That anything that expensive requires much debate, deep research and it's own (several) agenda item(s) before proceeding- if you proceed at all.

Agreed. Took it the wrong way. Thank you!

Bob Yancy said:

---

Howdy,

I was not a part of the Chimney Hill project, but it is telling to me how long the memory of that failed project lives on. To me, it's ironic that since I was sworn in back in November, we have realized millions in capital gains on land transactions for the taxpayer. We've more than offset losses of the old Chimney Hill, many times over. Yet, we are colored with the same brush years later.

We had our meeting and there's no posted agenda item now so I will comment again. We had several people stand in support of a convention center. Moreover, people that are in this industry and book trade shows for a living tell us it's needed badly. I'm told we have trade shows in town where half the attendees meet at the Expo and half meet at the Tamu hotel conference center. I'm told we have dozens of trade shows that want to come here and can't simply because we don't have the space.

I called the rigging supervisor for Jurassic Live, the national touring dinosaur show, and talked to him for an hour. I scribbled 3 pages of notes filled with cities they go to that are smaller than us, and they are packed with families and happy kids. He told me flatly that their show and none like it will ever come here because we don't have the floor space or ceiling rigging capacity to do it.

I don't have to call anyone to know we don't have major concerts. To see a National act you have to drive to Cynthia woods pavilion and spend your money out of town and leave your dollar in those restaurants and be entertained there, not here.

The ultimate answer to a multi-purpose event center capable of hosting large trade shows and family entertainment may be "no." If it doesn't make financial sense after a deep analysis I will drop it. I'm a fiscal conservative and the last thing I want is to lose taxpayer dollars and frankly, I fight like Hell against waste and inefficiency.

What I will not do, is turn a blind eye to potential massive business generation and entertainment possibilities for College Station citizens, all because City Hall made a bad land deal 15 years ago. Particularly when that $2.1m loss was more than erased by just one land decision I had the pleasure of voting on just weeks ago. The past is the past. We have a future to look to.

Respectfully submitted. Gig 'em.

---

I too appreciate the dialogue.

It is my opinion Government at all levels should be minimal.
If a convention center is in demand as you report why has private money not jumped on it.

I vote the City gets out of the Development business and let investors with skin in the game take those risks.
One small thing that I have a hard time stomaching is how often I see concrete being broken and removed on city projects. Perfect example of poor planning.

Bob Yancy said:

---

That anything that expensive requires much debate, deep research and it's own (several) agenda item(s) before proceeding- if you proceed at all.

---

And if the research cannot show clearly that this is a 100% slam dunk, bonkers money-maker then it shouldn't be approved with the hope of "If we build it, they will come"

As I said before if city-run, city-funded convention centers in other cities our size are really successful then you should be able to get data from them. Any city that funds something that is hugely successful would be more than happy to share that data.

My guess is most of those cities found out they aren't doing as good as they hoped and muddling any numbers that show it not reaping the financial benefits they hoped it would.

We don't need to push a convention center for the sole reason of "we are big enough that we should have one and other cities have them and we can't have a "convention-center gap"

hopeandrealchange said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Howdy,

I was not a part of the Chimney Hill project, but it is telling to me how long the memory of that failed project lives on. To me, it's ironic that since I was sworn in back in November, we have realized millions in capital gains on land transactions for the taxpayer. We've more than offset losses of the old Chimney Hill, many times over. Yet, we are colored with the same brush years later.

We had our meeting and there's no posted agenda item now so I will comment again. We had several people stand in support of a convention center. Moreover, people that are in this industry and book trade shows for a living tell us it's needed badly. I'm told we have trade shows in town where half the attendees meet at the Expo and half meet at the Tamu hotel conference center. I'm told we have dozens of trade shows that want to come here and can't simply because we don't have the space.

I called the rigging supervisor for Jurassic Live, the national touring dinosaur show, and talked to him for an hour. I scribbled 3 pages of notes filled with cities they go to that are smaller than us, and they are packed with families and happy kids. He told me flatly that their show and none like it will ever come here because we don't have the floor space or ceiling rigging capacity to do it.

I don't have to call anyone to know we don't have major concerts. To see a National act you have to drive to Cynthia woods pavilion and spend your money out of town and leave your dollar in those restaurants and be entertained there, not here.

The ultimate answer to a multi-purpose event center capable of hosting large trade shows and family entertainment may be "no." If it doesn't make financial sense after a deep analysis I will drop it. I'm a fiscal conservative and the last thing I want is to lose taxpayer dollars and frankly, I fight like Hell against waste and inefficiency.

What I will not do, is turn a blind eye to potential massive business generation and entertainment possibilities for College Station citizens, all because City Hall made a bad land deal 15 years ago. Particularly when that $2.1m loss was more than erased by just one land decision I had the pleasure of voting on just weeks ago. The past is the past. We have a future to look to.

Respectfully submitted. Gig 'em.

---

I too appreciate the dialogue.

It is my opinion Government at all levels should be minimal.
If a convention center is in demand as you report why has private money not jumped on it.

I vote the City gets out of the Development business and let investors with skin in the game take those risks.
One small thing that I have a hard time stomaching is how often I see concrete being broken and removed on city projects. Perfect example of poor planning.

---

To be fair, private business has addressed the conference center by way of the College Station Hilton. The argument is that hasn't been enough lately.

That little conference center isn't at all what is being discussed here.

maroon barchetta said:

---

That little conference center isn't at all what is being discussed here.

---

Private money is being discussed which is what I was responding to. That is an example of private money in this topic of conversation that has fallen short lately.

91_Aggie said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

That anything that expensive requires much debate, deep research and it's own (several) agenda item(s) before proceeding- if you proceed at all.

---

And if the research cannot show clearly that this is a 100% slam dunk, bonkers money-maker then it shouldn't be approved with the hope of "If we build it, they will come"

As I said before if city-run, city-funded convention centers in other cities our size are really successful then you should be able to get data from them. Any city that funds something that is hugely successful would be more than happy to share that data.

My guess is most of those cities found out they aren't doing as good as they hoped and muddling any numbers that show it not reaping the financial benefits they hoped it would.

We don't need to push a convention center for the sole reason of "we are big enough that we should have one and other cities have them and we can't have a "convention-center gap"

---

I have a question that kind of goes along with this that I am curious what everyone's thoughts were.

When you say it should be a money maker, are you talking about the facility itself making a profit?

For example, if the facility operated at a loss of $1 million each year but was responsible for $2 million in HOT tax would the posters here consider that be a success?

I also hear the argument about sales tax generation from bars and restaurants, gas purchases, shopping, etc. but I think that is all muddled so I don't put much stock in those arguments.

That conference center was included with the construction of the Hilton 40+ years ago. It's not a stand-alone conference center. We are talking about building a stand alone conference or convention center.

Not a hotel with "we also can host some events of a decent size and we have a restaurant". The hotel is the draw and moneymaker at that property.

Is that HOT money then being used to prop up the convention center?

It's not really a profit if so.

I agree 100% with everything you wrote except your guess in your penultimate paragraph. Other than that, I'm with you.

Thanks.

Nice use of penultimate

A beautiful thing the English language. There's like 18 ways to say everything. :-)