The mall is suing the city of CS

45,260 Views | 281 Replies | Last: 3 mo ago by maroon barchetta
Bob Yancy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This matter is completely resolved. Just a quick update.

Respectfully,

Yancy
Hittag1492
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We must Vote every current city leader out. None are either properly qualified or those that are have fallen under the spell that most politicians fall under-lack of true open dialogue and parsing words/lying. We need to start fresh and turn over all of them and see if we can find true fiscal conservatives of higher character that cannot be influenced and/or are strong enough to ALWYAS be up front about what they are doing and why. We do not have that currently-time to change out every one of them. Unfortunate-but true.

Info on this settlement from KBTX:

By Donnie Tuggle and Alex Egan
Published: Aug. 5, 2024 at 8:13 PM CDT|Updated: Aug. 8, 2024 at 11:15 AM CDT
COLLEGE STATION, Texas (KBTX) - The City of College Station and CBL & Associates, the company that owns Post Oak Mall, have reached a resolution in a lawsuit filed last October.

According to documents obtained by KBTX, the case was dismissed on August 1.

The City of College Station agreed to pay $86,991.91 within 10 days of the settlement date, and the city will pay all future monthly charges required by the Construction, Operation, and Reciprocal Easement Agreement (COREA).

The COREA agreement, which dates back to 1980, requires the city to pay CBL for common area maintenance and other charges outlined in the agreement. Documents read in part, "Beginning August 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024, and on the 1st day of each month thereafter" the city will pay $3,451.51 for common area maintenance.
maroon barchetta
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"But it's against the laaaawwww for us to pay that fee!!!" [/short-sighted CoCS that bought Macy's]
woodiewood
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hittag1492 said:

We must Vote every current city leader out. None are either properly qualified or those that are have fallen under the spell that most politicians fall under-lack of true open dialogue and parsing words/lying. We need to start fresh and turn over all of them and see if we can find true fiscal conservatives of higher character that cannot be influenced and/or are strong enough to ALWYAS be up front about what they are doing and why. We do not have that currently-time to change out every one of them. Unfortunate-but true.

Info on this settlement from KBTX:

By Donnie Tuggle and Alex Egan
Published: Aug. 5, 2024 at 8:13 PM CDT|Updated: Aug. 8, 2024 at 11:15 AM CDT
COLLEGE STATION, Texas (KBTX) - The City of College Station and CBL & Associates, the company that owns Post Oak Mall, have reached a resolution in a lawsuit filed last October.

According to documents obtained by KBTX, the case was dismissed on August 1.

The City of College Station agreed to pay $86,991.91 within 10 days of the settlement date, and the city will pay all future monthly charges required by the Construction, Operation, and Reciprocal Easement Agreement (COREA).

The COREA agreement, which dates back to 1980, requires the city to pay CBL for common area maintenance and other charges outlined in the agreement. Documents read in part, "Beginning August 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024, and on the 1st day of each month thereafter" the city will pay $3,451.51 for common area maintenance.
I am suprised, I guess not, that the city attorneys didn't know that the city would be obligated to the maintenance fee that the seller had in-force? I guess the city should have consulted a commercial real estate broker as he/she would have known that any service fees on the property would convey to the buyer.

That should have never been an issue from the getgo.

Hornbeck
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So, again, I'll ask.

Is it lawful for the city to pay this? Is the city acting in an unlawful manner in paying this?
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hornbeck said:

So, again, I'll ask.

Is it lawful for the city to pay this? Is the city acting in an unlawful manner in paying this?

I'm no lawyer but if I had to guess I would say the city thought they did not have to pay it until CBL took them to court and convinced them otherwise.
Hornbeck
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
techno-ag said:

Hornbeck said:

So, again, I'll ask.

Is it lawful for the city to pay this? Is the city acting in an unlawful manner in paying this?

I'm no lawyer but if I had to guess I would say the city thought they did not have to pay it until CBL took them to court and convinced them otherwise.


Well, it would sure be useful if someone would explain all of that instead of leaving us to guess…
maroon barchetta
How long do you want to ignore this user?
techno-ag said:

Hornbeck said:

So, again, I'll ask.

Is it lawful for the city to pay this? Is the city acting in an unlawful manner in paying this?

I'm no lawyer but if I had to guess I would say the city thought they did not have to pay it until CBL took them to court and convinced them otherwise.


CoCS doing things with other people's money without looking into whether it's legal or whether they should do it even if it is legal.

The leadership that made those decisions have quite an entitled attitude.

Red light cameras, anyone?
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
maroon barchetta said:

techno-ag said:

Hornbeck said:

So, again, I'll ask.

Is it lawful for the city to pay this? Is the city acting in an unlawful manner in paying this?

I'm no lawyer but if I had to guess I would say the city thought they did not have to pay it until CBL took them to court and convinced them otherwise.


CoCS doing things with other people's money without looking into whether it's legal or whether they should do it even if it is legal.

The leadership that made those decisions have quite an entitled attitude.

Red light cameras, anyone?

It is possible that the city knew full well that they needed to pay but felt like they also needed a court to tell them they needed to pay. Maybe they thought they'd get sued by somebody anyway if they paid upfront. This way they can say "we gotta do it."

On the other hand it could have been one staffer who said nope that's illegal to pay and they held back until they got sued.

Dunno. Likely won't know the full story since lawyers got involved.

But it does remind you of when they put the kibosh on Walmart moving out to the Rock Prairie exit after green lighting it and agreeing it met the zoning requirements. That settlement was a little more expensive.
BQ_90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Why did they settle if the point was to have the court rule if it was legal or not?
Hornbeck
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So more obfuscation and chicanery from the elected officials.

Real stand up group.
Bob Yancy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
woodiewood said:

Hittag1492 said:

We must Vote every current city leader out. None are either properly qualified or those that are have fallen under the spell that most politicians fall under-lack of true open dialogue and parsing words/lying. We need to start fresh and turn over all of them and see if we can find true fiscal conservatives of higher character that cannot be influenced and/or are strong enough to ALWYAS be up front about what they are doing and why. We do not have that currently-time to change out every one of them. Unfortunate-but true.

Info on this settlement from KBTX:

By Donnie Tuggle and Alex Egan
Published: Aug. 5, 2024 at 8:13 PM CDT|Updated: Aug. 8, 2024 at 11:15 AM CDT
COLLEGE STATION, Texas (KBTX) - The City of College Station and CBL & Associates, the company that owns Post Oak Mall, have reached a resolution in a lawsuit filed last October.

According to documents obtained by KBTX, the case was dismissed on August 1.

The City of College Station agreed to pay $86,991.91 within 10 days of the settlement date, and the city will pay all future monthly charges required by the Construction, Operation, and Reciprocal Easement Agreement (COREA).

The COREA agreement, which dates back to 1980, requires the city to pay CBL for common area maintenance and other charges outlined in the agreement. Documents read in part, "Beginning August 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024, and on the 1st day of each month thereafter" the city will pay $3,451.51 for common area maintenance.
I am suprised, I guess not, that the city attorneys didn't know that the city would be obligated to the maintenance fee that the seller had in-force? I guess the city should have consulted a commercial real estate broker as he/she would have known that any service fees on the property would convey to the buyer.

That should have never been an issue from the getgo.




It was communicated in advance of close. The city wanted the fees specified as maintenance. That's what we classify them as now in order to pay it constitutionally. The matter is concluded. All fees paid in full and monthly going forward.

Respectfully

Yancy
Bob Yancy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hornbeck said:

techno-ag said:

Hornbeck said:

So, again, I'll ask.

Is it lawful for the city to pay this? Is the city acting in an unlawful manner in paying this?

I'm no lawyer but if I had to guess I would say the city thought they did not have to pay it until CBL took them to court and convinced them otherwise.


Well, it would sure be useful if someone would explain all of that instead of leaving us to guess…


It was communicated in advance of close. The city wanted the fees specified as maintenance. That's what we classify them as now in order to pay it constitutionally. The matter is concluded. All fees paid in full and monthly going forward.

Respectfully

Yancy
maroon barchetta
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bob Yancy said:

Hornbeck said:

techno-ag said:

Hornbeck said:

So, again, I'll ask.

Is it lawful for the city to pay this? Is the city acting in an unlawful manner in paying this?

I'm no lawyer but if I had to guess I would say the city thought they did not have to pay it until CBL took them to court and convinced them otherwise.


Well, it would sure be useful if someone would explain all of that instead of leaving us to guess…


It was communicated in advance of close. The city wanted the fees specified as maintenance. That's what we classify them as now in order to pay it constitutionally. The matter is concluded. All fees paid in full and monthly going forward.

Respectfully

Yancy


You keep saying that like you want us to quit talking about it.

We do not work for you. You work for the people. You don't dictate the dialogue.
Bob Yancy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
maroon barchetta said:

Bob Yancy said:

Hornbeck said:

techno-ag said:

Hornbeck said:

So, again, I'll ask.

Is it lawful for the city to pay this? Is the city acting in an unlawful manner in paying this?

I'm no lawyer but if I had to guess I would say the city thought they did not have to pay it until CBL took them to court and convinced them otherwise.


Well, it would sure be useful if someone would explain all of that instead of leaving us to guess…


It was communicated in advance of close. The city wanted the fees specified as maintenance. That's what we classify them as now in order to pay it constitutionally. The matter is concluded. All fees paid in full and monthly going forward.

Respectfully

Yancy


You keep saying that like you want us to quit talking about it.

We do not work for you. You work for the people. You don't dictate the dialogue.


Mr. Hornbeck asked a question and I was simply answering it.

Respectfully,

Yancy
doubledog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bob Yancy said:

woodiewood said:

Hittag1492 said:



By Donnie Tuggle and Alex Egan
Published: Aug. 5, 2024 at 8:13 PM CDT|Updated: Aug. 8, 2024 at 11:15 AM CDT
COLLEGE STATION, Texas (KBTX) - The City of College Station and CBL & Associates, the company that owns Post Oak Mall, have reached a resolution in a lawsuit filed last October.

eement. Documents read in part, "Beginning August 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024, and on the 1st day of each month thereafter" the city will pay $3,451.51 for common area maintenance.





It was communicated in advance of close. The city wanted the fees specified as maintenance. That's what we classify them as now in order to pay it constitutionally. The matter is concluded. All fees paid in full and monthly going forward.

Respectfully

Yancy

Bob, one way to move forward is to admit that the Macey's purchase has become a money pit. It is best the CoCS sells it to say a church..
woodiewood
How long do you want to ignore this user?
techno-ag said:

maroon barchetta said:

techno-ag said:

Hornbeck said:

So, again, I'll ask.

Is it lawful for the city to pay this? Is the city acting in an unlawful manner in paying this?

I'm no lawyer but if I had to guess I would say the city thought they did not have to pay it until CBL took them to court and convinced them otherwise.


CoCS doing things with other people's money without looking into whether it's legal or whether they should do it even if it is legal.

The leadership that made those decisions have quite an entitled attitude.

Red light cameras, anyone?

It is possible that the city knew full well that they needed to pay but felt like they also needed a court to tell them they needed to pay. Maybe they thought they'd get sued by somebody anyway if they paid upfront. This way they can say "we gotta do it."

On the other hand it could have been one staffer who said nope that's illegal to pay and they held back until they got sued.

Dunno. Likely won't know the full story since lawyers got involved.

But it does remind you of when they put the kibosh on Walmart moving out to the Rock Prairie exit after green lighting it and agreeing it met the zoning requirements. That settlement was a little more expensive.
I got a kick out of the resident of Woodcreek appearing at the Walmart council hearing stating that we don't want "Those kind of people in our area."

woodiewood
How long do you want to ignore this user?
doubledog said:

Bob Yancy said:

woodiewood said:

Hittag1492 said:



By Donnie Tuggle and Alex Egan
Published: Aug. 5, 2024 at 8:13 PM CDT|Updated: Aug. 8, 2024 at 11:15 AM CDT
COLLEGE STATION, Texas (KBTX) - The City of College Station and CBL & Associates, the company that owns Post Oak Mall, have reached a resolution in a lawsuit filed last October.

eement. Documents read in part, "Beginning August 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024, and on the 1st day of each month thereafter" the city will pay $3,451.51 for common area maintenance.





It was communicated in advance of close. The city wanted the fees specified as maintenance. That's what we classify them as now in order to pay it constitutionally. The matter is concluded. All fees paid in full and monthly going forward.

Respectfully

Yancy

Bob, one way to move forward is to admit that the Macey's purchase has become a money pit. It is best the CoCS sells it to say a church..

Bob, The best thing for the city to do is quit buying private property with no intent on using it for current or future use. I know you weren't on the council when the Macys was purchased.

It is interesting that maintenance of non-owned property can be labeled as maintenance of owned property.

By the time the dust settles, the city is going to lose millions on the Macys building the same way it lost millions on the Chimney Hill shopping center where the city paid 9.6 million for it and after maintaining it for four years, sold it for 7 million.

I would be curious what the monthly utiity cost is for the Macys building.
Craig Regan 14
How long do you want to ignore this user?
woodiewood said:

doubledog said:

Bob Yancy said:

woodiewood said:

Hittag1492 said:



By Donnie Tuggle and Alex Egan
Published: Aug. 5, 2024 at 8:13 PM CDT|Updated: Aug. 8, 2024 at 11:15 AM CDT
COLLEGE STATION, Texas (KBTX) - The City of College Station and CBL & Associates, the company that owns Post Oak Mall, have reached a resolution in a lawsuit filed last October.

eement. Documents read in part, "Beginning August 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024, and on the 1st day of each month thereafter" the city will pay $3,451.51 for common area maintenance.





It was communicated in advance of close. The city wanted the fees specified as maintenance. That's what we classify them as now in order to pay it constitutionally. The matter is concluded. All fees paid in full and monthly going forward.

Respectfully

Yancy

Bob, one way to move forward is to admit that the Macey's purchase has become a money pit. It is best the CoCS sells it to say a church..

Bob, The best thing for the city to do is quit buying private property with no intent on using it for current or future use. I know you weren't on the council when the Macys was purchased.

It is interesting that maintenance of non-owned property can be labeled as maintenance of owned property.

By the time the dust settles, the city is going to lose millions on the Macys building the same way it lost millions on the Chimney Hill shopping center where the city paid 9.6 million for it and after maintaining it for four years, sold it for 7 million.

I would be curious what the monthly utiity cost is for the Macys building.

Allow me to make this clear off the jump: Bob inherited Macy's. Just like Any future council/person will.

The question is two fold - with a small 3rd option

1.) Now that we (COCS) own it. How do we get the highest and best use out of it at the lowest cost.

At this point to rip up and retrofit and bring up to code/eventual use will take several million dollars. The roof is in a poor state along with the interior walls (mold etc). So the cost is not $7m. It will likely by closer to $11m when all is said and done. I am leaving out annual M&O because the numbers are simply too vague at this point. I could say hundreds of thousands but that would not be factually based because the final use has yet to be determined.

2.) Is there an opportunity for a public private partnership?

Go and ask the average family here in College Station and over and over the request is - we need more things for families to do. To me this jumps off the page for the city to partner with a local family/entertainment group or single company and lease the space to them. They would staff it and operate it while the city handles maintenance. Like most private lease agreements.

Can we offer any number of the 100's of non-profit organizations in town to help with staffing even? Maybe a profit share opportunity for food, drinks ... heck even ice cream??

The point being to maximize the benefit to the entire city as much as possible. Being as it is now a public space, should we not make this as much of a utility to the public as possible?

~~~~

3.)??

Sell the entire building to a third party that we know what they will put there and the new owner has a "lease to own" option. Meaning they pay a month prearranged amount over the course of years to get someone in there and back on the tax rolls.


Whichever way COCS goes, it must be a smart, well crafted agreement that provides the highest possible benefit to all residents and taxpayer.

I might be stating the obvious with all the above but I think it important to put something in writing down (on a larger scale than this forum) and allow citizens to have a free and open dialogue about their property. Surveys are great, polls are fine but sometimes council needs to let go of reins and let the people decide or at the very least have a well informed public discussion with all the facts ready to hand.

There is buy in now from all parties and we can move forward, together.

Bob Yancy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
woodiewood said:

doubledog said:

Bob Yancy said:

woodiewood said:

Hittag1492 said:



By Donnie Tuggle and Alex Egan
Published: Aug. 5, 2024 at 8:13 PM CDT|Updated: Aug. 8, 2024 at 11:15 AM CDT
COLLEGE STATION, Texas (KBTX) - The City of College Station and CBL & Associates, the company that owns Post Oak Mall, have reached a resolution in a lawsuit filed last October.

eement. Documents read in part, "Beginning August 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024, and on the 1st day of each month thereafter" the city will pay $3,451.51 for common area maintenance.





It was communicated in advance of close. The city wanted the fees specified as maintenance. That's what we classify them as now in order to pay it constitutionally. The matter is concluded. All fees paid in full and monthly going forward.

Respectfully

Yancy

Bob, one way to move forward is to admit that the Macey's purchase has become a money pit. It is best the CoCS sells it to say a church..

Bob, The best thing for the city to do is quit buying private property with no intent on using it for current or future use. I know you weren't on the council when the Macys was purchased.

It is interesting that maintenance of non-owned property can be labeled as maintenance of owned property.

By the time the dust settles, the city is going to lose millions on the Macys building the same way it lost millions on the Chimney Hill shopping center where the city paid 9.6 million for it and after maintaining it for four years, sold it for 7 million.

I would be curious what the monthly utiity cost is for the Macys building.



Not if I can help it. But I hear you loud and clear! The monthly maintenance varies around $3500 per month to partially answer your question. As a commercial property owner myself, I know firsthand there's expense beyond that. Utilities, parking lot, warped ceiling tiles if you don't keep it cool enough, et al. Must keep p traps in floor drains, sinks and toilets filled with water or roaches will come up through the wastewater system. Pest control. Roof maintenance. The list goes on.

I have confidence in staff we'll turn a sow's ear to a silk purse and I hope one day to eat my words in my opposition to it. It was council's ultimate decision not theirs. So now it's this council's duty to make it work.

I remain hopeful but wish it had been redeveloped already by the private sector.

Finally- I had told y'all the legal matter would be concluded soon and it is. I just wanted to update on that as I said I would. If I'm circumspect on my update it's by design. Legal settlements can be tenuous so I don't want to dive into it but basically both parties are satisfied and the matter is concluded.

Respectfully yours,

Yancy
maroon barchetta
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bob Yancy said:

maroon barchetta said:

Bob Yancy said:

Hornbeck said:

techno-ag said:

Hornbeck said:

So, again, I'll ask.

Is it lawful for the city to pay this? Is the city acting in an unlawful manner in paying this?

I'm no lawyer but if I had to guess I would say the city thought they did not have to pay it until CBL took them to court and convinced them otherwise.


Well, it would sure be useful if someone would explain all of that instead of leaving us to guess…


It was communicated in advance of close. The city wanted the fees specified as maintenance. That's what we classify them as now in order to pay it constitutionally. The matter is concluded. All fees paid in full and monthly going forward.

Respectfully

Yancy


You keep saying that like you want us to quit talking about it.

We do not work for you. You work for the people. You don't dictate the dialogue.


Mr. Hornbeck asked a question and I was simply answering it.

Respectfully,

Yancy


You have added the bit about the matter being concluded in three consecutive posts. Try being transparent here.
doubledog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

have confidence in staff we'll turn a sow's ear to a silk purse and I hope one day to eat my words in my opposition to it.

Bob, are these the same staff that recommended buying Macys in the first place? I understand that it was not their decision, but did they have any input in the purchase?
Bob Yancy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
doubledog said:

Quote:

have confidence in staff we'll turn a sow's ear to a silk purse and I hope one day to eat my words in my opposition to it.

Bob, are these the same staff that recommended buying Macys in the first place? I understand that it was not their decision, but did they have any input in the purchase?


I wasn't there then, so I'm not privy to those discussions. But when there's a unanimous decision by council, council owns it.

I can't go into details, but lots of interested parties want a shot at doing something at that location. I hope y'all see fit to give us a chance to get it right.

The wife's gonna kill me if I don't sign off for our weekend. Catch y'all later.

Respectfully yours,

Yancy
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
woodiewood
How long do you want to ignore this user?
doubledog said:

Quote:

have confidence in staff we'll turn a sow's ear to a silk purse and I hope one day to eat my words in my opposition to it.

Bob, are these the same staff that recommended buying Macys in the first place? I understand that it was not their decision, but did they have any input in the purchase?
The two major staff members who recommended the purchase should be prohibited from making any comment on the future purchase of private property as they don't know their role in their job. Their job is not to recommend the purchase of the building to control future development of the property as they have no idea of the future potential use nor market value of the property.

Advice should be solicited from third party consultants and real estate brokers and only about private property that the city needs for their own use should be considered for purchase.

The city should not be in the real estate business to buy and sell or lease public property.
Craig Regan 14
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think the most constructive way to handle this is:

council needs to set down a list of criteria that needs to met and published to citizens.

Such as adding to o&m costs
Does the money used interfere with a more necessary project plan
Has all possible other solutions; 3rd party partnerships - non profit options been explored
Anything over $1m go to a public vote with options for citizens to chose from.

Transparency goes a long way to better efficiency and trust between government & citizens

Rather than hinder councils decision making ability, I believe it actually makes it easier.

Just me though
PS3D
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A lot of people are crying over the fact that the city shouldn't be involved in private property ownership, and I get that. But here's what I haven't heard yet.

1. What were the original plans for the building that the City swooped in to buy it first?
2. What plans does the City have that are better than what was proposed?
3. If the City intends to keep the building, then there should be concrete plans that should be shared with the taxpayer. What are those?

For #3 there was talk of some e-sports facility for Texas A&M, but I never saw renderings nor discussions how it could be utilized as a mall anchor. (I would like to have any re-use of the building to be able to walk through the building from the mall to the outside and vice versa; for some reason a lot of these redevelopment plans of old mall anchor buildings are allergic to the concept).

The real fundamental problem is that the whole mall needs help. CBL Management has been poor at taking care of it. They have run out local businesses, has failed at even attracting tenants who are tired of Century Square's issues, and has failed at attracting a good merchandise mix to bring crowds back.

I want to see retail at Post Oak Mall again, and if the City only had the Macy's building and nothing else, then they need to put something special in there. If it involves the university somehow, maybe a retail business incubator. To students and others in the program it's a live learning lab, to the general public, it would be a rotating selection of new businesses and boutiques.

It wouldn't be a flea market or an off-brand version of Painted Tree, it could be something one-of-a-kind.

That's just one idea; there's lots of good ideas how it can be reused, complement the mall, and provide a steady tax stream for the city.
woodiewood
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Craig Regan 14 said:

woodiewood said:

doubledog said:

Bob Yancy said:

woodiewood said:

Hittag1492 said:



By Donnie Tuggle and Alex Egan
Published: Aug. 5, 2024 at 8:13 PM CDT|Updated: Aug. 8, 2024 at 11:15 AM CDT
COLLEGE STATION, Texas (KBTX) - The City of College Station and CBL & Associates, the company that owns Post Oak Mall, have reached a resolution in a lawsuit filed last October.

eement. Documents read in part, "Beginning August 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024, and on the 1st day of each month thereafter" the city will pay $3,451.51 for common area maintenance.





It was communicated in advance of close. The city wanted the fees specified as maintenance. That's what we classify them as now in order to pay it constitutionally. The matter is concluded. All fees paid in full and monthly going forward.

Respectfully

Yancy

Bob, one way to move forward is to admit that the Macey's purchase has become a money pit. It is best the CoCS sells it to say a church..

Bob, The best thing for the city to do is quit buying private property with no intent on using it for current or future use. I know you weren't on the council when the Macys was purchased.

It is interesting that maintenance of non-owned property can be labeled as maintenance of owned property.

By the time the dust settles, the city is going to lose millions on the Macys building the same way it lost millions on the Chimney Hill shopping center where the city paid 9.6 million for it and after maintaining it for four years, sold it for 7 million.

I would be curious what the monthly utiity cost is for the Macys building.

Allow me to make this clear off the jump: Bob inherited Macy's. Just like Any future council/person will.

The question is two fold - with a small 3rd option

1.) Now that we (COCS) own it. How do we get the highest and best use out of it at the lowest cost.

At this point to rip up and retrofit and bring up to code/eventual use will take several million dollars. The roof is in a poor state along with the interior walls (mold etc). So the cost is not $7m. It will likely by closer to $11m when all is said and done. I am leaving out annual M&O because the numbers are simply too vague at this point. I could say hundreds of thousands but that would not be factually based because the final use has yet to be determined.

2.) Is there an opportunity for a public private partnership?

Go and ask the average family here in College Station and over and over the request is - we need more things for families to do. To me this jumps off the page for the city to partner with a local family/entertainment group or single company and lease the space to them. They would staff it and operate it while the city handles maintenance. Like most private lease agreements.

Can we offer any number of the 100's of non-profit organizations in town to help with staffing even? Maybe a profit share opportunity for food, drinks ... heck even ice cream??

The point being to maximize the benefit to the entire city as much as possible. Being as it is now a public space, should we not make this as much of a utility to the public as possible?

~~~~

3.)??

Sell the entire building to a third party that we know what they will put there and the new owner has a "lease to own" option. Meaning they pay a month prearranged amount over the course of years to get someone in there and back on the tax rolls.


Whichever way COCS goes, it must be a smart, well crafted agreement that provides the highest possible benefit to all residents and taxpayer.

I might be stating the obvious with all the above but I think it important to put something in writing down (on a larger scale than this forum) and allow citizens to have a free and open dialogue about their property. Surveys are great, polls are fine but sometimes council needs to let go of reins and let the people decide or at the very least have a well informed public discussion with all the facts ready to hand.

There is buy in now from all parties and we can move forward, together.


I thought it was relatively clear when I stated, "I know you weren't on the council when the Macys was purchased.''''

As far as selling it, There is little demand for a 103,000 square foot two-story structure that is attached to a retail mall where you have to assist in the maintenance of the mall. Maybe a business development or architecture class at A&M could take on a project to see what it would take and the cost to convert it to a family life center and YMCA?
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PS3D said:

A lot of people are crying over the fact that the city shouldn't be involved in private property ownership, and I get that. But here's what I haven't heard yet.

1. What were the original plans for the building that the City swooped in to buy it first?
2. What plans does the City have that are better than what was proposed?
3. If the City intends to keep the building, then there should be concrete plans that should be shared with the taxpayer. What are those?

For #3 there was talk of some e-sports facility for Texas A&M, but I never saw renderings nor discussions how it could be utilized as a mall anchor. (I would like to have any re-use of the building to be able to walk through the building from the mall to the outside and vice versa; for some reason a lot of these redevelopment plans of old mall anchor buildings are allergic to the concept).

The real fundamental problem is that the whole mall needs help. CBL Management has been poor at taking care of it. They have run out local businesses, has failed at even attracting tenants who are tired of Century Square's issues, and has failed at attracting a good merchandise mix to bring crowds back.

I want to see retail at Post Oak Mall again, and if the City only had the Macy's building and nothing else, then they need to put something special in there. If it involves the university somehow, maybe a retail business incubator. To students and others in the program it's a live learning lab, to the general public, it would be a rotating selection of new businesses and boutiques.

It wouldn't be a flea market or an off-brand version of Painted Tree, it could be something one-of-a-kind.

That's just one idea; there's lots of good ideas how it can be reused, complement the mall, and provide a steady tax stream for the city.

Don't know if it was published in the news but IIRC someone on here said they thought it was to be an indoor climate controlled storage facility.
PS3D
How long do you want to ignore this user?
techno-ag said:

PS3D said:

A lot of people are crying over the fact that the city shouldn't be involved in private property ownership, and I get that. But here's what I haven't heard yet.

1. What were the original plans for the building that the City swooped in to buy it first?
2. What plans does the City have that are better than what was proposed?
3. If the City intends to keep the building, then there should be concrete plans that should be shared with the taxpayer. What are those?

For #3 there was talk of some e-sports facility for Texas A&M, but I never saw renderings nor discussions how it could be utilized as a mall anchor. (I would like to have any re-use of the building to be able to walk through the building from the mall to the outside and vice versa; for some reason a lot of these redevelopment plans of old mall anchor buildings are allergic to the concept).

The real fundamental problem is that the whole mall needs help. CBL Management has been poor at taking care of it. They have run out local businesses, has failed at even attracting tenants who are tired of Century Square's issues, and has failed at attracting a good merchandise mix to bring crowds back.

I want to see retail at Post Oak Mall again, and if the City only had the Macy's building and nothing else, then they need to put something special in there. If it involves the university somehow, maybe a retail business incubator. To students and others in the program it's a live learning lab, to the general public, it would be a rotating selection of new businesses and boutiques.

It wouldn't be a flea market or an off-brand version of Painted Tree, it could be something one-of-a-kind.

That's just one idea; there's lots of good ideas how it can be reused, complement the mall, and provide a steady tax stream for the city.

Don't know if it was published in the news but IIRC someone on here said they thought it was to be an indoor climate controlled storage facility.


I can't remember but I thought I saw a post somewhere that way back when, there was some sort of contract signed by CBL Properties and the City that all of Post Oak Mall had to be retail, so you couldn't convert huge swathes of it to government offices or call centers like other malls would be (considering this was the early 1980s and the idea of a regional mall outright closing was still practically unheard of).

If that were indeed the case (and thus far, I've seen nothing that suggests the contrary), then the conversion of Macy's into such a facility would be in violation of that and buying up the building would not be necessary.

If the City had bought the Macy's to avoid lengthy litigation that risked destroying the mall permanently, then I think that they deserve some benefit of the doubt.
Craig Regan 14
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I meant that statement in the broadest sense possible. Forgive me if you thought I was directing it you.

(if it is one think I do not like - it is what is lost from NOT having a verbal conversation. So much gets lost)

Also, I think there is a still a chance to bring in a 3rd party(s). It is ours now, for good or ill. So if we are gonna bring in a rec center/ymca why should also cast out as far and deep into our community as possible to participate.

I know of tons of non-profits that can and would love to be apart of it. Many small ripples might do as much or more as a single wave.

harrierdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We could hire the former franchise owner of Krispy Kreme to manage the place. I understand he specializes in managing financially failing businesses.
Hornbeck
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
harrierdoc said:

We could hire the former franchise owner of Krispy Kreme to manage the place. I understand he specializes in managing financially failing businesses.


I think he's a guest in the Iron Bar Inn out off Sandy Point Road. The real question I have is, who going to pay for that cleanup?
taxpreparer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PS3D said:

techno-ag said:

PS3D said:

A lot of people are crying over the fact that the city shouldn't be involved in private property ownership, and I get that. But here's what I haven't heard yet.

1. What were the original plans for the building that the City swooped in to buy it first?
2. What plans does the City have that are better than what was proposed?
3. If the City intends to keep the building, then there should be concrete plans that should be shared with the taxpayer. What are those?

For #3 there was talk of some e-sports facility for Texas A&M, but I never saw renderings nor discussions how it could be utilized as a mall anchor. (I would like to have any re-use of the building to be able to walk through the building from the mall to the outside and vice versa; for some reason a lot of these redevelopment plans of old mall anchor buildings are allergic to the concept).

The real fundamental problem is that the whole mall needs help. CBL Management has been poor at taking care of it. They have run out local businesses, has failed at even attracting tenants who are tired of Century Square's issues, and has failed at attracting a good merchandise mix to bring crowds back.

I want to see retail at Post Oak Mall again, and if the City only had the Macy's building and nothing else, then they need to put something special in there. If it involves the university somehow, maybe a retail business incubator. To students and others in the program it's a live learning lab, to the general public, it would be a rotating selection of new businesses and boutiques.

It wouldn't be a flea market or an off-brand version of Painted Tree, it could be something one-of-a-kind.

That's just one idea; there's lots of good ideas how it can be reused, complement the mall, and provide a steady tax stream for the city.

Don't know if it was published in the news but IIRC someone on here said they thought it was to be an indoor climate controlled storage facility.


I can't remember but I thought I saw a post somewhere that way back when, there was some sort of contract signed by CBL Properties and the City that all of Post Oak Mall had to be retail, so you couldn't convert huge swathes of it to government offices or call centers like other malls would be (considering this was the early 1980s and the idea of a regional mall outright closing was still practically unheard of).

If that were indeed the case (and thus far, I've seen nothing that suggests the contrary), then the conversion of Macy's into such a facility would be in violation of that and buying up the building would not be necessary.

If the City had bought the Macy's to avoid lengthy litigation that risked destroying the mall permanently, then I think that they deserve some benefit of the doubt.


There are two military recruiting centers in the mall, so not 100% retail.
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
taxpreparer said:

PS3D said:

techno-ag said:

PS3D said:

A lot of people are crying over the fact that the city shouldn't be involved in private property ownership, and I get that. But here's what I haven't heard yet.

1. What were the original plans for the building that the City swooped in to buy it first?
2. What plans does the City have that are better than what was proposed?
3. If the City intends to keep the building, then there should be concrete plans that should be shared with the taxpayer. What are those?

For #3 there was talk of some e-sports facility for Texas A&M, but I never saw renderings nor discussions how it could be utilized as a mall anchor. (I would like to have any re-use of the building to be able to walk through the building from the mall to the outside and vice versa; for some reason a lot of these redevelopment plans of old mall anchor buildings are allergic to the concept).

The real fundamental problem is that the whole mall needs help. CBL Management has been poor at taking care of it. They have run out local businesses, has failed at even attracting tenants who are tired of Century Square's issues, and has failed at attracting a good merchandise mix to bring crowds back.

I want to see retail at Post Oak Mall again, and if the City only had the Macy's building and nothing else, then they need to put something special in there. If it involves the university somehow, maybe a retail business incubator. To students and others in the program it's a live learning lab, to the general public, it would be a rotating selection of new businesses and boutiques.

It wouldn't be a flea market or an off-brand version of Painted Tree, it could be something one-of-a-kind.

That's just one idea; there's lots of good ideas how it can be reused, complement the mall, and provide a steady tax stream for the city.

Don't know if it was published in the news but IIRC someone on here said they thought it was to be an indoor climate controlled storage facility.


I can't remember but I thought I saw a post somewhere that way back when, there was some sort of contract signed by CBL Properties and the City that all of Post Oak Mall had to be retail, so you couldn't convert huge swathes of it to government offices or call centers like other malls would be (considering this was the early 1980s and the idea of a regional mall outright closing was still practically unheard of).

If that were indeed the case (and thus far, I've seen nothing that suggests the contrary), then the conversion of Macy's into such a facility would be in violation of that and buying up the building would not be necessary.

If the City had bought the Macy's to avoid lengthy litigation that risked destroying the mall permanently, then I think that they deserve some benefit of the doubt.


There are two military recruiting centers in the mall, so not 100% retail.

Seems like there was a martial arts place too.
PS3D
How long do you want to ignore this user?
taxpreparer said:

PS3D said:

techno-ag said:

PS3D said:

A lot of people are crying over the fact that the city shouldn't be involved in private property ownership, and I get that. But here's what I haven't heard yet.

1. What were the original plans for the building that the City swooped in to buy it first?
2. What plans does the City have that are better than what was proposed?
3. If the City intends to keep the building, then there should be concrete plans that should be shared with the taxpayer. What are those?

For #3 there was talk of some e-sports facility for Texas A&M, but I never saw renderings nor discussions how it could be utilized as a mall anchor. (I would like to have any re-use of the building to be able to walk through the building from the mall to the outside and vice versa; for some reason a lot of these redevelopment plans of old mall anchor buildings are allergic to the concept).

The real fundamental problem is that the whole mall needs help. CBL Management has been poor at taking care of it. They have run out local businesses, has failed at even attracting tenants who are tired of Century Square's issues, and has failed at attracting a good merchandise mix to bring crowds back.

I want to see retail at Post Oak Mall again, and if the City only had the Macy's building and nothing else, then they need to put something special in there. If it involves the university somehow, maybe a retail business incubator. To students and others in the program it's a live learning lab, to the general public, it would be a rotating selection of new businesses and boutiques.

It wouldn't be a flea market or an off-brand version of Painted Tree, it could be something one-of-a-kind.

That's just one idea; there's lots of good ideas how it can be reused, complement the mall, and provide a steady tax stream for the city.

Don't know if it was published in the news but IIRC someone on here said they thought it was to be an indoor climate controlled storage facility.


I can't remember but I thought I saw a post somewhere that way back when, there was some sort of contract signed by CBL Properties and the City that all of Post Oak Mall had to be retail, so you couldn't convert huge swathes of it to government offices or call centers like other malls would be (considering this was the early 1980s and the idea of a regional mall outright closing was still practically unheard of).

If that were indeed the case (and thus far, I've seen nothing that suggests the contrary), then the conversion of Macy's into such a facility would be in violation of that and buying up the building would not be necessary.

If the City had bought the Macy's to avoid lengthy litigation that risked destroying the mall permanently, then I think that they deserve some benefit of the doubt.


There are two military recruiting centers in the mall, so not 100% retail.
Well, there used to be survey place, a daycare, and a bank, so there were definitely some things that weren't strictly retail, and I imagine such a contract would have allowed uses and disallowed uses. A storage facility would not be an allowed use. Either way, if a storage facility was slated for the space then the city deserves some benefit of the doubt.

Now handing it over to some e-sports facility that probably in full likelihood would not have both mall and exterior access? Not so great.

People on this board need to say what they mean. I bet the Venn diagram that shows people who are seething the hardest about the city buying the Macy's building and people who think that the mall can't be saved is a perfect circle.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.