Not based on the appraised value like the rest of us?
College Station - Fiscal Matter(s)
6,523 Views |
101 Replies |
Last: 9 hrs ago by Craig Regan 14
maroon barchetta said:
Not based on the appraised value like the rest of us?
No sir. It's a subsidy. I have my opinions about it. Affordable housing programs led by government have a poor track record. The programs themselves are incredibly complex. There are multiple buckets of money and often times it's a "use it or lose it" scenario. Consequently, cities across America work hard to "use it" to secure current and future funding, because if you don't, grant funding and matching funds aren't there next year.
Despite this, we have voted no to at least four projects, maybe more, from my recollection- and sent staff back to the drawing board. Each time they did. Each new iteration has gotten better.
This latest version is the simplest so far in my mind. And the most cost effective. Buy a dilapidated house with good bones, renovate it and sell at a partial subsidy based on the qualifying family's income. Done.
Should government be involved in affordable housing? Fair question and a 60,000 foot debate. Is government in this business? Every single city pretty much. Are there socioeconomically challenged folks that need assistance? 100%. Do the staunchest most conservative states and cities get involved in these subsidies? 100%, including the great State of Texas and virtually every city in it.
Respectfully,
We are not interested in what everybody else does.
We are interested in cities that provide services in a reliable and cost efficient manner.
I'm not sure this qualifies.
We are interested in cities that provide services in a reliable and cost efficient manner.
I'm not sure this qualifies.
Another question, and apologies for my ignorance in this area. Are all the staff that spend so much time working on/executing these programs funded by federal dollars also paid by the same federal dollars, or does the city foot that bill?
maroon barchetta said:
We are not interested in what everybody else does.
We are interested in cities that provide services in a reliable and cost efficient manner.
I'm not sure this qualifies.
If that's your actual goal, the best thing you could do from a strategic perspective is check your city's tax rate, your city's debt load and your city's employees per capita- then compare those statistics to cities of comparable size in your state. That would give you a quick snapshot and go a long way toward answering your concerns.
Respectfully,
-yancy
Bob Yancy said:maroon barchetta said:
But these properties still come off the tax rolls once the city owns them, correct?
Taxes are paid but capped based on affordability for the qualifying household.
Where is the concern that we have current COCS homeowners that are being taxed out of their houses?
When your $140k house becomes a $440k house it is an issue.
dubi said:Bob Yancy said:maroon barchetta said:
But these properties still come off the tax rolls once the city owns them, correct?
Taxes are paid but capped based on affordability for the qualifying household.
Where is the concern that we have current COCS homeowners that are being taxed out of their houses?
When your $140k house becomes a $440k house it is an issue.
Rules for thee, not for me.
It should be an Instagram prop outside of city hall.
dubi said:Bob Yancy said:maroon barchetta said:
But these properties still come off the tax rolls once the city owns them, correct?
Taxes are paid but capped based on affordability for the qualifying household.
Where is the concern that we have current COCS homeowners that are being taxed out of their houses?
When your $140k house becomes a $440k house it is an issue.
140 to 440 over what timeframe ?
Southgate property ?
JP76 said:dubi said:Bob Yancy said:maroon barchetta said:
But these properties still come off the tax rolls once the city owns them, correct?
Taxes are paid but capped based on affordability for the qualifying household.
Where is the concern that we have current COCS homeowners that are being taxed out of their houses?
When your $140k house becomes a $440k house it is an issue.
140 to 440 over what timeframe ?
Southgate property ?
I don't know where those numbers are coming from. We denied a program where the house was close to that amount. I've never voted for one nor has one like that ever passed.
I own rental houses I know this business. We rent to single families. I am keenly aware that what was once $185k is now $280 to $330k. I want families to be able to afford their piece of the American dream in College Station. I proposed a program whereby all or some permitting, parks, and impact fees are waived if the builder comes in at an entry price point with the house. Not affordable housing, but incentivized entry level price points. Affordable housing means something different I've learned on council.
It's a complex issue driven mainly by the market of course. With Tamu, Rellis, being the center of the Texas triangle, et al, there's very little city hall can do but tinker at the margins of the problem and hold the line on taxes. No easy solution. If we had more land in the city limits it would help. Scarcity of supply in the face of increasing demand yields higher prices every time. That's what's happening, but I know y'all know that.
If my beloved Alma mater would build 15,000 dorm rooms, it would help a lot. But that's wrought with logistical complexity and enormous expense to them. It's a perfect storm and I promise we think about it constantly.
We created a citizen committee on housing affordability and their report is due back to us this summer. This is and will be a high interest topic for awhile.
In many ways we are being victimized by our own success.
dubi said:Bob Yancy said:maroon barchetta said:
But these properties still come off the tax rolls once the city owns them, correct?
Taxes are paid but capped based on affordability for the qualifying household.
Where is the concern that we have current COCS homeowners that are being taxed out of their houses?
When your $140k house becomes a $440k house it is an issue.
There are simply not enough stars for this….
Quote:
140 to 440 over what timeframe ?
Southgate property ?
It is over 20 years, but the vast majority of the increase has been the past 10 years. Yes to Southgate between Park Place and Holleman.
Brazoscad.Quote:
I don't know where those numbers are coming from.
I think when you reach a budget of $500,000,000/year platitudes and slogan just won't cut it anymore.
Any operation at this level needs principals and clear outlined goals or else it appears rudderless and haphazard.
If there are goals and principals - lets share them with citizens and hear what they have to say.
IMO
Any operation at this level needs principals and clear outlined goals or else it appears rudderless and haphazard.
If there are goals and principals - lets share them with citizens and hear what they have to say.
IMO
Bob Yancy said:maroon barchetta said:
We are not interested in what everybody else does.
We are interested in cities that provide services in a reliable and cost efficient manner.
I'm not sure this qualifies.
If that's your actual goal, the best thing you could do from a strategic perspective is check your city's tax rate, your city's debt load and your city's employees per capita- then compare those statistics to cities of comparable size in your state. That would give you a quick snapshot and go a long way toward answering your concerns.
Respectfully,
-yancy
Bob, I get that city staffers do a lot of comparisons with cities of similar size. I think even this is a bit misleading when looking at College Station. The high numbers of students that are transient is different. The lack of a large employer that isn't government, education, or non-profit healthcare is another.
These aren't mostly six-figure paying jobs here. It's cheaper to buy a house in the Houston suburbs, and you can get a lot higher paying job easily. The amount of Old Ag retirees whose taxes are frozen are another big difference.
So, I think it's a bit apples and oranges when you compare College Station with The Woodlands, Lewisville, Round Rock, or Pearland. A good comparison would maybe be Temple, with the base and BS&W. We should maybe try keeping up with Temple vs. The Woodlands or Round Rock, IMHO.
Just a perfect storm of low supply, high demand, cheap money and run away inflation.
That 22-23 structure jump is crazy though.
That 22-23 structure jump is crazy though.
might want to check that cheap money part.JP76 said:
Just a perfect storm of low supply, high demand, cheap money and run away inflation.
When interest rates are this high you need a unit at lower base cost because the amount of disposable income you have to save is being eaten by taxes, and inflation.
Interest rates going up does not have to be the end of the world but certainly can be when wages won't keep pace.
This is not the '08 crash but something else entirely. The recovery from this won't be easy because the cause was artificially made.
If you look at the 80's when interest rates were double digits the you needed to extend your horizon line much further to get returns.
COCS though is in a bit of a pickle because besides A&M there is nothing here that drives growth. The service industry accounted for a lot of jobs.
And I do not mean just low wage jobs, I am talking about the managers and assistant managers as well, people who made 30-35K/year.
Cheap in terms of historic rates. We spent the past 20+ years sub 7 and half of that sub 5. The issue is the properties are worth more to investors for student rentals and a lot of demand for them has came from outside investors and hedge funds over the past 10-15 years which was not as much of a factor prior to 2010.
Not to get all wonky
But cheap is a relative term.
When rates have been at or near 0 5% is a huge increase.
It causes more than a few short/long term adjustments.
In both the public and private markets
But cheap is a relative term.
When rates have been at or near 0 5% is a huge increase.
It causes more than a few short/long term adjustments.
In both the public and private markets
Bob Yancy said:
there's very little city hall can do but tinker at the margins of the problem
Bob Yancy said:
No easy solution.
If the city let people build near campus, people would build near campus. The city can get out of the way. Other people would be happy to spend the money to fix this. If the city let them, they would also build space for businesses that could leverage what is going on at TAMU. City hall just has to let it happen.
Bob Yancy said:
If we had more land in the city limits it would help. Scarcity of supply in the face of increasing demand yields higher prices every time. That's what's happening, but I know y'all know that.
The city doesn't need to push the city limits further out, they need to quit mismanaging things in the city's center (TAMU). If you let people building apartments in "Midtown," that misses the mark by about 6 miles. The city annexing Millican is not going to fix anything just like annexing Welborn didn't fix anything.
I dig it is largely other people on council that is driving the bus on the intentional mismanagement.
Brian Alg
Brazos Coalition for Responsible Government and Moderator Restraint
Brazos Coalition for Responsible Government and Moderator Restraint
Think of the tax benefits that would have come with a hotel or condos or apartment building on Texas where city hall was built.
City hall should have been built over by the police station.
But vanity made them build there so they could get noticed. I'm sure no apartment development company or hotel company would want real estate right across the street from campus. Nah.
City hall should have been built over by the police station.
But vanity made them build there so they could get noticed. I'm sure no apartment development company or hotel company would want real estate right across the street from campus. Nah.
*** Maroon I am not directing my comments toward you but just writ-large
Aside from City Hall and the fall from that I think it is important to ID a couple of things REF Southgate
1.) They already built student housing there and the project went bust and everyone lost their money. CCC junk bond lost their money
2.) No one is gonna sell. The city cannot and should not force anyone to sell anything they do not want nor should it be in the business of trying to force them out which is what I am starting to sense. It is their home. Period end of story.
3.) The market has already spoken LOUD and CLEAR - just take one look at the sky line of Northgate and imagine you have money to invest. It would stupid bordering on insane to try and build anywhere else but all the beds going into that area. All the density points toward NG.
4.) What everyone misses about South gate is the infrastructure there is some of the oldest in the city. Developers would have to ripe it out and and lay down fresh water, waster water etc. Also the tie in's in that area would have to be expanded. Who does that fall on? The city, taxpayers... YOU!
And all for a "hope so" and "fingers crossed".
If we are going to make policy that says council cannot buy/build without meeting a set of criteria, one of those is clearly short/long term cost. The numbers simple do not add up.
Some folks need to keep their nose outta peoples private choices and accept the fact that no one in that area is interested in turning it into Northgate-South.
It is also a historical district regarded by the state. So any changes to that area would be so crazy it is not even worth it.
***Edit: wishful thinking and hoping is not solid policy and taxpayers and citizens deserve as much. "We hope it will turn into this" - "we think it will turn into that" is how we bought a mall and shoveled millions into RP ballparks.
Aside from City Hall and the fall from that I think it is important to ID a couple of things REF Southgate
1.) They already built student housing there and the project went bust and everyone lost their money. CCC junk bond lost their money
2.) No one is gonna sell. The city cannot and should not force anyone to sell anything they do not want nor should it be in the business of trying to force them out which is what I am starting to sense. It is their home. Period end of story.
3.) The market has already spoken LOUD and CLEAR - just take one look at the sky line of Northgate and imagine you have money to invest. It would stupid bordering on insane to try and build anywhere else but all the beds going into that area. All the density points toward NG.
4.) What everyone misses about South gate is the infrastructure there is some of the oldest in the city. Developers would have to ripe it out and and lay down fresh water, waster water etc. Also the tie in's in that area would have to be expanded. Who does that fall on? The city, taxpayers... YOU!
And all for a "hope so" and "fingers crossed".
If we are going to make policy that says council cannot buy/build without meeting a set of criteria, one of those is clearly short/long term cost. The numbers simple do not add up.
Some folks need to keep their nose outta peoples private choices and accept the fact that no one in that area is interested in turning it into Northgate-South.
It is also a historical district regarded by the state. So any changes to that area would be so crazy it is not even worth it.
***Edit: wishful thinking and hoping is not solid policy and taxpayers and citizens deserve as much. "We hope it will turn into this" - "we think it will turn into that" is how we bought a mall and shoveled millions into RP ballparks.
The tree locations were fine, but someone must have been on drugs to specify Bald Cypress trees down the middle of University Drive. That's probably the worst tree to plant there. I would have planted a Crape Myrtle variety that grows to about 12 to 20 feet and they would have done well with minimum of care.Hornbeck said:EliteElectric said:That diemaroon barchetta said:
Trees. Lots of trees in green spaces by roads
Because they did not plan for watering them. Rec and Parks guy was pulling the strings. Yeah, dude, trees grow in jolly old England because it constantly rains. Any competent Forestry professional would have told you otherwise, but that guy was not in the discussions and plans. Only pompous rec and parks guy who has parks named after him. So, complete waste of money.
I agree with all you stated, but a question and a comment.Craig Regan 14 said:
*** Maroon I am not directing my comments toward you but just writ-large
Aside from City Hall and the fall from that I think it is important to ID a couple of things REF Southgate
1.) They already built student housing there and the project went bust and everyone lost their money. CCC junk bond lost their money
2.) No one is gonna sell. The city cannot and should not force anyone to sell anything they do not want nor should it be in the business of trying to force them out which is what I am starting to sense. It is their home. Period end of story.
3.) The market has already spoken LOUD and CLEAR - just take one look at the sky line of Northgate and imagine you have money to invest. It would stupid bordering on insane to try and build anywhere else but all the beds going into that area. All the density points toward NG.
4.) What everyone misses about South gate is the infrastructure there is some of the oldest in the city. Developers would have to ripe it out and and lay down fresh water, waster water etc. Also the tie in's in that area would have to be expanded. Who does that fall on? The city, taxpayers... YOU!
And all for a "hope so" and "fingers crossed".
If we are going to make policy that says council cannot buy/build without meeting a set of criteria, one of those is clearly short/long term cost. The numbers simple do not add up.
Some folks need to keep their nose outta peoples private choices and accept the fact that no one in that area is interested in turning it into Northgate-South.
It is also a historical district regarded by the state. So any changes to that area would be so crazy it is not even worth it.
***Edit: wishful thinking and hoping is not solid policy and taxpayers and citizens deserve as much. "We hope it will turn into this" - "we think it will turn into that" is how we bought a mall and shoveled millions into RP ballparks.
Where in Southgate was there a student housing complex that went bust? I live there and never was aware of that.
Also, the Southgate area is not an Historical District and there is no designation by the State of Texas or through the National Historical District as designation by the National Park Service. At some time in the past, the city at the request of a few homeowners label it as an historical area as identified on many of the street signs but it is no official designated area.
See article: point 1woodiewood said:I agree with all you stated, but a question and a comment.Craig Regan 14 said:
*** Maroon I am not directing my comments toward you but just writ-large
Aside from City Hall and the fall from that I think it is important to ID a couple of things REF Southgate
1.) They already built student housing there and the project went bust and everyone lost their money. CCC junk bond lost their money
2.) No one is gonna sell. The city cannot and should not force anyone to sell anything they do not want nor should it be in the business of trying to force them out which is what I am starting to sense. It is their home. Period end of story.
3.) The market has already spoken LOUD and CLEAR - just take one look at the sky line of Northgate and imagine you have money to invest. It would stupid bordering on insane to try and build anywhere else but all the beds going into that area. All the density points toward NG.
4.) What everyone misses about South gate is the infrastructure there is some of the oldest in the city. Developers would have to ripe it out and and lay down fresh water, waster water etc. Also the tie in's in that area would have to be expanded. Who does that fall on? The city, taxpayers... YOU!
And all for a "hope so" and "fingers crossed".
If we are going to make policy that says council cannot buy/build without meeting a set of criteria, one of those is clearly short/long term cost. The numbers simple do not add up.
Some folks need to keep their nose outta peoples private choices and accept the fact that no one in that area is interested in turning it into Northgate-South.
It is also a historical district regarded by the state. So any changes to that area would be so crazy it is not even worth it.
***Edit: wishful thinking and hoping is not solid policy and taxpayers and citizens deserve as much. "We hope it will turn into this" - "we think it will turn into that" is how we bought a mall and shoveled millions into RP ballparks.
Where in Southgate was there a student housing complex that went bust? I live there and never was aware of that.
Also, the Southgate area is not an Historical District and there is no designation by the State of Texas or through the National Historical District as designation by the National Park Service. At some time in the past, the city at the request of a few homeowners label it as an historical area as identified on many of the street signs but it is no official designated area.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-06/texas-luxury-dorm-financed-by-bonds-falls-deeper-into-distress
Also deed restrictions for per the HOA - from my understand prevent any sort of modifications
thank you for the corrections - I was on my phone and didnt have the articles readily available. My bad.
I would like to keep this thread on topic:
If this is about money and costs for the city... Southgate is NOT the answer.
Also we have Fed Opportunity zones that help the DEV eat more of the cost of the infrastructure.
That is the low hanging fruit - right there in front of us. BUILD THERE. GROW THERE.
If this is about money and costs for the city... Southgate is NOT the answer.
Also we have Fed Opportunity zones that help the DEV eat more of the cost of the infrastructure.
That is the low hanging fruit - right there in front of us. BUILD THERE. GROW THERE.
I don't have a Bloomberg subscription but I think the project the article refers to is the City West projct on campus in the old horse pasture. It's near the Brookshire Brothers on George Bush. Since I didn't read the article, it may have laid out how the investors didn't get repaid in year 1 as per the schedule.
The bigger issue with that project I have learned about from the parents of kids who have lived there is that the construction was very poor. 3 people who work in the construction industry who have had kids live in the complex have shared thier concerns about the design and construction of the apartments. The entire complex will be transferred to TAMU when the agreement expires but by then the buildings may be falling down around themselves.
The bigger issue with that project I have learned about from the parents of kids who have lived there is that the construction was very poor. 3 people who work in the construction industry who have had kids live in the complex have shared thier concerns about the design and construction of the apartments. The entire complex will be transferred to TAMU when the agreement expires but by then the buildings may be falling down around themselves.
White Creek Apartments had a lot of problems.
But when someone high up says "get it done by this date", they make whatever adjustments necessary to meet the deadline. Except they didn't quite meet the deadline on those.
But when someone high up says "get it done by this date", they make whatever adjustments necessary to meet the deadline. Except they didn't quite meet the deadline on those.
It's obvious this thing is out of control. What law keeps these people out of prison? I realize its probably not a law, more along the lines of several factors that make it highly unlikely. At what point is criminal overspending and the inability to maintain their fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of College Station a crime? Someone needs to spend the rest of their miserable existence in prison, have their assets and lives ruined, and then maybe proper governmental behavior will ensue.
Now I know what you are thinking, "CaptTex, if we do that to them, then someone can do it to us!", yeah **** that, when you take public office, and you take responsibility for money that is forcibly taken simply because someone did something right and owned property, your ass is target number one when questions start to be asked. Tis an odd thing that Kristen Rowe is retiring, when all of this talk of sky high taxes comes about, presumably because she wants none of it im sure, I hope.
Now I know what you are thinking, "CaptTex, if we do that to them, then someone can do it to us!", yeah **** that, when you take public office, and you take responsibility for money that is forcibly taken simply because someone did something right and owned property, your ass is target number one when questions start to be asked. Tis an odd thing that Kristen Rowe is retiring, when all of this talk of sky high taxes comes about, presumably because she wants none of it im sure, I hope.
I'm not saying I disagree.
Just…wow.
Just…wow.
So my point was directed at the fact that NG is going to be the "downtown" of BCS. Park West didn't just miss "one payment". I invite you to read other articles on the subject.
Southgate owners do not want it to turn into NG. That pretty much closes the book.
If owners are refusing to sell or deed restrictions (both?) do not allow them to sell for certain reasons or causes, then that is it. I am seeing some people mentioning that COCS needs to force it to become more dense to solve our housing issues, or what have you but that the same time saying we need "smaller GOV in our lives".
Cannot have it both ways.
And besides, every city has a historic district… even Bryan. People spent millions restoring older homes and the city could be better for it.
Not everything needs to be a parking lot or 4 story student housing.
Southgate owners do not want it to turn into NG. That pretty much closes the book.
If owners are refusing to sell or deed restrictions (both?) do not allow them to sell for certain reasons or causes, then that is it. I am seeing some people mentioning that COCS needs to force it to become more dense to solve our housing issues, or what have you but that the same time saying we need "smaller GOV in our lives".
Cannot have it both ways.
And besides, every city has a historic district… even Bryan. People spent millions restoring older homes and the city could be better for it.
Not everything needs to be a parking lot or 4 story student housing.
Craig Regan 14 said:
So my point was directed at the fact that NG is going to be the "downtown" of BCS. Park West didn't just miss "one payment". I invite you to read other articles on the subject.
Southgate owners do not want it to turn into NG. That pretty much closes the book.
If owners are refusing to sell or deed restrictions (both?) do not allow them to sell for certain reasons or causes, then that is it. I am seeing some people mentioning that COCS needs to force it to become more dense to solve our housing issues, or what have you but that the same time saying we need "smaller GOV in our lives".
Cannot have it both ways.
And besides, every city has a historic district… even Bryan. People spent millions restoring older homes and the city could be better for it.
Not everything needs to be a parking lot or 29 story student housing.
FIFY
Touche