Brian Alg said:

---

Page one of the contract. No brokers listed for either side. Same at 6.3 on page 14.

https://wtaw.com/college-station-city-council-approves-the-purchase-of-the-former-macys-store-and-adjoining-parking/

https://wtaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/CScoun082522MacysPurchaseContract.pdf

---

Interesting

Getting a realtor paid at least made sense to me. So what even was the point of this deal? Was it really just to block grand station or whoever it was?

When you think about it, it might be a pretty good business model as a company to identify small to medium size cities that are governed by officials that either have an inferiority complex toward other towns or who have narcissistic tendencies regarding the appearance of their city and its lack of amenities, then find a high-profile property, purchase it, and make lots of noise about "less than desirable" organizations or businesses wanting to acquire it, then profit by selling it to said city. Especially if said city has a history of doing similar boneheaded things.

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

I know ZERO about how all that works, but doesn't the city/planning/zoning have a say on what goes in where?

---

I think they do as I had a Aggie friend who wanted to put a tire recycling operation down Wellborn road about four miles and the city of CS objected to it being built in the extra-territorial jurisdiction. They made it a nightmare, so he told them fy and went elsewhere. The operation just ground tires into small pellets to be used in highways and other uses. No air or water pollution. No smell.

The ability for a city to control developments outside a city that doesn't affect property and the quality of life inside the city should be illegal.

techno-ag said:

---

The city is doubling down on bad decisions. They're saying they're willing to pay on their property but not the whole mall, so they need a separate agreement. Mall owner sued rather than draw up a special agreement just for the city.

CS statement:

Quote:

---

Before and after purchasing the former Macy's site at Post Oak Mall, the City has offered to negotiate a separate agreement with CBL for its share of costs and expenses. CBL has refused to negotiate a separate agreement and has not provided a cost breakdown for maintenance on the City-owned property. The City has been prepared to pay its share of maintenance and operation costs related only to the city-owned property. The City is legally barred from paying into private corporations like CBL, the Post Oak Mall owner. The fees associated with operating a mall are used for maintaining the privately owned mall, and the City cannot use public funds for that purpose.

---

Thus the stalemate. I guess a judge will decide. The city's lawyers seem pretty confident though.

https://wtaw.com/owner-of-post-oak-mall-sues-the-city-of-college-station/

---

FIFY

They refused before the purchase as well and the city just assumed they could change CBL's mind.

trouble said:

---

They refused before the purchase as well and the city just assumed they could change CBL's mind.

---

This. CBL as a *private* business is under no obligation to cater to the city's demands.

Hornbeck said:

---

trouble said:

---

They refused before the purchase as well and the city just assumed they could change CBL's mind.

---

This. CBL as a *private* business is under no obligation to cater to the city's demands.

---

Yup. It does seem odd they proceeded with the purchase knowing they could not legally pay the monthly maintenance fees.

Hornbeck said:

---

trouble said:

---

They refused before the purchase as well and the city just assumed they could change CBL's mind.

---

This. CBL as a *private* business is under no obligation to cater to the city's demands.

---

I know several people who have complained to the city about the Amazon Drones. They've been told there's nothing they can do as Amazon operating as a private business. Didn't city approve them operating here?

If Dillards and JCP and Conns and etc etc all have to pay into the general maintenance fund then the last wing of the mall shouldn't be exempt just because it's owned by a City prone to bad decisions. This seems like common sense.

"Legally" not being able to pay that fee should've been a sign that maybe this was a bad decision.

Anyone on the council who voted for that deal should be voted out. Anyone on the management staff who recommended it should be fired. It's a really easy algorithm.

EBrazosAg said:

---

Anyone on the council who voted for that deal should be voted out. Anyone on the management staff who recommended it should be fired. It's a really easy algorithm.

---

I couldn't agree more. Especially the bit about city management. Their poor decisions continually burden the taxpayers and the taxpayers somehow give them exorbitant raises for doing so.
https://govsalaries.com/salaries/TX/city-of-college-station

Mr. Yancy - will you please ensure Brian woods (who makes nearly 300k/year) and other key city staff are held accountable for this and the other numerous mishaps we've seen over the last few years? Please. We've got to do better. COCS is quickly losing the trust of its citizens decision by decision.

aggiefan2002 said:

---

Mr. Yancy - will you please ensure Brian woods (who makes nearly 300k/year) and other key city staff are held accountable for this and the other numerous mishaps we've seen over the last few years? Please. We've got to do better. COCS is quickly losing the trust of its citizens decision by decision.

---

Bryan makes $300k to make decisions like this and the rosemary sewer?

That's awesome.

Please don't personally criticize any of my colleagues on council or city staff. I have tremendous respect for both and they are friends, even if I may disagree with a particular issue or decision.

As for accountability, yes. As one member of council, you hold me accountable as my boss, a citizen voter. In turn, it's my job to hold staff to the same accountability.

I can no longer comment on this topic as it is now ongoing litigation and is presumably on the agenda, which I've yet to receive.

Have a good evening.

Respectfully signing off.

-yancy

They work for the public. The public is giving them a performance review.

If they don't want public comment on their job performance, they might want to go into private industry and quit blowing other people's money on bad real estate deals.

Thank you, Mr Yancy. I actually trust you to ask the hard questions both publicly and privately. Just so we're clear, this isn't only about Macys (although that alone might be enough). We have the ballparks at midtown, we have the rosemary situation, and the list goes on. I would imagine just the people on this thread could make a list of 8-10 pretty much indisputably poorly handled situations that have collectively cost our city tens of millions of dollars over the last 5 years. And those are only the ones we know about. Regardless of who is personally responsible for some of those decisions, we have a few key staff who are accountable. That's part of the title, salary, and position. I hope the council will hold them accountable and lead us forward in a better way.

Bob Yancy said:

---

...they are friends...

-yancy

---

This is the root of so many problems in local politics. It's a small circle with no accountability and lots of back scratching.

"You knew the deed required common area maintenance contributions and you knew it was illegal for the city to pay them but you recommended going ahead anyway with paying double the market value? Don't worry good buddy we'll cover for you"

Is there a way that we can get advice from an attorney to see if the city could be sued for malfeasance of funds on behalf of the taxpayers of CS

techno-ag said:

---

The city is holding firm. They're saying they're willing to pay on their property but not the whole mall, so they need a separate agreement. Mall owner sued rather than draw up a special agreement just for the city.

CS statement:

Quote:

---

Before and after purchasing the former Macy's site at Post Oak Mall, the City has offered to negotiate a separate agreement with CBL for its share of costs and expenses. CBL has refused to negotiate a separate agreement and has not provided a cost breakdown for maintenance on the City-owned property. The City has been prepared to pay its share of maintenance and operation costs related only to the city-owned property. The City is legally barred from paying into private corporations like CBL, the Post Oak Mall owner. The fees associated with operating a mall are used for maintaining the privately owned mall, and the City cannot use public funds for that purpose.

---

Thus the stalemate. I guess a judge will decide. The city's lawyers seem pretty confident though.

https://wtaw.com/owner-of-post-oak-mall-sues-the-city-of-college-station/

---

Not an attorney but if the maintenance fee can be considered a lien on the property, the city would be obligated to pay it as liens tranter with the sale of the property.

happyinBCS said:

---

Is there a way that we can get advice from an attorney to see if the city could be sued for malfeasance of funds on behalf of the taxpayers of CS

---

City of College Station has been committing malfeasance with taxpayer funds for the last 20 years. The same few people from woodcreek, Foxfire, Eastgate, and Southside keep voting this in. If the majority of this city would actually show up and vote, these CSAN clowns wouldn't stand a chance.

Post Oak Mall bringing the heat

My cousin is high up in upper management at CBL properties and I work for the COCS, so hopefully during the holidays, I'll find out more information on this topic.

EBrazosAg said:

---

Anyone on the council who voted for that deal should be voted out. Anyone on the management staff who recommended it should be fired. It's a really easy algorithm.

---

Maybe if more than 10,000 even bothered to go out and vote this could happen.

In a previous post I said at a future date I'd offer specifics on the new land deals in which city hall achieves gains for you, our bosses and the citizens of College Station. For whatever reason, nobody ever talks about those. We approved one last night. I've made a new post about it. I hope it meets with your approval. I'm proud to have been a part of it. There will be more.

Respectfully offered for your consideration.

-yancy

You know the reason nobody talks about those. Because the mistakes are so glaring it diminishes whatever gains the city achieved by playing Monopoly with taxpayer money.

Thanks Mr Yancy for your posts.

This buy was a bad buy from the beginning and it is nice having some officials giving the public some information.

Keep up the good work!

<-- TexAg95

Thanks for stopping by.

I am retired and have a real estate background. The answer I was searching for when I started this thread is why does the city keep buying speculative real estate.

Are taxes and fees too high? So therefore, you have more money to invest (our money) A city is to provide infrastructure, police, and fire protection and general well-being and safety and of course promote growth to increase the tax base for more revenue.

Is the city basically an investment broker with our money? I manage my retirement portfolio myself and it takes hours and hours of research every day and of course I make mistakes and it hurts but it is my money, I don't pay a broker to lose it for me.