I'm fairly sure the matter will be resolved soon. To answer your question, accountability for city staff rests with city management. Accountability for city management rests with the council. Accountability for council rests with you, the voters- the ultimate bosses.

As for disposition of Macy's, I believe we probably need to replat the parking lot and create a couple of restaurant sites and get them sold rapidly so we can recuperate taxpayer losses from capital outlay and property taxes and get sales taxes and job creation going. As for the Macy's building- I don't know yet. It's a conundrum.

Bob Yancy said:

---

I'm fairly sure the matter will be resolved soon. To answer your question, accountability for city staff rests with city management. Accountability for city management rests with the council. Accountability for council rests with you, the voters- the ultimate bosses.

As for disposition of Macy's, I believe we probably need to replat the parking lot and create a couple of restaurant sites and get them sold rapidly so we can recuperate taxpayer losses from capital outlay and property taxes and get sales taxes and job creation going. As for the Macy's building- I don't know yet. It's a conundrum.

---

Thanks for your replies, Mr. Yancy. Yes, CRE is a highly speculative arena. Because of that, the Macy's should have never been purchased by a municipality using taxpayer funds. It's not the city's job to speculate on commercial real estate and make sellers rich flipping functionally obsolete buildings for twice what was paid months earlier. The city essentially paid $24 a foot for a parking lot. A couple restaurant pads are going to have to sell for FAR more than that before any of this ever starts to balance out. I believe it was the city manager's position that the purchase needed to occur to have control over future uses. That argument is utter BS and an insult to everyone's intelligence. When should any city jump in to the ring and compete with the private sector? There are a number of groups I know of that preliminarily looked at the Macy's property. I can assure you they would not have come close to paying what the city did for it. Someone needs to be held accountable for this waste and mismanagement of taxpayer funds. It's getting beyond ridiculous. It's infuriating.

You get what you vote.

Reminds me of those cities where people complain about the 5th time offender breaking into the car.

Pads outside a mall aren't going to sell.

The mall has lost anchor stores. It's slowly dying.

Come on, man.

Bryan / College Station as well. The DWI guy on his 7th(?) offense

RafterAg223 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

I'm fairly sure the matter will be resolved soon. To answer your question, accountability for city staff rests with city management. Accountability for city management rests with the council. Accountability for council rests with you, the voters- the ultimate bosses.

As for disposition of Macy's, I believe we probably need to replat the parking lot and create a couple of restaurant sites and get them sold rapidly so we can recuperate taxpayer losses from capital outlay and property taxes and get sales taxes and job creation going. As for the Macy's building- I don't know yet. It's a conundrum.

---

Thanks for your replies, Mr. Yancy. Yes, CRE is a highly speculative arena. Because of that, the Macy's should have never been purchased by a municipality using taxpayer funds. It's not the city's job to speculate on commercial real estate and make sellers rich flipping functionally obsolete buildings for twice what was paid months earlier. The city essentially paid $24 a foot for a parking lot. A couple restaurant pads are going to have to sell for FAR more than that before any of this ever starts to balance out. I believe it was the city manager's position that the purchase needed to occur to have control over future uses. That argument is utter BS and an insult to everyone's intelligence. When should any city jump in to the ring and compete with the private sector? There are a number of groups I know of that preliminarily looked at the Macy's property. I can assure you they would not have come close to paying what the city did for it. Someone needs to be held accountable for this waste and mismanagement of taxpayer funds. It's getting beyond ridiculous. It's infuriating.

---

IIRC, the fear was an "undesirable" business could take it over thus marring the aesthetics to one the town's gateways.

A similar argument was used to renege on the developer's agreement that would have moved Walmart out to the bypass. The council thought that would ruin aesthetics to a gateway then too. That lawsuit set taxpayers back $1 million if I remember right.

Aesthetics sure are expensive in CS.

techno-ag said:

---

That lawsuit set taxpayers back $1 million if I remember right.

Aesthetics sure are expensive in CS.

---

Looks like around $1.6 million settlement after $2 million in legal fees. Yeesh

https://wtaw.com/proposed-settlement-in-property-lawsuit-against-cs/

Damn how many "gateways" can one city have? If the manager is worried about the aesthetics of the mall, he must've not ever driven down the rest of Harvey.

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 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.

---

Anyone running for a public office should have owned or managed a business for at least 10 years. People that have never had to work hard running a business and had to pay employees should manage taxpayers money.

[We have made it clear that we are not going to allow derogatory terminology to be used on the Aggieland forum. You have already had a post removed for using that term and this time you are getting a ban. -Staff]

Russell Bradleys Toupee said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

I'm fairly sure the matter will be resolved soon. To answer your question, accountability for city staff rests with city management. Accountability for city management rests with the council. Accountability for council rests with you, the voters- the ultimate bosses.

As for disposition of Macy's, I believe we probably need to replat the parking lot and create a couple of restaurant sites and get them sold rapidly so we can recuperate taxpayer losses from capital outlay and property taxes and get sales taxes and job creation going. As for the Macy's building- I don't know yet. It's a conundrum.

---

Wow.

---

Yeah, wow is right. "Well, we sure screwed that one up. Let's hope it works itself out somehow. Shucks"

RafterAg223 said:

---

. When should any city jump in to the ring and compete with the private sector? There are a number of groups I know of that preliminarily looked at the Macy's property. I can assure you they would not have come close to paying what the city did for it. Someone needs to be held accountable for this waste and mismanagement of taxpayer funds. It's getting beyond ridiculous. It's infuriating.

---

Reminds me of the CoCS pursuit of club soccer and travel baseball fields instead of letting developers and private organizations put them in at very little cost to the taxpayer but with significant HOT and property tax revenue. I'm thinking of facilities like Perfect Game or Baseball USA.

Bob Yancy said:

---

I'm fairly sure the matter will be resolved soon. To answer your question, accountability for city staff rests with city management. Accountability for city management rests with the council. Accountability for council rests with you, the voters- the ultimate bosses.

As for disposition of Macy's, I believe we probably need to replat the parking lot and create a couple of restaurant sites and get them sold rapidly so we can recuperate taxpayer losses from capital outlay and property taxes and get sales taxes and job creation going. As for the Macy's building- I don't know yet. It's a conundrum.

---

I wish the city council would make a statement that no property purchases shall be done except to meet current needs or reasonable projections for city needs in the future.

Cities should not be purchasing property to prevent other entities from purchasing it or purchasing property in order to sell it or lease it. Cities should no be in the real estate sales or leasing business. We have very professional group of commercial brokers that can handle the sales and leasing of private property.

If I missed it I apologize but what was the city's official, on the record reason for buying that part of the mall?

Respectfully, I'm not sure what it is you're looking for by way of response. I didn't have a chance to weigh in on Macys. I had no vote. We owned it when I was elected. I stated I disagreed with the purchase back then during the campaign, on the record.

The disposition of the asset is the issue before us now. I'm fairly certain the legal matter will be resolved soon and I can't speak to it, except to say I don't understand it nor see a reason why it happened.

I'll find out I assure you.

Respectfully

Bob Yancy said:

---

I'm fairly certain the legal matter will be resolved soon and I can't speak to it, except to say I don't understand it nor see a reason why it happened.

---

Unfortunately it is starting to look like it takes the prospect of a lawsuit for the City to start taking responsibility.

maroon barchetta said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Respectfully, I'm not sure what it is you're looking for by way of response. I didn't have a chance to weigh in on Macys. I had no vote. We owned it when I was elected. I stated I disagreed with the purchase back then during the campaign, on the record.

The disposition of the asset is the issue before us now. I'm fairly certain the legal matter will be resolved soon and I can't speak to it, except to say I don't understand it nor see a reason why it happened.

I'll find out I assure you.

Respectfully

---

Maybe you could suggest trying to find a buyer for it before this turns into a full-on Chimney Hill depreciation.

---

There is no way that any private entity would pay $7 million for that macys building... the city is going to take a bath on that purchase... and it will be spun as a positive by the council with some convoluted reasoning

Bob Yancy said:

---

Respectfully, I'm not sure what it is you're looking for by way of response. I didn't have a chance to weigh in on Macys. I had no vote. We owned it when I was elected. I stated I disagreed with the purchase back then during the campaign, on the record.

The disposition of the asset is the issue before us now. I'm fairly certain the legal matter will be resolved soon and I can't speak to it, except to say I don't understand it nor see a reason why it happened.

I'll find out I assure you.

Respectfully

---

Thank you Bob!!

Anyone who voted to purchase Macys should be ejected from office next election. It was a boondoggle then. It's worse now.

Wow 7 million for the purchase, 1.6 million in settlements, 2 million legal fees. 10.6 million down the drain. Wonder what that could have been used for…

Sounds like the real estate agents and attorneys are getting paid at the expense of the taxpayers.

Did some realtor make a fat paycheck off this deal? Wonder if that info is public.

EBrazosAg said:

---

Anyone who voted to purchase Macys should be ejected from office next election. It was a boondoggle then. It's worse now.

---

Maloney, Harvell and Cunha were there and are up for reelection in 2024. The current mayor was on city council then.

https://www.cstx.gov/departments___city_hall/council

I don't buy the whole "gateway aesthetics" take.

It's literally in the middle of town by at least a mile in any direction. What "undesirable" business were they looking to avoid? It's not like someone is going to turn it into a giant "dirty sock" type establishment, not at that price tag.

All seem to concur the purchase was wrong on many fronts.

It is incomprehensible the city has not fulfilled its proper obligations to pay fees and maintain appropriately

Not only does it incur additional costs in legal fees it further diminishes the property's value and creates a community eyesore.

Shockingly incompetent, once again.
Seemingly zero accountability for those responsible.

If you pay attention to meetings, the council is strongly influenced on major decisions by the recommendations from the city manager and key staff. This is fairly logical as it is these people's job every day while the council usually has another job (council is an unpaid, volunteer position). That means there is a common denominator across several councils and mayors, and I almost never hear any call for any accountability for this person which I just don't understand.

These are your huckle bearers: https://www.cstx.gov/departments___city_hall/CMO

It's ALMOST like once the real estate commission check cleared, the city/staff just sort forgot about the building.

Like as if that commission was the whole point.

Weird.

aggiefan2002 said:

---

If you pay attention to meetings, the council is strongly influenced on major decisions by the recommendations from the city manager and key staff. This is fairly logical as it is these people's job every day while the council usually has another job (council is an unpaid, volunteer position). That means there is a common denominator across several councils and mayors, and I almost never hear any call for any accountability for this person which I just don't understand.

---

Yup.


Staff is about as acquainted with the realities of business as Danny Devito can win a slam dunk contest. Draconian regulations and economic missteps aside, reminds me of Yosemite Sam shooting himself in the foot. Also, if you've been around long enough, you'll take notice that the different regimes of staff and council do not "pass the torch" very well. They don't communicate prior obligations and commitments they've made.

woodiewood1 said:

---

UninformedInternetBlogger said:

---

Wow 7 million for the purchase, 1.6 million in settlements, 2 million legal fees. 10.6 million down the drain. Wonder what that could have been used for…

Sounds like the real estate agents and attorneys are getting paid at the expense of the taxpayers.

Did some realtor make a fat paycheck off this deal? Wonder if that info is public.

---

File a public information request for the sales contract and you can see exactly how it went down.

---

I am sure the commercial real estate company did make a load of money on a seller's side commission as it's fiduciary responsibility was to get the best price for the property for their private seller. The city just overpaid by double

The seller probably threw a huge party after this transaction closed and quickly searched their properties to see what else they have for sale that the naive city officials can purchase.

Maybe moronic actions by our city council will generate more people to vote in local elections?

Maybe CBL will put a lien on the property for non-payment of fees, and then take it from CoCS. Then the lost money tab will be $14 million. What a time to be alive!