trouble said:

---

Just for frame of reference, how old do you think Bob is?

---

Late 40s probably. Maybe early 50s.

Bob Yancy said:

---

He's a visionary leader with the rare ability to deliver on the vision, and we ALL benefit immensely from it. Can't ever lose sight of that.

I would be ignoring facts though if I, as one member of council, didn't admit our beloved Alma mater's home HQ definitely could benefit from some attention on multiple fronts.

Respectfully

---

We get it, Bob. You're a Sharp fan. You trust. I have been in meetings with the guy, and am definitely on the side of "not a fan". No wonder the citizens got taken to town with a bad deal. The University is going to act in their best interests, and this is a perfect example of it. They get $1m+ a year, we get "not much" by your own admission. If that's not textbook bad deal, I don't know what is.

Either way, I would hope that if we're paying over a million a year for Kyle Field, that *someone* in the entire CoCS would be able to articulate that we don't feel we are getting the value out of this contract that the city is holding up their side of the bargain on. That they would sit down with the power that be(tm) at TAMU (visionary leader that he is) and let him know that respectfully, we're getting ripped off. I deal with Fortune 100 companies regularly. This is called revisiting an agreement. You go to the other party, and directly state what you feel they are not doing as a good faith partner, and try to work out steps to move towards it.

As a taxpayer and as a voter, that's what I expect from City Council, and city leaders. It appears that I'm sadly incorrect.

RafterAg223 said:

---

HWY6_RunsBothWays said:

---

---

The fact that Maloney is on council again after his contribution to the Weingarten and Chimney Hill disasters is really a travesty.

---

I really think it's due to lack of competent challengers.

He's older than that but I thought he was much older before I looked him up.

Agreed and more!

Wow.

He's a real piece of work

trouble said:

---

He's a real piece of work

---

Big time, and so was that condescending know it all socialist buddy of his, John Crompton. Crompton is widely disliked by students in the RPTS department on campus. That's never the mark of a good educator. No surprise at all that he was also a terrible councilman with absolutely zero practical knowledge on how things work in the real world.

The 2 of them were major factors in us never wanting to live in CS.

And others like them keep getting elected.

trouble said:

---

The 2 of them were major factors in us never wanting to live in CS.

And others like them keep getting elected.

---

They keep getting elected because people under 65 don't vote.

HWY6_RunsBothWays said:

---

Agreed and more!

---

Wow. The ads just write themselves, don't they? Did he run unopposed?

Tibbers said:

---

HWY6_RunsBothWays said:

---

Agreed and more!

---

Wow. The ads just write themselves, don't they? Did he run unopposed?

---

He had opponents. The 65+ crowd voted for Maloney.

I disagree with that. They just don't vote as a cohesive unit.

The blue hair Munson Ave PAC is firmly in control.

trouble said:

---

I disagree with that. They just don't vote as a cohesive unit.

---

Pull the data. In "down ballot elections" people under 65 don't vote in numbers enough to make a difference.

I'll read it if you pull it. I'm not invested in it enough to go looking it up.

HWY6_RunsBothWays said:

---

trouble said:

---

I disagree with that. They just don't vote as a cohesive unit.

---

Pull the data. In "down ballot elections" people under 65 don't vote in numbers enough to make a difference.

---

Ok, so, rally the troops, use twitter and youtube, get the youngsters out to vote by appealing to their interests and you win. Part of the reason they don't vote is because they are not drawn to do so. Ignite the reasons why and they will do so.

What's crazy is that it's just a couple thousand old codgers that run the whole show. The working folks of CS can't be bothered to vote.

Hornbeck said:

---

What's crazy is that it's just a couple thousand old codgers that run the whole show. The working folks of CS can't be bothered to vote.

---

Yep! Even with early voting the "working folks" don't vote.
I take my wife and mother with me on a Saturday for early voting…otherwise they wouldn't vote. And they vote their conscience, not my pre-printed ballot.

Guys, can we please keep it about policy and not personality? If not, this fledgling experiment in social media as the public square will be over for me, and I'd hate that because I appreciate the feedback.

Maybe it's asking too much, but if we could debate policy on the merits, civilly, and exchange ideas, that would be great.

I think it's important to remember folks put themselves out there and run for these offices, for zero pay, because they love our city and want the best for it, whether you agree with them or not.

Y'all might not care, and that's fine, but if the threads I'm on can't keep it civil and not personal I'll have to sign off permanently and delete the app.

Respectfully requested and consideration appreciated.

I give you props for coming on here. Over many years, I have seen the city say they "welcome input", and then do exactly what staff tells them to do. Some examples of this:

Wellborn Annexation
Chimney Hill
Weingarten / Walmart (a case where they valued a certain group of folks opinion too much)

Current ones that are problematic:
Sewer line on Rosemary
Fire / EMS

I know there's a lot of pride / history around CS vs. B, but imagine what combining the cities could do. You would have a lot of synergy, and find a lot of cost savings for the benefit of all the citizenry. One Police Chief, one Fire Chief, one Public Works Dept., etc. In corporate America, we do this quite often, to the benefit of our shareholders.

Agreed Bob.

That said, when you rejected my assertion that BCS lacks in attractions for drawing conferences here by saying "we/TAMU *are* the attraction" and went off into how Aggie alumn is prevalent enough in the Fortune 5000 and always looking to come back to cruise the ol' stompin grounds, as "the attraction", you show that the vision of the Council is just plain inbred. Building "I heart Aggieland" signs to stand in exemplifies this nearsightedness.

1 in 10,000 in corporate gives a crap about choosing a conference site because that's where they went to college at 20 years ago. There aren't as many Uncle Rico's in the decision making of where to host conferences as you think there are.

Yes, it's great to love TAMU but if you want anything but academia and SEC draws, you are going to need to set your feet out in the market beyond Aggieland and realize the global or web national corporate world doesn't bleed maroon.

College Station is geographically positioned to be a great place for commerce but as long as you keep pointing to TAMU as the main draw, you won't ever break free of a place worthy of the big building you are so wanting to build.

Think big man. Airports. Zoos. Aquariums. Amusements. Museums (sorry Mr Bush). Excursions. Encourage the creation of stuff that is awesome. Not more brown buildings with alum names and the year they graduated.

Hornbeck said:

---

I give you props for coming on here. Over many years, I have seen the city say they "welcome input", and then do exactly what staff tells them to do. Some examples of this:

Wellborn Annexation
Chimney Hill
Weingarten / Walmart (a case where they valued a certain group of folks opinion too much)

Current ones that are problematic:
Sewer line on Rosemary
Fire / EMS

I know there's a lot of pride / history around CS vs. B, but imagine what combining the cities could do. You would have a lot of synergy, and find a lot of cost savings for the benefit of all the citizenry. One Police Chief, one Fire Chief, one Public Works Dept., etc. In corporate America, we do this quite often, to the benefit of our shareholders.

---

I think you've got a good pulse on potential progress. Really appreciate your insight.

mhnatt said:

---

Agreed Bob.

That said, when you rejected my assertion that BCS lacks in attractions for drawing conferences here by saying "we/TAMU *are* the attraction" and went off into how Aggie alumn is prevalent enough in the Fortune 5000 and always looking to come back to cruise the ol' stompin grounds, as "the attraction", you show that the vision of the Council is just plain inbred. Building "I heart Aggieland" signs to stand in exemplifies this nearsightedness.

1 in 10,000 in corporate gives a crap about choosing a conference site because that's where they went to college at 20 years ago. There aren't as many Uncle Rico's in the decision making of where to host conferences as you think there are.

Yes, it's great to love TAMU but if you want anything but academia and SEC draws, you are going to need to set your feet out in the market beyond Aggieland and realize the global or web national corporate world doesn't bleed maroon.

College Station is geographically positioned to be a great place for commerce but as long as you keep pointing to TAMU as the main draw, you won't ever break free of a place worthy of the big building you are so wanting to build.

Think big man. Airports. Zoos. Aquariums. Amusements. Museums (sorry Mr Bush). Excursions. Encourage the creation of stuff that is awesome. Not more brown buildings with alum names and the year they graduated.

---

This precisely the way to grow College Station and make it more of a destination. Bring quality to the city, bring art, bring entertainment, bring amusements, bring museums, bring zoos, etc. That's how you grow a city. That's how you grow a community and that's how you capture bigger and better opportunities. The taxpayers can get behind progress like that. Instead of folks having to go to Houston, Austin, Dallas and San Antonio for their fill of culture, bring that to the city. Bring a concert venue to the city, bring tourism to the city. Again, don't put the cart before the horse. This town can surprise you with what it can support.

Look, tibbers mentioned younger people on the council. I wanted to make sure they didn't think you were like 70. Clearly they mean people younger than you or I. I didn't post your age.

Bob - I think we've articulated the counterargument to the idea of the convention center very well. You can feel free to jump out of the conversation armed with a good understanding of some local viewpoints on the convention center.

I do think this convention center is not worth considering in light of many of the attractions, developments, and ideas listed here.

A central theme I feel like you can take away is:

Serve the citizens of the city first, through entertainment and development, before you try to shoehorn in a solution to a problem that you're envisioning.

As an aside, my wife spent the summer with my elementary aged kids and every Friday was their exploration day. She took them out of town nearly every Friday this summer to visit places like Huntsville State Park, Cameron Park in Waco, Blue Bell, and many other 1-2 hour drives. When tasked with finding things to do here, she found nothing more than parks and attractions in Bryan.

Start with making this a great place for families and businesses to grow. See what happens after investing there.

Hornbeck said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Contract. Some facilities access has been granted, but very little. Challenges are tactical and strategic. Tactically, Tamu only wants to give bookings around 6 months out, where virtually all significant trade shows or concerts want 1 to 3 years. In other words, most events already are booked and already know where they are going in 2025.

Strategically, Tamu has challenges within their own organization allowing other internal departments to use their own facilities. Their facilities are highly "purpose built." Reed Arena for basketball, volleyball, graduations, etc. Anything much beyond that and issues arise. So it begs the question, if they have those issues internally, how was it ever going to work outside the organization?

To be fair, reportedly they are working on it. But to answer your question, no it's not resolved and no, redress hasn't been aggressively pursued, arguably until now.

---

But, since we made a previous bad deal that is costing north of a million dollars a year, into TAMU's pockets, with little return, we need another multimillion dollar facility to try and recoup some of that money that we previously wasted? Am I following that?

I know, I know, "I wasn't on council then"…

Here's a crazy idea. Tell Mr. Sharp he's not getting his $1m+ a year until you *can* book things further out. Don't budge. I'm betting things magically get easier to book.

ETA; if they still wanna play hardball, at the very least, you'll have millions of dollars to spend on a new facility at that point. Without doing bonds and raising taxes.

---

The hot money can only go to areas that promote tourism so sending money to Texas A&M fulfills that part of state law. Otherwise the city would be sitting on more than they already are.

whoop1995 said:

---

Hornbeck said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Contract. Some facilities access has been granted, but very little. Challenges are tactical and strategic. Tactically, Tamu only wants to give bookings around 6 months out, where virtually all significant trade shows or concerts want 1 to 3 years. In other words, most events already are booked and already know where they are going in 2025.

Strategically, Tamu has challenges within their own organization allowing other internal departments to use their own facilities. Their facilities are highly "purpose built." Reed Arena for basketball, volleyball, graduations, etc. Anything much beyond that and issues arise. So it begs the question, if they have those issues internally, how was it ever going to work outside the organization?

To be fair, reportedly they are working on it. But to answer your question, no it's not resolved and no, redress hasn't been aggressively pursued, arguably until now.

---

But, since we made a previous bad deal that is costing north of a million dollars a year, into TAMU's pockets, with little return, we need another multimillion dollar facility to try and recoup some of that money that we previously wasted? Am I following that?

I know, I know, "I wasn't on council then"…

Here's a crazy idea. Tell Mr. Sharp he's not getting his $1m+ a year until you *can* book things further out. Don't budge. I'm betting things magically get easier to book.

ETA; if they still wanna play hardball, at the very least, you'll have millions of dollars to spend on a new facility at that point. Without doing bonds and raising taxes.

---

The hot money can only go to areas that promote tourism so sending money to Texas A&M fulfills that part of state law. Otherwise the city would be sitting on more than they already are.

---

There are tons of avenues that promote tourism beyond Texas A&M. Texas A&M already fulfills that end, throwing money at it is like throwing water at the ocean. It also does little to develop more opportunities outside of A&M to promote tourism. If you are just looking to fulfill state law as your requirement, you are doing the bare minimum. We can do better. The citizens deserve better.

So, recouping that money that's sent to A&M with little to no benefit is something you support wholeheartedly?

Mr. Yancy would like to build a convention center / concert venue to promote tourism. I think that $20m+ over the next 10-15 years would greatly enhance that effort. I'd feel a whole lot better about that effort if he had that money to spend. Fulfills both, does it not?

As a taxpayer in CS, I would not like for us to continue to throw this money away. That helps no one but the University and season ticket holders, of which I am not one.

Tibbers said:

---

whoop1995 said:

---

Hornbeck said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Contract. Some facilities access has been granted, but very little. Challenges are tactical and strategic. Tactically, Tamu only wants to give bookings around 6 months out, where virtually all significant trade shows or concerts want 1 to 3 years. In other words, most events already are booked and already know where they are going in 2025.

Strategically, Tamu has challenges within their own organization allowing other internal departments to use their own facilities. Their facilities are highly "purpose built." Reed Arena for basketball, volleyball, graduations, etc. Anything much beyond that and issues arise. So it begs the question, if they have those issues internally, how was it ever going to work outside the organization?

To be fair, reportedly they are working on it. But to answer your question, no it's not resolved and no, redress hasn't been aggressively pursued, arguably until now.

---

But, since we made a previous bad deal that is costing north of a million dollars a year, into TAMU's pockets, with little return, we need another multimillion dollar facility to try and recoup some of that money that we previously wasted? Am I following that?

I know, I know, "I wasn't on council then"…

Here's a crazy idea. Tell Mr. Sharp he's not getting his $1m+ a year until you *can* book things further out. Don't budge. I'm betting things magically get easier to book.

ETA; if they still wanna play hardball, at the very least, you'll have millions of dollars to spend on a new facility at that point. Without doing bonds and raising taxes.

---

The hot money can only go to areas that promote tourism so sending money to Texas A&M fulfills that part of state law. Otherwise the city would be sitting on more than they already are.

---

There are tons of avenues that promote tourism beyond Texas A&M. Texas A&M already fulfills that end, throwing money at it is like throwing water at the ocean. It also does little to develop more opportunities outside of A&M to promote tourism. If you are just looking to fulfill state law as your requirement, you are doing the bare minimum. We can do better. The citizens deserve better.

---

The city and private businesses make a crapload off of the students and Texas A&M each year. All of this hot money is basically derived from hotel stays that is derived from stays in town (not to mention sales tax) - I am guessing but put the number on over half of stays derive from the college ( meaning people staying associated to the college in some manner). In the time the college is off the business grinds to a damn near halt and some businesses even shut down during spring break, some summer etc, due to lack of employees and business.

This is a college town things happen when college is in session and yes I agree with you that this is the last thing in Texas A&M's mind. Sorry to say on the other hand but I do not think the town will flock to the cities version of rudder tower in the summer time to fill an event and that was somewhat proven by even Bob's example of Athens, Georgia where no shows were booked for the summer. There are acts that could fill rudder a lot more than rudder is and this is why the city needs to keep pushing to book acts using the facilities of Texas A&M. It is a win win for the taxpayer of college station.


I have been saying this the entire time - the city needs to work with the university - this is the best possible outcome. There has to be someway and you just can't quit after a couple of tries. (Not saying this occurred).

Edit - I just checked rudder tower and they have things booked all the way until June of next year so I really do not know where the 6month rule came from eluded to in other posts. Are there holes in the schedule, yes, so there could be things booked in my opinion.

Bob Yancy said:

---

Guys, can we please keep it about policy and not personality? If not, this fledgling experiment in social media as the public square will be over for me, and I'd hate that because I appreciate the feedback.

Maybe it's asking too much, but if we could debate policy on the merits, civilly, and exchange ideas, that would be great.

I think it's important to remember folks put themselves out there and run for these offices, for zero pay, because they love our city and want the best for it, whether you agree with them or not.

Y'all might not care, and that's fine, but if the threads I'm on can't keep it civil and not personal I'll have to sign off permanently and delete the app.

Respectfully requested and consideration appreciated.

---

That's all good and well, but certain people on council recently have run for nothing more than whatever power they think they wield as a College Station councilperson and to serve a very small vocal minority far more than the city at large. They have also comported themselves on numerous occasions in a very arrogant and condescending manner from their perch on the dais. It may seem that pointing truths out about certain members is over the top and personal, but they chose to run for office and they likewise chose to make decisions over the course of multiple terms that were not at all in the best interest of the city at large.

whoop1995 said:

---

Tibbers said:

---

whoop1995 said:

---

Hornbeck said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Contract. Some facilities access has been granted, but very little. Challenges are tactical and strategic. Tactically, Tamu only wants to give bookings around 6 months out, where virtually all significant trade shows or concerts want 1 to 3 years. In other words, most events already are booked and already know where they are going in 2025.

Strategically, Tamu has challenges within their own organization allowing other internal departments to use their own facilities. Their facilities are highly "purpose built." Reed Arena for basketball, volleyball, graduations, etc. Anything much beyond that and issues arise. So it begs the question, if they have those issues internally, how was it ever going to work outside the organization?

To be fair, reportedly they are working on it. But to answer your question, no it's not resolved and no, redress hasn't been aggressively pursued, arguably until now.

---

But, since we made a previous bad deal that is costing north of a million dollars a year, into TAMU's pockets, with little return, we need another multimillion dollar facility to try and recoup some of that money that we previously wasted? Am I following that?

I know, I know, "I wasn't on council then"…

Here's a crazy idea. Tell Mr. Sharp he's not getting his $1m+ a year until you *can* book things further out. Don't budge. I'm betting things magically get easier to book.

ETA; if they still wanna play hardball, at the very least, you'll have millions of dollars to spend on a new facility at that point. Without doing bonds and raising taxes.

---

The hot money can only go to areas that promote tourism so sending money to Texas A&M fulfills that part of state law. Otherwise the city would be sitting on more than they already are.

---

There are tons of avenues that promote tourism beyond Texas A&M. Texas A&M already fulfills that end, throwing money at it is like throwing water at the ocean. It also does little to develop more opportunities outside of A&M to promote tourism. If you are just looking to fulfill state law as your requirement, you are doing the bare minimum. We can do better. The citizens deserve better.

---

The city and private businesses make a crapload off of the students and Texas A&M each year. All of this hot money is basically derived from hotel stays that is derived from stays in town (not to mention sales tax) - I am guessing but put the number on over half of stays derive from the college ( meaning people staying associated to the college in some manner). In the time the college is off the business grinds to a damn near halt and some businesses even shut down during spring break, some summer etc, due to lack of employees and business.

This is a college town things happen when college is in session and yes I agree with you that this is the last thing in Texas A&M's mind. Sorry to say on the other hand but I do not think the town will flock to the cities version of rudder tower in the summer time to fill an event and that was somewhat proven by even Bob's example of Athens, Georgia where no shows were booked for the summer. There are acts that could fill rudder a lot more than rudder is and this is why the city needs to keep pushing to book acts using the facilities of Texas A&M. It is a win win for the taxpayer of college station.


I have been saying this the entire time - the city needs to work with the university - this is the best possible outcome. There has to be someway and you just can't quit after a couple of tries. (Not saying this occurred).

Edit - I just checked rudder tower and they have things booked all the way until June of next year so I really do not know where the 6month rule came from eluded to in other posts. Are there holes in the schedule, yes, so there could be things booked in my opinion.

---

A&M rep has entered the chat. That might have been true in 1995, but this city has grown and you are only looking at a very narrow focus. Plenty of other options that can command that money that wouldn't directly compete with existing options and offer better amenities for the citizen of college Station. It sounds like the university is not working with the city not the other way around.

Hornbeck said:

---

So, recouping that money that's sent to A&M with little to no benefit is something you support wholeheartedly?

Mr. Yancy would like to build a convention center / concert venue to promote tourism. I think that $20m+ over the next 10-15 years would greatly enhance that effort. I'd feel a whole lot better about that effort if he had that money to spend. Fulfills both, does it not?

As a taxpayer in CS, I would not like for us to continue to throw this money away. That helps no one but the University and season ticket holders, of which I am not one.

---

Do you go to the events on campus that are entertainment for everyone and not just students? If not why not? You would only feel comfortable going to "your own" venue that is basically built with people staying here to see college events? In other words hot money.

The money is not thrown away as it brings in more revenue for college station through more hotel stays. What would be throwing money away is building a building to have the city total manage it and book the same shows that rudder could or does book. Sure this building might have the ability to have huge conventions. Again issues for and against have been discussed and nothing of that is guaranteed,

The ballparks I kinda get where that is going as there is a huge market for it in the competitive leagues but won't be used year round non stop no matter how many tournaments are scheduled.

If you haven't read the other threads I suggest you do as several people much wiser than I named out reasons why big concerts don't come here and can't come here. Why big trade shows do not come here with their families. Etc. all I am saying is the city needs to work with the university as the university has all of the items to make it successful. Yes it will be a weird road politicians working with academics. No business people involved.

In my opinion don't build something new until the items you are using are maxed out.
The university is not maxed out. The best thing for the taxpayer is for the city to work with the university.

Tibbers said:

---

whoop1995 said:

---

Tibbers said:

---

whoop1995 said:

---

Hornbeck said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Contract. Some facilities access has been granted, but very little. Challenges are tactical and strategic. Tactically, Tamu only wants to give bookings around 6 months out, where virtually all significant trade shows or concerts want 1 to 3 years. In other words, most events already are booked and already know where they are going in 2025.

Strategically, Tamu has challenges within their own organization allowing other internal departments to use their own facilities. Their facilities are highly "purpose built." Reed Arena for basketball, volleyball, graduations, etc. Anything much beyond that and issues arise. So it begs the question, if they have those issues internally, how was it ever going to work outside the organization?

To be fair, reportedly they are working on it. But to answer your question, no it's not resolved and no, redress hasn't been aggressively pursued, arguably until now.

---

But, since we made a previous bad deal that is costing north of a million dollars a year, into TAMU's pockets, with little return, we need another multimillion dollar facility to try and recoup some of that money that we previously wasted? Am I following that?

I know, I know, "I wasn't on council then"…

Here's a crazy idea. Tell Mr. Sharp he's not getting his $1m+ a year until you *can* book things further out. Don't budge. I'm betting things magically get easier to book.

ETA; if they still wanna play hardball, at the very least, you'll have millions of dollars to spend on a new facility at that point. Without doing bonds and raising taxes.

---

The hot money can only go to areas that promote tourism so sending money to Texas A&M fulfills that part of state law. Otherwise the city would be sitting on more than they already are.

---

There are tons of avenues that promote tourism beyond Texas A&M. Texas A&M already fulfills that end, throwing money at it is like throwing water at the ocean. It also does little to develop more opportunities outside of A&M to promote tourism. If you are just looking to fulfill state law as your requirement, you are doing the bare minimum. We can do better. The citizens deserve better.

---

The city and private businesses make a crapload off of the students and Texas A&M each year. All of this hot money is basically derived from hotel stays that is derived from stays in town (not to mention sales tax) - I am guessing but put the number on over half of stays derive from the college ( meaning people staying associated to the college in some manner). In the time the college is off the business grinds to a damn near halt and some businesses even shut down during spring break, some summer etc, due to lack of employees and business.

This is a college town things happen when college is in session and yes I agree with you that this is the last thing in Texas A&M's mind. Sorry to say on the other hand but I do not think the town will flock to the cities version of rudder tower in the summer time to fill an event and that was somewhat proven by even Bob's example of Athens, Georgia where no shows were booked for the summer. There are acts that could fill rudder a lot more than rudder is and this is why the city needs to keep pushing to book acts using the facilities of Texas A&M. It is a win win for the taxpayer of college station.


I have been saying this the entire time - the city needs to work with the university - this is the best possible outcome. There has to be someway and you just can't quit after a couple of tries. (Not saying this occurred).

Edit - I just checked rudder tower and they have things booked all the way until June of next year so I really do not know where the 6month rule came from eluded to in other posts. Are there holes in the schedule, yes, so there could be things booked in my opinion.

---

A&M rep has entered the chat. That might have been true in 1995, but this city has grown and you are only looking at a very narrow focus. Plenty of other options that can command that money that wouldn't directly compete with existing options and offer better amenities for the citizen of college Station. It sounds like the university is not working with the city not the other way around.

---

Not an A&M rep but I will play nice - what other opportunities are you talking about? I get that the university is not working with the city but the city can't give up and just say that. This is why they need to push more.