Yes, you know it's horribly designed to actually be used on insta, right?

trouble said:

---

Yes, you know it's horribly designed to actually be used on insta, right?

---

I'm a middle aged man so have no idea on how to use an Instagram prop. Nor do I have any interest.

Agreed

I thought it was an entertainment place going in there (video games, bumper cars, go carts and such) and the city decided they didn't want that for some reason....

doubledog said:

---

VAXMaster said:

---

The city is taking the position that the government can do as they please, they have no obligation to honor contracts and there is nothing anyone can do about it. By refusing to pay their share of common area maintenance they are shifting those costs to the other business owners in the mall making it even less viable as a business location and thereby hastening the demise of the mall. So far they have accomplished
1. Paying millions of dollars above market for a building they dont need
2. Removing that building from the tax roles increasing the burden on the rest of us
3. Removing that building from the mall common area maintenance pool, shifting those costs to the people trying to run a business in the mall - effectively a tax increase for them.
4. Incurred legal fees for defending their right to act with impunity

The City of College Station needs new leadership.

---

#2... They are so afraid that a church would snatch up Macy's and take it off the tax role... See what happens if you do not think things through...

---

Not too much thinking needed. "Hey, let's buy the old Macy's building at Post Oak Mall, it's available. We have no need it for our own use. We won't buy it."

Anecdotal data is still data.

maroon barchetta said:

---

Anecdotal data is still data.

---

Are you talking about the success or the failures?

Hittag1492 said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Anecdotal data is still data.

---

Are you talking about the success or the failures?

---

Yes

maroon barchetta said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Anecdotal data is still data.

---

Are you talking about the success or the failures?

---

Yes

---

Then the failures win so far.

Hittag1492 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Well, if you want the city to divest itself of land holdings, I figure selling tracts for a 2,300% capital gain for the taxpayer is a good way to go about it.

I hope you agree.

---

Bob,
Can you offer details on how these lots were acquired? How did the city get them at such a low price and sell them at such a profit? I would be interested to know how this all cane about to see how repeatable it is.

That aside, I do not see how even a success such as that can convince you that doing this consistently is a good idea or a proper function of government in general. One could point at numerous projects that have failed as well so I am not sure this success is representative of the likelihood of success of this type program overall or in the future.

---

The city acquired raw land years ago for a business park on the south side. The last of those lots are getting bought up now. Business parks are a pretty common municipal development strategy given rise to by the propensity for other cities to do it. In other words, once cities started incentivizing businesses to move in, and move into a set aside part of a city, other cities became compelled to compete in the same way.

Yes, each and every economic development deal begs a "proper role of government" question and yes, I wonder about it often. Finally, yes, the city can do better in this space- both in what we've done in the past and what we're doing now. You'll hear more about all of this in 2024, I think.

Respectfully

Bob Yancy said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Well, if you want the city to divest itself of land holdings, I figure selling tracts for a 2,300% capital gain for the taxpayer is a good way to go about it.

I hope you agree.

---

Bob,
Can you offer details on how these lots were acquired? How did the city get them at such a low price and sell them at such a profit? I would be interested to know how this all cane about to see how repeatable it is.

That aside, I do not see how even a success such as that can convince you that doing this consistently is a good idea or a proper function of government in general. One could point at numerous projects that have failed as well so I am not sure this success is representative of the likelihood of success of this type program overall or in the future.

---

The city acquired raw land years ago for a business park on the south side. The last of those lots are getting bought up now. Business parks are a pretty common municipal development strategy given rise to by the propensity for other cities to do it. In other words, once cities started incentivizing businesses to move in, and move into a set aside part of a city, other cities became compelled to compete in the same way.

Yes, each and every economic development deal begs a "proper role of government" question and yes, I wonder about it often. Finally, yes, the city can do better in this space- both in what we've done in the past and what we're doing now. You'll hear more about all of this in 2024, I think.

Respectfully

---

That makes more sense. I mist say that it comes across a bit less genius with the backstory, lol. But, I get it. A case like that would make sense to most people as it was not really a situation where the city was speculating on property for some windfall.

I hope speculation is never involved in the thought process with government funds. That should be left to private industry and I hope that is something we can all agree on.

Hittag1492 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Well, if you want the city to divest itself of land holdings, I figure selling tracts for a 2,300% capital gain for the taxpayer is a good way to go about it.

I hope you agree.

---

Bob,
Can you offer details on how these lots were acquired? How did the city get them at such a low price and sell them at such a profit? I would be interested to know how this all cane about to see how repeatable it is.

That aside, I do not see how even a success such as that can convince you that doing this consistently is a good idea or a proper function of government in general. One could point at numerous projects that have failed as well so I am not sure this success is representative of the likelihood of success of this type program overall or in the future.

---

The city acquired raw land years ago for a business park on the south side. The last of those lots are getting bought up now. Business parks are a pretty common municipal development strategy given rise to by the propensity for other cities to do it. In other words, once cities started incentivizing businesses to move in, and move into a set aside part of a city, other cities became compelled to compete in the same way.

Yes, each and every economic development deal begs a "proper role of government" question and yes, I wonder about it often. Finally, yes, the city can do better in this space- both in what we've done in the past and what we're doing now. You'll hear more about all of this in 2024, I think.

Respectfully

---

That makes more sense. I mist say that it comes across a bit less genius with the backstory, lol. But, I get it. A case like that would make sense to most people as it was not really a situation where the city was speculating on property for some windfall.

I hope speculation is never involved in the thought process with government funds. That should be left to private industry and I hope that is something we can all agree on.

---

Yes. We largely agree. Among the things I've learned is that there are "clean" decisions that have to be made, but there are a LOT of strategic decisions that have to be made because of something a prior council set in motion. I call these "legacy" issues. They can be challenging and without much effort you'll recall a few.

Because of legacy issues, I believe anything a current council does that will outlast its tenure should be very, very carefully deliberated so as not to leave future councils with a bill of goods.

As for these unimproved land deals, I can think of no better strategy than to sell them at a significant taxpayer gain to good private sector businesses that will bring jobs to our city.

Thanks for the dialog. I enjoy it and learn.

Respectfully,

do you have any new information on this

Let's use this record profit from the land sale mentioned above and finish Greens Prairie from Sweetwater to Creek Meadow.

How about that?

happyinBCS said:

---

do you have any new information on this

---

Ongoing. Can't comment other than to say I'd like it resolved.

Bob Yancy said:

---

happyinBCS said:

---

do you have any new information on this

---

Ongoing. Can't comment other than to say I'd like it resolved.

---

This is a good example of something that absolutely should not happen and is unacceptable on any level. This seems easy to resolve with ego removed.

Not a good sign of a strong public/private ability to partner if something so simple becomes so difficult.

maroon barchetta said:

---

Let's use this record profit from the land sale mentioned above and finish Greens Prairie from Sweetwater to Creek Meadow.

How about that?

---

How about we use the record profit to settle the mall law suit and have the City get out of the real estate business.

We did so last time. I'd like to do so again.

This popped into my feed this morning:

https://www.chron.com/news/article/texas-am-esports-macys-18653360.php

Interesting headline

plans to take over old Macy's

what about leasing it ? the common area maintenance fees will still have to be paid by the owner CityofCS

I assume the lease if there ever is one will be public, it would not surprise me if it is a zero net lease, since the property will remain tax-free

Leasing a functionally obsolete building? Very interested to see if this actually goes through after site visits and inspections. I don't even want to know the amount of tenant improvement money that will be required to bring that building anywhere close to nice again.

Everything in the past I have seen made it look like they were going to take the whole building.

From the Chronicle article.

Located at 1508 Harvey Road, the 103,888-square-foot facility...

The proposed e-sports facility will take up about 40,000 square feet....

MyNameIsJeff said:

---

This popped into my feed this morning:

https://www.chron.com/news/article/texas-am-esports-macys-18653360.php

---

Quote:

---

Correction: A previous version of this story referred to The Eagle as the Texas A&M student newspaper. The Texas A&M student newspaper is The Battalion.

---

I laughed.

Here's the original local story for those interested: https://theeagle.com/news/local/business/am-looking-at-macys-building-for-future-e-sports-facility/article_3b3b3a9a-c51d-11ee-8413-6f7397cc8318.html

ratfacemcdougal said:

---

Everything in the past I have seen made it look like they were going to take the whole building.

From the Chronicle article.

Located at 1508 Harvey Road, the 103,888-square-foot facility...

The proposed e-sports facility will take up about 40,000 square feet....

---

I wonder if the 40k sqft is the whole thing, including the retail portion or just the esports 400 computers part. Per some earlier A&M articles, the facility will include meeting rooms for teams, rooms for esports announcers to stream/record from. Plus this mentioning retail for food & beverage, clothing and hardware.

Also wonder if the 103,888 sqft is the two stories and maybe you make an arena with spectator seating and some giant screens so you don't really have the full two floors anymore.

Or maybe A&M doesn't want to pay for what it would take to lease the whole building and has scaled back a bit to what they want and CoCS will need to find someone else to lease the other half.

RafterAg223 said:

---

Leasing a functionally obsolete building? Very interested to see if this actually goes through after site visits and inspections. I don't even want to know the amount of tenant improvement money that will be required to bring that building anywhere close to nice again.

---

Whole thing is probably a gut and remodel, with a lot of utility work to power 400 computers etc and all the data network stuff. The outside walls are probably still functional.