Bob Yancy said:

---

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

---

I believe the prevailing sentiment is to hurry up and do it-whatever brilliant solution the council comes up with. Every day it goes is another day of failure. I wait breathlessly for the KBTX news story and photos of council members trumpeting their genius solution-ignoring the initial failure and ongoing burning of taxpayer money every day since. At least that ill look good on the political resume, right?

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.

---

This will not happen. Sad but very true. You are absolutely correct, but the only chance of this happening is a benevolent buyer. The skillset our council members currently (as seen so far) shows no ability to accomplish this. None.

Hittag1492 said:

---

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.

---

This will not happen. Sad but very true. You are absolutely correct, but the only chance of this happening is a benevolent buyer. The skillset our council members currently (as seen so far) shows no ability to accomplish this. None.

---

Well, there are 5 options. We could lease it or sell it with no strings attached; lease it or sell it with strings attached, or develop it ourselves such as a recreation center or convention center. Only owning a portion of it makes the latter choice problematic, because if we develop it ourselves and it's doing great as whatever, what happens if the rest of the mall fails?

Research on malls is interesting. They are empty and failing all over the country. But, in some midsized cities where there isn't a plethora of malls a single anchor mall survives and even thrives. Post Oak Mall seems relatively healthy to me.

Truthfully I don't know what the future holds. It's like buying the ballroom on a cruise ship. Your destiny is tied to the success of the ship with only a portion of influence for its ultimate destination.

My hope is Amazon will give it a hard look as a droneport / fulfillment center / esports venue. Amazon's AWS powers esports facilities and Amazon proper has purchased and repurposed dozens of malls, or portions thereof, over the past ten years.

Are you listening, Mr. Bezos? ;-)

Respectfully yours,

Yancy

Bob Yancy said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

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.

---

This will not happen. Sad but very true. You are absolutely correct, but the only chance of this happening is a benevolent buyer. The skillset our council members currently (as seen so far) shows no ability to accomplish this. None.

---

Well, there are 5 options. We could lease it or sell it with no strings attached; lease it or sell it with strings attached, or develop it ourselves such as a recreation center or convention center.Only owning a portion of it makes the latter choice problematic, because if we develop it ourselves and it's doing great as whatever, what happens if the rest of the mall fails?

Research on malls is interesting. They are empty and failing all over the country. But, in some midsized cities where there isn't a plethora of malls a single anchor mall survives and even thrives. Post Oak Mall seems relatively healthy to me.

Truthfully I don't know what the future holds. It's like buying the ballroom on a cruise ship. Your destiny is tied to the success of the ship with only a portion of influence for its ultimate destination.

My hope is Amazon will give it a hard look as a droneport / fulfillment center / esports venue. Amazon's AWS powers esports facilities and Amazon proper has purchased and repurposed 165 malls, or portions thereof, over the past ten years.

Are you listening, Mr. Bezos? ;-)

Respectfully yours,

Yancy

---

There you go. Problem solved.

Bob Yancy said:

---

Well, there are 5 options. We could lease it or sell it with no strings attached; lease it or sell it with strings attached, or develop it ourselves such as a recreation center or convention center. Only owning a portion of it makes the latter choice problematic, because if we develop it ourselves and it's doing great as whatever, what happens if the rest of the mall fails?


Research on malls is interesting. They are empty and failing all over the country. But, in some midsized cities where there isn't a plethora of malls a single anchor mall survives and even thrives. Post Oak Mall seems relatively healthy to me.


Truthfully I don't know what the future holds. It's like buying the ballroom on a cruise ship. Your destiny is tied to the success of the ship with only a portion of influence for its ultimate destination.


My hope is Amazon will give it a hard look as a droneport / fulfillment center / esports venue. Amazon's AWS powers esports facilities and Amazon proper has purchased and repurposed dozens of malls, or portions thereof, over the past ten years.

---

This is why the city needs to work with the mall management closer on using the Macy's in an effective way that complements the mall rather than works against it.


The mall has a lot of tenants that keep people coming back to it, losing first specialty stores like bookstores and banks, later losing many of the common "mall chains" even in existence (Kay Jewelers the latest victim) and now appears to be in freefall with even mainstay Casa Ole leaving without replacement.


I wish that the only look that Amazon gives at it is considering adding a Whole Foods Market or not because they do NOT purchase malls (usually), they purchase land on where malls used to be a while back.


Notable examples include Rolling Acres Mall in Akron, Ohio. Rolling Acres started to go in decline in the 1990s, with Dillard's and JCPenney downgrading to clearance outlets in the late 1990s (notably, the mall's Dillard's is STILL a real Dillard's and not a "Dillard's Clearance Center"), the Target closing in 2006, the mall itself in 2008, with Sears and the JCPenney Outlet Store (rebranded as " JC's 5 Star Outlet") lingering on for a few more years before closing. The mall itself rotted for nearly a decade before Amazon even showed up in 2019.

The Mall at Cortana (Cortana Mall) in Baton Rouge, another example. It had been relegated to second banana since the late 1990s when the Mall of Louisiana opened in a better part of town, and still had four of its six anchors as of spring 2016. Mervyn's was vacant, the former Service Merchandise/Steve & Barry's had become a branch of Virginia College, and Dillard's had converted into a Clearance Center in 2009 (again, probably because Mall of Louisiana had a full-line Dillard's). They lost their anchors in quick order when the rest of the mall collapsed. Within three years the mall was 90% vacant, Dillard's Clearance Center had sealed its mall entrance, and the other remaining anchors--Virginia College, Sears, Macy's, and JCPenney...all called it quits. When Amazon bought the mall in late 2019, it was already closed, the last three in-line tenants were evicted months earlier.

Or we can talk about Randall Park Mall, which has also been replaced with an Amazon facility. Like Rolling Acres it had gone into decline years before. It was one of the largest malls in the East Coast in its prime but it closed in 2009, with only Burlington Coat Factory remaining. When Amazon bought the site in 2017 the mall had been demolished for a few years prior and nothing was operational there.

I do want the mall to be better, and I'm not sure of any "quick fix" that entails it. Either way it wouldn't be up to the city to decide it unless they wanted to really wanted to enter some serious "shape up or ship out" talks with CBL Properties. But there is still a chance and you can make this right, despite this thread being full of misinformed and terrible takes.

Bob Yancy said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

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.

---

This will not happen. Sad but very true. You are absolutely correct, but the only chance of this happening is a benevolent buyer. The skillset our council members currently (as seen so far) shows no ability to accomplish this. None.

---

Well, there are 5 options. We could lease it or sell it with no strings attached; lease it or sell it with strings attached, or develop it ourselves such as a recreation center or convention center. Only owning a portion of it makes the latter choice problematic, because if we develop it ourselves and it's doing great as whatever, what happens if the rest of the mall fails?

Research on malls is interesting. They are empty and failing all over the country. But, in some midsized cities where there isn't a plethora of malls a single anchor mall survives and even thrives. Post Oak Mall seems relatively healthy to me.

Truthfully I don't know what the future holds. It's like buying the ballroom on a cruise ship. Your destiny is tied to the success of the ship with only a portion of influence for its ultimate destination.

My hope is Amazon will give it a hard look as a droneport / fulfillment center / esports venue. Amazon's AWS powers esports facilities and Amazon proper has purchased and repurposed dozens of malls, or portions thereof, over the past ten years.

Are you listening, Mr. Bezos? ;-)

Respectfully yours,

Yancy

---

I am sure you will try along with the rest of the council Bob. No worries there. The council that did this majorly screwed up. The current council prolong8ng it has as well. The point being that it is well past time to solve this problem and move on. Even with your 5 options ( I can think of a few others a swell) I do not see any real urgency to resolve the situation. I do like that you used the word "hope" in reference to the Amazon solution. That seems to be this councils best ability in reference to this property (and a few others, lol.) It does not exactly bolster confidence in a solution anytime soon. Hope is not much of a strategy. Neither is tying our city to a mall. Make a plan that gets the city out of it (should have never been in it) and execute that strategy. Our hope is it benefits the community. At a minimum it should just get our city out of it and mitigate the losses so far.

I stand by my statement above and your response actually reinforces my stance. There are people out there who may actually help make lemonade out of these lemons. Go find them, beg Amazon, whatever. Make a plan to do SOMETHING concrete then move forward. If you trust your is ideas and skillset, it is past time to perform and get it done. I wish you my best and hope you and the rest of the council can live up to the campaign promises of the past. You said you were the most qualified and best for the job. Prove it and stop hoping.

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.

---

To comment on #1, I doubt there was any communication with any potential tenants or buyers at the time of purchase. One, if so, why would the potential tenant not go directly to the owner at the time? And Two, at the time of purchase there was no public comment of a prospective buyer as the only comment I saw made public was, "The vote followed recommendations from city manager Bryan Woods and chief economic development officer Natalie Ruiz to acquire the building to control future development of the property." I would think that a followup comment would have been made by someone if there was prospective buyer.

Boy, the owner at the time made out great. Bought it in Jan 2022 for 3.5 million and the city bought it for 7.3 million in Aug 2022. It worked out great for the seller.

I also wonder who paid for the massive water leaks under the rear slab that was due to the freeze damage in 2021?

Hittag1492 said:

---

I am sure you will try along with the rest of the council Bob. No worries there. The council that did this majorly screwed up. The current council prolong8ng it has as well. The point being that it is well past time to solve this problem and move on. Even with your 5 options ( I can think of a few others a swell) I do not see any real urgency to resolve the situation. I do like that you used the word "hope" in reference to the Amazon solution. That seems to be this councils best ability in reference to this property (and a few others, lol.) It does not exactly bolster confidence in a solution anytime soon. Hope is not much of a strategy. Neither is tying our city to a mall. Make a plan that gets the city out of it (should have never been in it) and execute that strategy. Our hope is it benefits the community. At a minimum it should just get our city out of it and mitigate the losses so far.

I stand by my statement above and your response actually reinforces my stance. There are people out there who may actually help make lemonade out of these lemons. Go find them, beg Amazon, whatever. Make a plan to do SOMETHING concrete then move forward. If you trust your is ideas and skillset, it is past time to perform and get it done. I wish you my best and hope you and the rest of the council can live up to the campaign promises of the past. You said you were the most qualified and best for the job. Prove it and stop hoping.

---

Unbelievable how people think that purchasing the Macy's building was some sort of horrible mistake by the City Council and then turn right around and advocate for a giant warehouse filled with low-paid unskilled laborers.

Who was the original owner?

PS3D said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

I am sure you will try along with the rest of the council Bob. No worries there. The council that did this majorly screwed up. The current council prolong8ng it has as well. The point being that it is well past time to solve this problem and move on. Even with your 5 options ( I can think of a few others a swell) I do not see any real urgency to resolve the situation. I do like that you used the word "hope" in reference to the Amazon solution. That seems to be this councils best ability in reference to this property (and a few others, lol.) It does not exactly bolster confidence in a solution anytime soon. Hope is not much of a strategy. Neither is tying our city to a mall. Make a plan that gets the city out of it (should have never been in it) and execute that strategy. Our hope is it benefits the community. At a minimum it should just get our city out of it and mitigate the losses so far.

I stand by my statement above and your response actually reinforces my stance. There are people out there who may actually help make lemonade out of these lemons. Go find them, beg Amazon, whatever. Make a plan to do SOMETHING concrete then move forward. If you trust your is ideas and skillset, it is past time to perform and get it done. I wish you my best and hope you and the rest of the council can live up to the campaign promises of the past. You said you were the most qualified and best for the job. Prove it and stop hoping.

---

Unbelievable how people think that purchasing the Macy's building was some sort of horrible mistake by the City Council and then turn right around and advocate for a giant warehouse filled with low-paid unskilled laborers.

---

Were you speaking to me? I did not advocate for anything except to stop playing around and get the city out of the commercial real estate business. It 8s past time to get out of the mall business. As far as what they do with it, I am sure there are actually many options not involving Amazon, etc. Not seeing that as any real issue holding things upor really any issue at all.

maroon barchetta said:

---

Who was the original owner?

---

Looks like it was still May Department Stores (owned by Macy's). The space was originally owned by Federated (Foley's corporate parent at the time), flipped to May Department Co. with the chain in the late 1980s. It stayed with May Department Stores even though they were bought back in 2005 by Federated (which changed all of its stores to Macy's, including its corporate name).

Hittag1492 said:

---

PS3D said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

I am sure you will try along with the rest of the council Bob. No worries there. The council that did this majorly screwed up. The current council prolong8ng it has as well. The point being that it is well past time to solve this problem and move on. Even with your 5 options ( I can think of a few others a swell) I do not see any real urgency to resolve the situation. I do like that you used the word "hope" in reference to the Amazon solution. That seems to be this councils best ability in reference to this property (and a few others, lol.) It does not exactly bolster confidence in a solution anytime soon. Hope is not much of a strategy. Neither is tying our city to a mall. Make a plan that gets the city out of it (should have never been in it) and execute that strategy. Our hope is it benefits the community. At a minimum it should just get our city out of it and mitigate the losses so far.

I stand by my statement above and your response actually reinforces my stance. There are people out there who may actually help make lemonade out of these lemons. Go find them, beg Amazon, whatever. Make a plan to do SOMETHING concrete then move forward. If you trust your is ideas and skillset, it is past time to perform and get it done. I wish you my best and hope you and the rest of the council can live up to the campaign promises of the past. You said you were the most qualified and best for the job. Prove it and stop hoping.

---

Unbelievable how people think that purchasing the Macy's building was some sort of horrible mistake by the City Council and then turn right around and advocate for a giant warehouse filled with low-paid unskilled laborers.

---

Were you speaking to me? I did not advocate for anything except to stop playing around and get the city out of the commercial real estate business. It 8s past time to get out of the mall business. As far as what they do with it, I am sure there are actually many options not involving Amazon, etc. Not seeing that as any real issue holding things upor really any issue at all.

---

I just find tearing down the mall for an Amazon warehouse significantly worse than the situation we have now, even though I agree the city really shouldn't be owning buildings like that. Lesser of two evils, I suppose.

They do need to really get on CBL's case about the shape of the property.

PS3D said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

PS3D said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

I am sure you will try along with the rest of the council Bob. No worries there. The council that did this majorly screwed up. The current council prolong8ng it has as well. The point being that it is well past time to solve this problem and move on. Even with your 5 options ( I can think of a few others a swell) I do not see any real urgency to resolve the situation. I do like that you used the word "hope" in reference to the Amazon solution. That seems to be this councils best ability in reference to this property (and a few others, lol.) It does not exactly bolster confidence in a solution anytime soon. Hope is not much of a strategy. Neither is tying our city to a mall. Make a plan that gets the city out of it (should have never been in it) and execute that strategy. Our hope is it benefits the community. At a minimum it should just get our city out of it and mitigate the losses so far.

I stand by my statement above and your response actually reinforces my stance. There are people out there who may actually help make lemonade out of these lemons. Go find them, beg Amazon, whatever. Make a plan to do SOMETHING concrete then move forward. If you trust your is ideas and skillset, it is past time to perform and get it done. I wish you my best and hope you and the rest of the council can live up to the campaign promises of the past. You said you were the most qualified and best for the job. Prove it and stop hoping.

---

Unbelievable how people think that purchasing the Macy's building was some sort of horrible mistake by the City Council and then turn right around and advocate for a giant warehouse filled with low-paid unskilled laborers.

---

Were you speaking to me? I did not advocate for anything except to stop playing around and get the city out of the commercial real estate business. It 8s past time to get out of the mall business. As far as what they do with it, I am sure there are actually many options not involving Amazon, etc. Not seeing that as any real issue holding things upor really any issue at all.

---

I just find tearing down the mall for an Amazon warehouse significantly worse than the situation we have now, even though I agree the city really shouldn't be owning buildings like that. Lesser of two evils, I suppose.

They do need to really get on CBL's case about the shape of the property.

---

I still could have seen a joint venture. Clearly either the city or most likely the brokers knew who was in the running to buy it.

So, why not partner with another of the buyers you would have liked to see in there and file a joint venture for the city to pay half - partner the other half and get started on turning the building around.

That part still escapes me as being overlooked.

PS3D said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

PS3D said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

I am sure you will try along with the rest of the council Bob. No worries there. The council that did this majorly screwed up. The current council prolong8ng it has as well. The point being that it is well past time to solve this problem and move on. Even with your 5 options ( I can think of a few others a swell) I do not see any real urgency to resolve the situation. I do like that you used the word "hope" in reference to the Amazon solution. That seems to be this councils best ability in reference to this property (and a few others, lol.) It does not exactly bolster confidence in a solution anytime soon. Hope is not much of a strategy. Neither is tying our city to a mall. Make a plan that gets the city out of it (should have never been in it) and execute that strategy. Our hope is it benefits the community. At a minimum it should just get our city out of it and mitigate the losses so far.

I stand by my statement above and your response actually reinforces my stance. There are people out there who may actually help make lemonade out of these lemons. Go find them, beg Amazon, whatever. Make a plan to do SOMETHING concrete then move forward. If you trust your is ideas and skillset, it is past time to perform and get it done. I wish you my best and hope you and the rest of the council can live up to the campaign promises of the past. You said you were the most qualified and best for the job. Prove it and stop hoping.

---

Unbelievable how people think that purchasing the Macy's building was some sort of horrible mistake by the City Council and then turn right around and advocate for a giant warehouse filled with low-paid unskilled laborers.

---

Were you speaking to me? I did not advocate for anything except to stop playing around and get the city out of the commercial real estate business. It 8s past time to get out of the mall business. As far as what they do with it, I am sure there are actually many options not involving Amazon, etc. Not seeing that as any real issue holding things upor really any issue at all.

---

I just find tearing down the mall for an Amazon warehouse significantly worse than the situation we have now, even though I agree the city really shouldn't be owning buildings like that. Lesser of two evils, I suppose.

They do need to really get on CBL's case about the shape of the property.

---

how is that worse. So you'd prefer for the property to sit there costing tax payers thousands a month? And then as the building falls apart it'll cost the tax payers even more money. oh and the way it is there isn't an tax money coming in for this property.

PS3D said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

PS3D said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

I am sure you will try along with the rest of the council Bob. No worries there. The council that did this majorly screwed up. The current council prolong8ng it has as well. The point being that it is well past time to solve this problem and move on. Even with your 5 options ( I can think of a few others a swell) I do not see any real urgency to resolve the situation. I do like that you used the word "hope" in reference to the Amazon solution. That seems to be this councils best ability in reference to this property (and a few others, lol.) It does not exactly bolster confidence in a solution anytime soon. Hope is not much of a strategy. Neither is tying our city to a mall. Make a plan that gets the city out of it (should have never been in it) and execute that strategy. Our hope is it benefits the community. At a minimum it should just get our city out of it and mitigate the losses so far.

I stand by my statement above and your response actually reinforces my stance. There are people out there who may actually help make lemonade out of these lemons. Go find them, beg Amazon, whatever. Make a plan to do SOMETHING concrete then move forward. If you trust your is ideas and skillset, it is past time to perform and get it done. I wish you my best and hope you and the rest of the council can live up to the campaign promises of the past. You said you were the most qualified and best for the job. Prove it and stop hoping.

---

Unbelievable how people think that purchasing the Macy's building was some sort of horrible mistake by the City Council and then turn right around and advocate for a giant warehouse filled with low-paid unskilled laborers.

---

Were you speaking to me? I did not advocate for anything except to stop playing around and get the city out of the commercial real estate business. It 8s past time to get out of the mall business. As far as what they do with it, I am sure there are actually many options not involving Amazon, etc. Not seeing that as any real issue holding things upor really any issue at all.

---

I just find tearing down the mall for an Amazon warehouse significantly worse than the situation we have now, even though I agree the city really shouldn't be owning buildings like that. Lesser of two evils, I suppose.

They do need to really get on CBL's case about the shape of the property.

---

Ok-but why did you direct that at me? I did not advocate Amazon in any way-just was replying to what Bob mentioned. Just seemed odd to direct that particular comment my way as what i said had was not any endorsement of Amazon at all-far from it. Weird.

Why not use the Macy's building for a new public works facility?

https://wtaw.com/college-station-city-council-discusses-replacing-its-public-works-building/

MeKnowNot said:

---

Why not use the Macy's building for a new public works facility?

https://wtaw.com/college-station-city-council-discusses-replacing-its-public-works-building/

---

Sell it, take the loss, don't buy anything else.

Unimproved land?

Chimney Hill?

Macy's?

maroon barchetta said:

---

Unimproved land?

Chimney Hill?

Macy's?

---

I'm sorry I don't understand.

You said cities buy unimproved land all the time.

The comments earlier in the thread were about land with improvements. The two I just mentioned.

Understand?

maroon barchetta said:

---

You said cities buy unimproved land all the time.

The comments earlier in the thread were about land with improvements. The two I just mentioned.

Understand?

---

I'm afraid you didn't carefully read what I wrote. But yes I understand .. we are essentially saying the same thing.

I read it.

In any thread about spending by the city you either blame the past councils (Macy's, Chimney Hill), double down on expenditures that other people question (Instagram prop), or implore the taxpayer to "give this council a chance/wait and see".

We all have our own set of expectations of how this is going to go. Just don't try to spin it and say "I stand by that decision" when this Macy's fiasco loses money like you have done with the Instagram prop.