we're 1st team all pro at thattechno-ag said:
And they lost the resulting lawsuit.
www.elitellp.net/
City of College Station puts taxpayers on hook for mall redevelopment
29,853 Views |
151 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by woodiewood1
If they are so concerned about gateway properties, I'd love to see something different other than a U-haul and a gas station at the corners of University and Texas.*
*Please note, if the COCS is reading this, I don't actually want the city getting involved in private property matters.
*Please note, if the COCS is reading this, I don't actually want the city getting involved in private property matters.
They dump the unsuccessful properties (both have offloaded B-class malls in recent years) and keep the successful properties, they don't take in fixer-uppers.tb9665 said:
I think that the whole mall needs to be sold to either Brookfield Properties (Woodlands Mall/Baybrook Mall) or Simon Property Group (Galleria Houston). Let them redevelop it.
As big of a problem the City taking of the Macy's building and adjacent parking, there's too much uninformed opinions or fatalism in this thread.
don't need a ton of info to:PS3D said:They dump the unsuccessful properties (both have offloaded B-class malls in recent years) and keep the successful properties, they don't take in fixer-uppers.tb9665 said:
I think that the whole mall needs to be sold to either Brookfield Properties (Woodlands Mall/Baybrook Mall) or Simon Property Group (Galleria Houston). Let them redevelop it.
As big of a problem the City taking of the Macy's building and adjacent parking, there's too much uninformed opinions or fatalism in this thread.
a. see that this was a colossal overreach by a governing body who believes they are not accountable to ther constituents
b. note the past failures of CoCS in property speculation
no MBA required to see the problem with this endeavor.
1/2 of it already for sale, conn's only took half.
Shh! Don't tell the city.UmustBKidding said:
1/2 of it already for sale, conn's only took half.
We should all see how far we can push the city council to make dumb-ass decisions.
We can go to the council meetings and let them know we are going to bring in a full time carnival for the other half of the Sears.
what other vacant property can we scare them into buying?
We can go to the council meetings and let them know we are going to bring in a full time carnival for the other half of the Sears.
what other vacant property can we scare them into buying?
Well, besides that.cavscout96 said:don't need a ton of info to:PS3D said:They dump the unsuccessful properties (both have offloaded B-class malls in recent years) and keep the successful properties, they don't take in fixer-uppers.tb9665 said:
I think that the whole mall needs to be sold to either Brookfield Properties (Woodlands Mall/Baybrook Mall) or Simon Property Group (Galleria Houston). Let them redevelop it.
As big of a problem the City taking of the Macy's building and adjacent parking, there's too much uninformed opinions or fatalism in this thread.
a. see that this was a colossal overreach by a governing body who believes they are not accountable to ther constituents
b. note the past failures of CoCS in property speculation
no MBA required to see the problem with this endeavor.
Like I said, the title of this post conflates the city's overpriced and ill-informed purpose to the mall's development somehow, and every time retail development gets brought up (not just this thread), it's either the same awful "jokes" cluttering up the thread, blatant misinformation, not understanding size of the tenant vs. size of the space, or, as the post one below yours demonstrates, not knowing the difference between sale and leasing.
[This is not General or Politics. -Staff]
Can the mall redevolop without the city either 1) selling what they now own, or 2) being a partner in the future redevelopment? How is that not exactly what the OP title states?PS3D said:Well, besides that.cavscout96 said:don't need a ton of info to:PS3D said:They dump the unsuccessful properties (both have offloaded B-class malls in recent years) and keep the successful properties, they don't take in fixer-uppers.tb9665 said:
I think that the whole mall needs to be sold to either Brookfield Properties (Woodlands Mall/Baybrook Mall) or Simon Property Group (Galleria Houston). Let them redevelop it.
As big of a problem the City taking of the Macy's building and adjacent parking, there's too much uninformed opinions or fatalism in this thread.
a. see that this was a colossal overreach by a governing body who believes they are not accountable to ther constituents
b. note the past failures of CoCS in property speculation
no MBA required to see the problem with this endeavor.
Like I said, the title of this post conflates the city's overpriced and ill-informed purpose to the mall's development somehow, and every time retail development gets brought up (not just this thread), it's either the same awful "jokes" cluttering up the thread, blatant misinformation, not understanding size of the tenant vs. size of the space, or, as the post one below yours demonstrates, not knowing the difference between sale and leasing.
kraut said:Can the mall redevolop without the city either 1) selling what they now own, or 2) being a partner in the future redevelopment? How is that not exactly what the OP title states?PS3D said:Well, besides that.cavscout96 said:don't need a ton of info to:PS3D said:They dump the unsuccessful properties (both have offloaded B-class malls in recent years) and keep the successful properties, they don't take in fixer-uppers.tb9665 said:
I think that the whole mall needs to be sold to either Brookfield Properties (Woodlands Mall/Baybrook Mall) or Simon Property Group (Galleria Houston). Let them redevelop it.
As big of a problem the City taking of the Macy's building and adjacent parking, there's too much uninformed opinions or fatalism in this thread.
a. see that this was a colossal overreach by a governing body who believes they are not accountable to ther constituents
b. note the past failures of CoCS in property speculation
no MBA required to see the problem with this endeavor.
Like I said, the title of this post conflates the city's overpriced and ill-informed purpose to the mall's development somehow, and every time retail development gets brought up (not just this thread), it's either the same awful "jokes" cluttering up the thread, blatant misinformation, not understanding size of the tenant vs. size of the space, or, as the post one below yours demonstrates, not knowing the difference between sale and leasing.
The Post Oak Mall owners have never owned the Macy's building, College Station does not own the mall or any other mall parcels, and the mall could change around it even if College Station holds onto the building.
This reminds me of Manor east redevelopment when HEB got built
If the city does not have a need for a property for their own use, they should not be at all involved in the purchase of it. Not the role of government to purchase property and resell it. We have commercial real estate companies that can more the adequately do that.
Yes but will the real estate companies put in gateway worthy businesses or something inferior that actually earns them money? They can't be trusted so the city must act.woodiewood1 said:
If the city does not have a need for a property for their own use, they should not be at all involved in the purchase of it. Not the role of government to purchase property and resell it. We have commercial real estate companies that can more the adequately do that.
Yep. They could make an offer on my house for twice the appraised value and I might considering selling it.duffelpud said:
There are a couple of houses on my street up for sale. I wonder if the wizards of genius at the city would consider purchasing those in order to keep out 'undesirable tenants'?
EliteElectric
Joined:
Mar 3, 2013
Posts:
2,518
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Link to the presentation made to City Council last week: https://wtaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/CScoun082522MacysPrez.pdf
The proposed scenarios call for apartments to built around the mall.
You can also listen to the city council and two public comments on the issue at the link from WTAW. The Grand Station owner was blown off about his interest in the land. I realize that this is already done, but I hope that there are a lot of community members that show up to express their outrage at the next meeting. To purchase a piece of property for more than double what it was sold for earlier in that year is mismanagement of an epic proportion.
https://wtaw.com/college-station-city-council-approves-the-purchase-of-the-former-macys-store-and-adjoining-parking/
The proposed scenarios call for apartments to built around the mall.
You can also listen to the city council and two public comments on the issue at the link from WTAW. The Grand Station owner was blown off about his interest in the land. I realize that this is already done, but I hope that there are a lot of community members that show up to express their outrage at the next meeting. To purchase a piece of property for more than double what it was sold for earlier in that year is mismanagement of an epic proportion.
https://wtaw.com/college-station-city-council-approves-the-purchase-of-the-former-macys-store-and-adjoining-parking/
And if I remember correctly, there were council members that lost their reelection because they voted against this (thereby supporting the property rights of the developer that had been told big box retail was ok for that location). Now we have a non-profit hospital that not only took the property off the tax rolls, but they also lost the opportunity for the developer to pay for the road improvements and Rock Prairie overpass. This was like a $40M loss for the city and counting with all the lost tax revenue.techno-ag said:There does seem to be much hand wringing about "entryway" properties into the city. If you'll recall they prevented a developer from going forward with a new Walmart despite the property being zoned appropriately. They did not want people seeing a new Walmart Supercenter when driving into town.Rlw16 said:
Paying double the value on a mall building in a city with 50k students/young adults that order online rather than going to a mall sounds about right for the city.
Seriously go ask around when the last time students cared about that mall. But sure spend 7mil
Edit: I know it's not all about students but trust me, watch when they try to justify this they will bring up the student spending. Which I bet is very low versus online shopping. People don't go to that mall.
And they lost the resulting lawsuit.
Looks bad
But they saved all those treesBCS-Ag said:And if I remember correctly, there were council members that lost their reelection because they voted against this (thereby supporting the property rights of the developer that had been told big box retail was ok for that location). Now we have a non-profit hospital that not only took the property off the tax rolls, but they also lost the opportunity for the developer to pay for the road improvements and Rock Prairie overpass. This was like a $40M loss for the city and counting with all the lost tax revenue.techno-ag said:There does seem to be much hand wringing about "entryway" properties into the city. If you'll recall they prevented a developer from going forward with a new Walmart despite the property being zoned appropriately. They did not want people seeing a new Walmart Supercenter when driving into town.Rlw16 said:
Paying double the value on a mall building in a city with 50k students/young adults that order online rather than going to a mall sounds about right for the city.
Seriously go ask around when the last time students cared about that mall. But sure spend 7mil
Edit: I know it's not all about students but trust me, watch when they try to justify this they will bring up the student spending. Which I bet is very low versus online shopping. People don't go to that mall.
And they lost the resulting lawsuit.
[Please start another thread about that so we can keep this thread on topic. Thank you. -Staff]
For the chaff and not caring to read ALL in detail, I fail to find in such readings here & on NextDoor.com ...
What the CITY use will be for this space!
Now or future?
IF a good use to benefit all that pay taxes,
then was it cheaper than building New on New land?
I am reading it seems our blessed Police & their needs to serve us get a blind eye in this deal?
What other needs closer to taxpayer hearts are being ignored - if any?
Am I being directed down the wrong path in my readings?
Why do I recall a Travis Golf Course "losing money" since fees were not raised
moving to Briarcrest with tax dollars
then more tax dollars spent to develop some of Travis Course area
but soliciting w/tax incentives? outsiders to develop in that area
perhaps that might earn the City income?
Guess time will tell if that income offsets those tax dollars/incentives?
Does anyone have ALL the insider facts to share?
What the CITY use will be for this space!
Now or future?
IF a good use to benefit all that pay taxes,
then was it cheaper than building New on New land?
I am reading it seems our blessed Police & their needs to serve us get a blind eye in this deal?
What other needs closer to taxpayer hearts are being ignored - if any?
Am I being directed down the wrong path in my readings?
Why do I recall a Travis Golf Course "losing money" since fees were not raised
moving to Briarcrest with tax dollars
then more tax dollars spent to develop some of Travis Course area
but soliciting w/tax incentives? outsiders to develop in that area
perhaps that might earn the City income?
Guess time will tell if that income offsets those tax dollars/incentives?
Does anyone have ALL the insider facts to share?
Ten words or less ... a goal unattainable
Wrong city.tgivaughn said:
For the chaff and not caring to read ALL in detail, I fail to find in such readings here & on NextDoor.com ...
What the CITY use will be for this space!
Now or future?
IF a good use to benefit all that pay taxes,
then was it cheaper than building New on New land?
I am reading it seems our blessed Police & their needs to serve us get a blind eye in this deal?
What other needs closer to taxpayer hearts are being ignored - if any?
Am I being directed down the wrong path in my readings?
Why do I recall a Travis Golf Course "losing money" since fees were not raised
moving to Briarcrest with tax dollars
then more tax dollars spent to develop some of Travis Course area
but soliciting w/tax incentives? outsiders to develop in that area
perhaps that might earn the City income?
Guess time will tell if that income offsets those tax dollars/incentives?
Does anyone have ALL the insider facts to share?
Every local person I have I have voted for in the last 8.5 years has lost. I tend to be very libertarian in my views. When Mooney won on a platform of cutting taxes and building parks I knew we were in for more spending.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
KidDoc said:
Every local person I have I have voted for in the last 8.5 years has lost. I tend to be very libertarian in my views. When Mooney won on a platform of cutting taxes and building parks I knew we were in for more spending.
Ron Swanson is my ideal candidate.
He is never on the ballot.
Given that the population of Northgate is directly proportional to the student population, the city and the college should share equally in the "management" of NG. They don't TAMU PD helps, but they aren't "assigned" to it.
If we're honest though, the CPSD resources dedicated to NG should be recaptured by fees to the business owners...another .25 per drink sold would probably pay for it.
If we're honest though, the CPSD resources dedicated to NG should be recaptured by fees to the business owners...another .25 per drink sold would probably pay for it.
Another fee will solve all the issues
We should definitely make it more difficult and expensive for small business owners to operate. That is the New York and California way.
Captn_Ag05 said:
If they are so concerned about gateway properties, I'd love to see something different other than a U-haul and a gas station at the corners of University and Texas.*
*Please note, if the COCS is reading this, I don't actually want the city getting involved in private property matters.
The U-Haul is so ugly and embarrassing!!!! Right there at the gateway! Where's the city when thing really matter??
What are they supposed to do?Quote:
The U-Haul is so ugly and embarrassing!!!! Right there at the gateway! Where's the city when thing really matter??
Give a realist answer as to what they should do about it. What should they do about a privately owned company that has a business moving people.
In a college town.
In a location that is perfect for that kind of business in a college town.
Tell them to move? Who's going to pay for the land and new construction?
Force them to move? Might be a little legal issue with that.
Buy the location? Uh.........
I am not being sarcastic.
I just always see posts on here saying "do something" or "something should change" with no solution being given.
For the record, I agree with anyone that says it looks bad. But it's not the job of the city to "do something about it".
Stupe said:
For the record, I agree with anyone that says it looks bad. But it's not the job of the city to "do something about it".
Aren't they able to rezone those corners? That's what I'm talking about.
Rezone an area after the fact in order to force a business to relocate...which is expensive.... or shut down?
Is that what you are saying?
A government entity using zoning laws to shut down a business and put people out of work due to aesthetics?
Is that what you are saying?
A government entity using zoning laws to shut down a business and put people out of work due to aesthetics?
I am not sure if the city could rezone and force a business to move after the fact, but it is terrible policy and would probably be very expensive for the city in legal fees. As great as it would be to see something else at that intersection, it will remain a U-HAUL until a private entity/developer wants to pay the price to get that piece of land. I guess the value of that land could continue to go up so much that it wouldn't make sense for U-HAUL from a tax perspective to continue to operate there.
It is sort of similar to the Chipotle, Taco Bell, McDonalds, IHOP near University and College. There have been developers interested in that land and as much as the city may want to see something different there (and would likely not allow such development today with zoning), those fast food locations will be there until someone overpays for that land.
It is sort of similar to the Chipotle, Taco Bell, McDonalds, IHOP near University and College. There have been developers interested in that land and as much as the city may want to see something different there (and would likely not allow such development today with zoning), those fast food locations will be there until someone overpays for that land.
Yeah I recall they wanted to get rid of the Dirty Sock and passed zoning prohibiting sex oriented businesses in most places. But the Sock's location was by necessity grandfathered in. It wasn't until they finally closed down that it went away.Captn_Ag05 said:
I am not sure if the city could rezone and force a business to move after the fact, but it is terrible policy and would probably be very expensive for the city in legal fees. As great as it would be to see something else at that intersection, it will remain a U-HAUL until a private entity/developer wants to pay the price to get that piece of land. I guess the value of that land could continue to go up so much that it wouldn't make sense for U-HAUL from a tax perspective to continue to operate there.
It is sort of similar to the Chipotle, Taco Bell, McDonalds, IHOP near University and College. There have been developers interested in that land and as much as the city may want to see something different there (and would likely not allow such development today with zoning), those fast food locations will be there until someone overpays for that land.