This matter is completely resolved. Just a quick update.

Respectfully,

Yancy

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.

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 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 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.

Why did they settle if the point was to have the court rule if it was legal or not?

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

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

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 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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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.