as the HUD collaboration low income developments all over the country, which were supposed to appreciate and be sold high $$ sat empty or in poor repair.

Putting aside the issues I have with this development - for the Blue Team

You stated:

quote:

---

There are plenty of starter home types of neighborhoods for Graduates.

---

I have several friends that might disagree with you that work for the university. When we built our starter home back in 99, we paid around $80/sf for a great house - now with that rate being more than 20% more - a nice home in the 1500sf range is running $150k which is high for a one-earner household without a roommate.

There is a lack of affordable housing here that is not saturated with student neighbors.

Also - on this topic - there has always been a push for retail/residential mixed 'urban' building in the WPC corridor that the market hasn't felt the need to meet. This is one way to use stimulus/federal money to potentially kick that off.

Alas, I am still opposed to using public money on this sort of thing, I just sometimes feel like I'm very in the minority...

First I encourage all of you to answer Grizzlap's survey. The questions are an eye opener.

HUD funding was used to purchase this property. This is why they have the restriction for low income housing.

Go read TexasCigars post. The Obama admin has been pushing this as one of their agendas. For those that don't want to go back up:

quote:

---

Much of it, I think, comes from the planning trend/scheme of "Smart Growth" which dictates that high-density, green development will ween people off of their cars and into public transportation, all while believing that people can somehow live walking distance from where they also work and shop. In the magic of this theory, you supposedly reduce congestion because these people stop using their cars, right? The "greenness" comes from the dedication of semi-private or even wholly public parkland as a part of the high-density development. We've already seen plenty of this in College Station.

The gist of it, the scheme, is that city governments ought to have complete control over what actually goes into such development so that they can shape how people live their lives. I do not feel that this is something city government should be involved in, because I'd much rather have residents and small businesses more involved in the marketplace to determine what the community really desires out of their town.

---

There are sections in the Cap and Trade bill that addressed this very issue. It is no surprise that HUD funds might come with this sort of attachment to them. Cap and Trade probably won't get through the senate now, but that won't stop them from trying to get their agenda done another way.

On another thread I read that a poster was calling CoCS the mini-washington. They sure do behave the way our Federal Gov is.

I don't think the project will go as they plan at all. If it was such a good idea, why hasn't private business stepped up and done it already?

Love all you Ags! But face it, this area is strictly for you to go to college/graduate school and return to die.

That's the way local government likes it.

Too funny! And as a long time resident it often seems like this.

I am not going to address all the HUD, fed money, etc comments and issues regarding how this is being put together by the city. The point I want to make is that there is a gap in this area for affordable entry level housing that is near campus or not out in the boonies or in a student ghetto. If you are a new prof, single parent, young couple or family, and want to live near TAMU and invest in your own home there are few options. There are rentals that cater to students (4 in a house with a huge rent)and there are apartments. This has been a problem for years. In order to own property in this area starting out you are immediately pointed outward to the burbs - which means most of your travel will be via car. Some people do not wish to live like this and would like alternatives closer in. Whether the city is the right agency to push for this is debatable, but the problem is real.

Is it legal for the city to restrict low-income housing to only recent college grads?

If not, I don't see this working out the way the mayor believes it will.

quote:

---

This has been a problem for years. In order to own property in this area starting out you are immediately pointed outward to the burbs - which means most of your travel will be via car. Some people do not wish to live like this and would like alternatives closer in. Whether the city is the right agency to push for this is debatable, but the problem is real.

---

What are your options? Move to Houston, Austin, or Dallas? I promise you will have a longer commute. Hell, you will drive further than any commute here just to get groceries!

I know several people who live in Austin and Houston for the quality of life issues, but commute to work here. Easier for a tenured prof who can show up to work 1-2 days a week, but this is an option for some folks.

My read is that the recent college grad comment was an example, not suggesting this as the only target.

[This message has been edited by telefunk (edited 1/25/2010 2:51p).]

What is there overarching goal for this (assuming they have one)?

Do they think that college grads staying here will lead to the development of things that attract people to Austin?

what comes first? The college grads staying here or the jobs that will keep college grads here?

I guarantee that if there were jobs here for college grads, they would stay here. But there are not any (or very many).

College Station home prices are higher than Houston or San Antonio, but you can find a much higher paying in job those two cities than you can here.

They can target recent grads all they want, but I think that any low income housing is going to end up in the same state as low-income housing ends up anywhere else.

homes are cheaper in houston because there are national huge builders there. of course - you get what you pay for in a lot of cases. the corners that are cut in a lot of cases would scare anybody.

COCS shouldn't try to sell this deal as a way to retain A&M grads in the community by making it more cool. That's a huge stretch. A&M grads follow the jobs. They don't care how cool a place is. Ags are pragmatists, for the most part.

The things that makes this community cool are A&M, the Bush Library, Northgate, Downtown Bryan, & Messina Hof. Coolness is about institutions, not mixed-use developments.

This development is about affordable housing and low-income jobs. It has to be, in order to meet the grant funding requirements. Don't try to sugar-coat it.

Grizz,

You make a great point. This area is "cool" because of what the people and the university have built here. Not because of what city government does.

The simple fact of the matter is this: if there are not jobs here, because businesses don't come here for whatever reason (perhaps because they feel that regulations are more reasonable elsewhere), then students won't want to settle here.

quote:

---

homes are cheaper in houston because there are national huge builders there.

---

This is false. A few years ago D.R. Horton, the nation's largest homebuilder, entered our market and lasted only a couple of years before they left with their tail between their legs. For even money Stylecraft produces a far superior product to what they were turning out. Horton could not compete locally with Stylecraft.

The cost of housing largely has to do with the scarcity of land in a desireable area. Highland Park in Dallas and West University Place in Houston are two examples where the value of the land can make the pricing of homes ridiculously high. While other areas in both of those cities could have very reasonably priced housing. Houston as been able to easily grow in all directions providing affordable housing for those who are willing to drive.

Home values in College Station are relatively high compared to the Metroplex and the Greater Houston area (in some price ranges) due to an upward force from student rental rates and because more people want to live in College Station than the job base can support. Thus, people are willing to pay a premium to be in College Station. Plus, College Station is not free to grow in every direction like Houston. Also, College Station is a more stable economy without the ups and downs experienced in major cities that can result in a glut of properties for sale in down time rapidly pushing values down.

There are surely other factors involved. Perhaps AgDotCom will have something to add.

[This message has been edited by FortySomethingAg (edited 1/25/2010 10:45p).]

As previously posted when I see a development project described with words like "low income" and "HUD"...I don't think about new college grads making $30,000 per year. I think about a family of four making about $20,000 per year.

You have to admit that it is the perfect location for the development they have planned. Across the street you have Ross, CiCi's pizza, and Big lots. Just think of the businesses that will move into this mixed use development. They ones that can be supported by it!!

The lack of professional jobs here in B/CS is one of the reasons why I am running for county judge. Personally, I commute to/from downtown Houston every day so my family and I can enjoy living in downtown Bryan. I'm running as an Independent if anyone is interested, and I'm on FaceBook as Doug O'Brien for Brazos County Judge.