Well, if you want the city to divest itself of land holdings, I figure selling tracts for a 2,300% capital gain for the taxpayer is a good way to go about it.
I hope you agree.
I hope you agree.
The mall is suing the city of CS
33,240 Views |
194 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by Hornbeck
My statement was Why is the city buying and selling speculative real estate? So if the RE portfolio is 50 million or whatever and you make 2 million on this deal and lose 2 million on the next 2 you are at even money.
My position remains unchanged the city should NOT be in the speculative RE business.
My position remains unchanged the city should NOT be in the speculative RE business.
All of the most exciting innovations originate from the private sector. Our country was built by free market entrepreneurs willing to risk capital. In so doing they create jobs and prosperity for anyone willing to work. Trust me, I'm an advocate for free market private sector enterprise, low taxation and eliminating burdensome regulation.
But given that the city owns these parcels already, isn't it best to divest this land at a fair market value to the private sector, so they can build and innovate and create jobs?
But given that the city owns these parcels already, isn't it best to divest this land at a fair market value to the private sector, so they can build and innovate and create jobs?
Those parcels, yes.
Chimney Hill, Macy's, and whatever else we haven't heard about, no.
The infeasible baseball complex land? Where does that fit?
Chimney Hill, Macy's, and whatever else we haven't heard about, no.
The infeasible baseball complex land? Where does that fit?
Efforting as we speak, General. Please stand by.
Well, the city finally filed an answer!
The city is taking the position that the government can do as they please, they have no obligation to honor contracts and there is nothing anyone can do about it. By refusing to pay their share of common area maintenance they are shifting those costs to the other business owners in the mall making it even less viable as a business location and thereby hastening the demise of the mall. So far they have accomplished
1. Paying millions of dollars above market for a building they dont need
2. Removing that building from the tax roles increasing the burden on the rest of us
3. Removing that building from the mall common area maintenance pool, shifting those costs to the people trying to run a business in the mall - effectively a tax increase for them.
4. Incurred legal fees for defending their right to act with impunity
The City of College Station needs new leadership.
1. Paying millions of dollars above market for a building they dont need
2. Removing that building from the tax roles increasing the burden on the rest of us
3. Removing that building from the mall common area maintenance pool, shifting those costs to the people trying to run a business in the mall - effectively a tax increase for them.
4. Incurred legal fees for defending their right to act with impunity
The City of College Station needs new leadership.
VAXMaster said:
The city is taking the position that the government can do as they please, they have no obligation to honor contracts and there is nothing anyone can do about it. By refusing to pay their share of common area maintenance they are shifting those costs to the other business owners in the mall making it even less viable as a business location and thereby hastening the demise of the mall. So far they have accomplished
1. Paying millions of dollars above market for a building they dont need
2. Removing that building from the tax roles increasing the burden on the rest of us
3. Removing that building from the mall common area maintenance pool, shifting those costs to the people trying to run a business in the mall - effectively a tax increase for them.
4. Incurred legal fees for defending their right to act with impunity
The City of College Station needs new leadership.
The city already has an attorney on staff so there are no additional legal fees.
Respectfully.
Good luck with that public-private partnerships!
[Give context if you are going to post a picture on this forum. -Staff]
Not speaking to this case specifically, but this is generally not factual. In Bryan and College Station, both the cities and the school districts have an attorney on staff who reviews documents for compliance and gives opinion on situations. However the entities rely on outside firms for litigation. They DO NOT use staff attorneys for litigation / trial work. They will work with the trial team on the research side and doc prep etc but make no mistake, when local government entities get involved in lawsuits, there are legal bills the tax payers end up footing.maroon barchetta said:
The city already has an attorney on staff so there are no additional legal fees.
Respectfully.
#2... They are so afraid that a church would snatch up Macy's and take it off the tax role... See what happens if you do not think things through...VAXMaster said:
The city is taking the position that the government can do as they please, they have no obligation to honor contracts and there is nothing anyone can do about it. By refusing to pay their share of common area maintenance they are shifting those costs to the other business owners in the mall making it even less viable as a business location and thereby hastening the demise of the mall. So far they have accomplished
1. Paying millions of dollars above market for a building they dont need
2. Removing that building from the tax roles increasing the burden on the rest of us
3. Removing that building from the mall common area maintenance pool, shifting those costs to the people trying to run a business in the mall - effectively a tax increase for them.
4. Incurred legal fees for defending their right to act with impunity
The City of College Station needs new leadership.
VAXMaster said:
The City of College Station needs new leadership.
The most accurate statement of this entire thread.
Might happen if people bothered to voteSMR said:VAXMaster said:
The City of College Station needs new leadership.
The most accurate statement of this entire thread.
Maybe, but only if there is a candidate on the ballot who isn't part of the clique and doesn't aspire to join.deh40 said:Might happen if people bothered to voteSMR said:VAXMaster said:
The City of College Station needs new leadership.
The most accurate statement of this entire thread.
Was there talk of a church moving in?doubledog said:#2... They are so afraid that a church would snatch up Macy's and take it off the tax role... See what happens if you do not think things through...VAXMaster said:
The city is taking the position that the government can do as they please, they have no obligation to honor contracts and there is nothing anyone can do about it. By refusing to pay their share of common area maintenance they are shifting those costs to the other business owners in the mall making it even less viable as a business location and thereby hastening the demise of the mall. So far they have accomplished
1. Paying millions of dollars above market for a building they dont need
2. Removing that building from the tax roles increasing the burden on the rest of us
3. Removing that building from the mall common area maintenance pool, shifting those costs to the people trying to run a business in the mall - effectively a tax increase for them.
4. Incurred legal fees for defending their right to act with impunity
The City of College Station needs new leadership.
I was told by someone on the council how it would be a tragedy if a storage place was allowed to move in. They had no clue about land parking strategy that most storage places are executing.
VAXMaster said:Maybe, but only if there is a candidate on the ballot who isn't part of the clique and doesn't aspire to join.deh40 said:Might happen if people bothered to voteSMR said:VAXMaster said:
The City of College Station needs new leadership.
The most accurate statement of this entire thread.
It happened many years ago.
The people elected two engineers from the public sector. If my memory serves me right they were Swiki Anderson and Steve Edmond.
The city "Swamp" could not deal with real world solutions and common sense. They were both run out of office and tar and feathered.
Don't forget Dick Birdwell. He is the last good one on the council Ican remember. We need 3-4 like him desperately.
techno-ag said:
Was there talk of a church moving in?
Quote:
Lease of faith: Why churches are going into malls
They are called "Strip Churches" and they are tax exempt.
https://www.retaildive.com/news/lease-of-faith-why-churches-are-going-into-malls/563465/#:~:text=Spaces%20once%20occupied%20by%20retailers,tenants%20to%20fill%20empty%20storefronts.&text=There%20was%20a%20time%20in,compared%20to%20a%20religious%20practice.
still absolutely no reason for the City of CS to buy it and pay WAY more than market, but I guess they live in a world of if a commercial property goes on the market and you might think someone you don't like will buy it ,well then take taxpayer money and just buy it with no plans and in this case the inability to honor the contractual obligations of the purchase and that is why they are being sued
Follow an "off election" (so not many signatures are required) with a ballot amendment for single member districts. That would radically reshape the council, encourage citizens from all around the city to vote and give residents in all areas a voice on council.
Dick Birdwell was a great man.
I looked back and found a direct quote.
"Recommendations from city manager Bryan Woods and Natalie Ruiz to acquire the property to control future development. "
Simply amazing what they do with OUR money,
Concerning the current litigation, I looked back and the seller was
West Valley JMYL LP
San Marcos CA
Southland title here closed the deal.
So the seller obviously had no problem with the maintenance fee that runs with the title to the property as does a lease. CBL is suing the city because the city claims it cannot pay to shared space. Maybe Southland title could shed some light I am sure there is title insurance.
"Recommendations from city manager Bryan Woods and Natalie Ruiz to acquire the property to control future development. "
Simply amazing what they do with OUR money,
Concerning the current litigation, I looked back and the seller was
West Valley JMYL LP
San Marcos CA
Southland title here closed the deal.
So the seller obviously had no problem with the maintenance fee that runs with the title to the property as does a lease. CBL is suing the city because the city claims it cannot pay to shared space. Maybe Southland title could shed some light I am sure there is title insurance.
Quote:
"Recommendations from city manager Bryan Woods and Natalie Ruiz to acquire the property to control future development. "
Isn't the only future development on that defunct mall is to tear it down?
dubi said:Quote:
"Recommendations from city manager Bryan Woods and Natalie Ruiz to acquire the property to control future development. "
Isn't the only future development on that defunct mall is to tear it down?
The city can save it (using other people's money).
OPM is easy to spendmaroon barchetta said:dubi said:
The city can save it (using other people's money).
The mayor on WTAW was asked what are the plans for the Macys and he said
Oh, we are still hoping the university will locate E sports there.
We have to vote these people out. Please
Oh, we are still hoping the university will locate E sports there.
We have to vote these people out. Please
He actually said they were stilll talking to A&M about e-sports, but there was an interest in a fitness center
(YMCA?) and he thought that would a great location.
(YMCA?) and he thought that would a great location.
can anybody tell me why the City of College Station would want to buy a store in the mall? I've never heard of a city buying a store in any mall.
They heard rumors of some type of business they didn't want in there possibly buying it (or maybe it was a church that wanted to buy it).phillytex24 said:
can anybody tell me why the City of College Station would want to buy a store in the mall? I've never heard of a city buying a store in any mall.
From what I understand there's concern about aesthetics for gateways into the city. CoSta wants to maintain a bougie image, especially to visitors.phillytex24 said:
can anybody tell me why the City of College Station would want to buy a store in the mall? I've never heard of a city buying a store in any mall.
techno-ag said:From what I understand there's concern about aesthetics for gateways into the city. CoSta wants to maintain a bougie image, especially to visitors.phillytex24 said:
can anybody tell me why the City of College Station would want to buy a store in the mall? I've never heard of a city buying a store in any mall.
They are currently failing.
Hey, at least they kept Walmart off the bypass. They lost the lawsuit over it, but they kept it off that exit.trouble said:techno-ag said:From what I understand there's concern about aesthetics for gateways into the city. CoSta wants to maintain a bougie image, especially to visitors.phillytex24 said:
can anybody tell me why the City of College Station would want to buy a store in the mall? I've never heard of a city buying a store in any mall.
They are currently failing.
trouble said:techno-ag said:From what I understand there's concern about aesthetics for gateways into the city. CoSta wants to maintain a bougie image, especially to visitors.phillytex24 said:
can anybody tell me why the City of College Station would want to buy a store in the mall? I've never heard of a city buying a store in any mall.
They are currently failing.
Have you seen the Instagram prop!!!