I was typing the same response when you posted it.drred4 said:
ISD owned the lot and I think they deeded it to the city and Blue Bell gave money.
Macy's Re-Purposing, Feedback Sought [Staff Edit 2/15/2025]
30,371 Views |
260 Replies |
Last: 13 days ago by happyinBCS
I need to ask a dumb question, so that I better understand the situation.
The city owns the space within Post Oak Mall that was formerly occupied by Macys. Is that correct?
If that is correct, who owns the rest of the mall space?
And who owns the property that the mall is placed on?
The city owns the space within Post Oak Mall that was formerly occupied by Macys. Is that correct?
If that is correct, who owns the rest of the mall space?
And who owns the property that the mall is placed on?
Buford T. Justice said:
I need to ask a dumb question, so that I better understand the situation.
The city owns the space within Post Oak Mall that was formerly occupied by Macys. Is that correct?
If that is correct, who owns the rest of the mall space?
And who owns the property that the mall is placed on?
https://www.cblproperties.com/
Trump will fix it.
Buford T. Justice said:
I need to ask a dumb question, so that I better understand the situation.
The city owns the space within Post Oak Mall that was formerly occupied by Macys. Is that correct?
If that is correct, who owns the rest of the mall space?
And who owns the property that the mall is placed on?
The mall consists of 6 owners, including the city with the former Macy's and 8 total acres consisting of the former Macy's building and a sizable parking lot.
Owners are subject to an REA agreement which requires payment for monthly maintenance. Notably, that agreement also requires unanimous consent, of all owners, for a specific use. If you wanted to put a grocery store in there, you would need the consent of your partners- the other mall property owners. Same with a rec center, family entertainment center, an esports arena, and so forth.
Some would have me believe the city felt it could break that agreement and proceed with what it wanted to do in a "rules for me, not for thee" approach cloaked in constitutionality. If so, perhaps that's what gave rise to nonpayment of the monthly maintenance fees and a lawsuit filed by CBL, the largest single owner of Post Oak Mall property.
Regardless of the why, the result of the lawsuit was CBL ultimately prevailed via settlement. (That marked the first time an organization I represented on the board lost a legal battle, and yes that stings).
That dust has settled and bridges rebuilt.
So. That said, what should we do with it?
Did something change? Are you still supportive of the "sell it" plan?Bob Yancy said:
what should we do with it?
If the city is willing to sell it, that will make "what should we do with it?" somebody else's question. The city will not need to worry about it anymore. A weight all but lifted off the taxpayers' shoulders.
I pray you follow through. This can be a huge win for the "stop wasting our money" crowd.
Brian Alg
Brazos Coalition for Responsible Government and Moderator Restraint
Brazos Coalition for Responsible Government and Moderator Restraint
Mr. Yancy
Have council look at Varsity grill, opened 9 months ago a multimillion-dollar restaurant business with owners that have a successful restaurant in Brenham unfortunately they did not make it all the while they are paying property tax to CS. This is America and the risk reward that comes with commercial real estate.
Please SELL the Macy's property and don't ever buy another speculative piece of real estate again
Thank you, sir,
Have council look at Varsity grill, opened 9 months ago a multimillion-dollar restaurant business with owners that have a successful restaurant in Brenham unfortunately they did not make it all the while they are paying property tax to CS. This is America and the risk reward that comes with commercial real estate.
Please SELL the Macy's property and don't ever buy another speculative piece of real estate again
Thank you, sir,
Quote:
Regardless of the why, the result of the lawsuit was CBL ultimately prevailed via settlement. (That marked the first time an organization I represented on the board lost a legal battle, and yes that stings).
It shouldn't sting. The people that made that decision to not pay lost the case the moment they decided that the rules didn't apply to the city.
It's the reason the city owns Macy's in the first place. People made bad choices with other people's money.
Losing the lawsuit was a foregone conclusion. Don't feel like you blew it in any way. Whoever made the decision to not pay the fees hamstrung any chance of winning the lawsuit.
maroon barchetta said:Quote:
Regardless of the why, the result of the lawsuit was CBL ultimately prevailed via settlement. (That marked the first time an organization I represented on the board lost a legal battle, and yes that stings).
It shouldn't sting. The people that made that decision to not pay lost the case the moment they decided that the rules didn't apply to the city.
It's the reason the city owns Macy's in the first place. People made bad choices with other people's money.
Losing the lawsuit was a foregone conclusion. Don't feel like you blew it in any way. Whoever made the decision to not pay the fees hamstrung any chance of winning the lawsuit.
Thanks.
Respectfully
Yancy
happyinBCS said:
Mr. Yancy
Have council look at Varsity grill, opened 9 months ago a multimillion-dollar restaurant business with owners that have a successful restaurant in Brenham unfortunately they did not make it all the while they are paying property tax to CS. This is America and the risk reward that comes with commercial real estate.
Please SELL the Macy's property and don't ever buy another speculative piece of real estate again
Thank you, sir,
Yes. The private sector is wrought with risk and reward. If you want to be a "killer" that's where you play, not government. Purchasing Macy's raised "proper role of government" questions from the start.
Thanks for the feedback.
Respectfully
Yancy
Brian Alg said:Did something change? Are you still supportive of the "sell it" plan?Bob Yancy said:
what should we do with it?
If the city is willing to sell it, that will make "what should we do with it?" somebody else's question. The city will not need to worry about it anymore. A weight all but lifted off the taxpayers' shoulders.
I pray you follow through. This can be a huge win for the "stop wasting our money" crowd.
No sir nothing changed. As one member of council, selling is preferred. However I'll keep working the problem til resolved. I appreciate everyone's feedback.
Respectfully
Yancy
Thank you very much.
I'd sell it, even at a small loss.
I'd sell it, even at a small loss.
Buford T. Justice said:
Thank you very much.
I'd sell it, even at a small loss.
That's the problem.
They overpaid by about 2x when they insisted on buying it.
The mayor claiming it's on the market is dubious.
It won't be a small loss.
How many years does Post Oak Mall have left? Ten? Twenty? I'm thinking out loud.
Buford T. Justice said:
How many years does Post Oak Mall have left? Ten? Twenty? I'm thinking out loud.
That's a good question, just not one for government to answer.
Respectfully
Yancy
The city can buy the whole thing and convert it to student living, with gym, dining options, mini-nightlife district all under one roof!
maroon barchetta said:
The city can buy the whole thing and convert it to student living, with gym, dining options, mini-nightlife district all under one roof!
That's why we have developers. I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic, though. ;-)
Sorta.
Price would be a deterrent, but an everything-under-one-roof concept would be interesting.
Would just have to figure out the best ways to utilize the open spaces between store spaces. Maybe wall in and make them narrower and have storage units of sorts or study huddle rooms or something.
Price would be a deterrent, but an everything-under-one-roof concept would be interesting.
Would just have to figure out the best ways to utilize the open spaces between store spaces. Maybe wall in and make them narrower and have storage units of sorts or study huddle rooms or something.
maroon barchetta said:
Sorta.
Price would be a deterrent, but an everything-under-one-roof concept would be interesting.
Would just have to figure out the best ways to utilize the open spaces between store spaces. Maybe wall in and make them narrower and have storage units of sorts or study huddle rooms or something.
As a private sector real estate guy, my opinion is that level of repurposing would call for a complete demolition and redevelopment of the property.
Respectfully
Yancy
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
You would probably have to raise tha ante greatly to get all seven owners of the individual properties to agree to sell.maroon barchetta said:
Sorta.
Price would be a deterrent, but an everything-under-one-roof concept would be interesting.
Would just have to figure out the best ways to utilize the open spaces between store spaces. Maybe wall in and make them narrower and have storage units of sorts or study huddle rooms or something.
The one thing that could be done and probably be a success is for some developer to purchase some of the open parking lot area away from the Penny's store on the west side of the mall and build some nice gated three story condos with built-in garages. I think they would sell or lease well there. A couple of more restaurant pads could also be added.Bob Yancy said:maroon barchetta said:
Sorta.
Price would be a deterrent, but an everything-under-one-roof concept would be interesting.
Would just have to figure out the best ways to utilize the open spaces between store spaces. Maybe wall in and make them narrower and have storage units of sorts or study huddle rooms or something.
As a private sector real estate guy, my opinion is that level of repurposing would call for a complete demolition and redevelopment of the property.
Respectfully
Yancy
It could be the stimulus that redevelops the whole mall property over a couple of decades.
Mr. Yancy
you said a while back you would provide us with the cost of ownership of the property did you ever get that information ?
Also the mayor said the property was on the market, but I can't find it on LoopNet or any commercial RE site It was on LoopNet previously when they were asking for bids
Thanks
you said a while back you would provide us with the cost of ownership of the property did you ever get that information ?
Also the mayor said the property was on the market, but I can't find it on LoopNet or any commercial RE site It was on LoopNet previously when they were asking for bids
Thanks
happyinBCS said:
Mr. Yancy
you said a while back you would provide us with the cost of ownership of the property did you ever get that information ?
Also the mayor said the property was on the market, but I can't find it on LoopNet or any commercial RE site It was on LoopNet previously when they were asking for bids
Thanks
I've requested total cost of ownership in writing and am waiting on a response. I too looked for the listing and could not find it. I'm pretty sure it has not been formally listed. Perhaps the mayor simply meant the property is available. We have a meeting Thursday and I'll discuss it with him at that time for clarification.
Respectfully,
Yancy
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
how much control does the city manager have over this process?Bob Yancy said:happyinBCS said:
Mr. Yancy
you said a while back you would provide us with the cost of ownership of the property did you ever get that information ?
Also the mayor said the property was on the market, but I can't find it on LoopNet or any commercial RE site It was on LoopNet previously when they were asking for bids
Thanks
I've requested total cost of ownership in writing and am waiting on a response. I too looked for the listing and could not find it. I'm pretty sure it has not been formally listed. Perhaps the mayor simply meant the property is available. We have a meeting Thursday and I'll discuss it with him at that time for clarification.
Respectfully,
Yancy
What a disaster.woodiewood said:The one thing that could be done and probably be a success is for some developer to purchase some of the open parking lot area away from the Penny's store on the west side of the mall and build some nice gated three story condos with built-in garages. I think they would sell or lease well there. A couple of more restaurant pads could also be added.Bob Yancy said:maroon barchetta said:
Sorta.
Price would be a deterrent, but an everything-under-one-roof concept would be interesting.
Would just have to figure out the best ways to utilize the open spaces between store spaces. Maybe wall in and make them narrower and have storage units of sorts or study huddle rooms or something.
As a private sector real estate guy, my opinion is that level of repurposing would call for a complete demolition and redevelopment of the property.
Respectfully
Yancy
It could be the stimulus that redevelops the whole mall property over a couple of decades.
there are seven owners of various portions of the mall property.Buford T. Justice said:
I need to ask a dumb question, so that I better understand the situation.
The city owns the space within Post Oak Mall that was formerly occupied by Macys. Is that correct?
If that is correct, who owns the rest of the mall space?
And who owns the property that the mall is placed on?
91_Aggie said:how much control does the city manager have over this process?Bob Yancy said:happyinBCS said:
Mr. Yancy
you said a while back you would provide us with the cost of ownership of the property did you ever get that information ?
Also the mayor said the property was on the market, but I can't find it on LoopNet or any commercial RE site It was on LoopNet previously when they were asking for bids
Thanks
I've requested total cost of ownership in writing and am waiting on a response. I too looked for the listing and could not find it. I'm pretty sure it has not been formally listed. Perhaps the mayor simply meant the property is available. We have a meeting Thursday and I'll discuss it with him at that time for clarification.
Respectfully,
Yancy
The city manager is responsible for the day to day operations of the city, to hire and manage staff, to submit a budget annually to council for review, and several other things. The city manager's authority is derived from council, who you elect. Policymaking, strategic steerage of the city, and ultimate authority over discretionary spending decisions like Macy's is on council, ultimately. The decision to acquire Macy's was made, unanimously, by that council in 2022. As such, ultimate responsibility is borne by that council and by extension, you and your fellow citizens.
For more information regarding duties and responsibilities of the city manager, see Article IV, page 11, of the city charter here:
https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12410832/File/Our%20Community/CityCharter.pdf
Respectfully yours,
Yancy
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
I called the city manager's office and was told to file an open records request for the cost of ownership. I did so hopefully I will receive it and Mr. Yancy said he requested the information in writing also
What would constitute actions/behavior that would warrant the Council looking for a new city Manager?
91_Aggie said:
What would constitute actions/behavior that would warrant the Council looking for a new city Manager?
Respectfully, that's far afield from the original purpose of this post. I will say the CM is a strong leader that cares deeply about our community and leave it at that.
Meanwhile, I've made a new post about baseball in the Aggieland forum and would love to hear feedback on how we should handle our new baseball fields. Go check it out and make your voices heard, baseball aficionados!
Respectfully
Yancy
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
If you aren't going to sell it why not turn it into a sports complex for kids? There is a lack of recreational space for kids in this area. Plano Sports Authority (PSA) has some good indoor sport complexes for multiple sport use. Currently the CS Parks and Rec runs their programs through the schools, but this could be used year-round and not dependent on the district. The space is centrally located and easy access from Hwy 6.
TAMU1990 said:
If you aren't going to sell it why not turn it into a sports complex for kids? There is a lack of recreational space for kids in this area. Plano Sports Authority (PSA) has some good indoor sport complexes for multiple sport use. Currently the CS Parks and Rec runs their programs through the schools, but this could be used year-round and not dependent on the district. The space is centrally located and easy access from Hwy 6.
Thanks for that feedback. I'll go check out their website.
Respectfully
Yancy
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
One of the problems with selling it or leasing it to someone to put something there is that there are two somewhat smaller one-story vacant buildings nearby that might serve someone's needs better and probably won't be millions of dollars of purchase?TAMU1990 said:
If you aren't going to sell it why not turn it into a sports complex for kids? There is a lack of recreational space for kids in this area. Plano Sports Authority (PSA) has some good indoor sport complexes for multiple sport use. Currently the CS Parks and Rec runs their programs through the schools, but this could be used year-round and not dependent on the district. The space is centrally located and easy access from Hwy 6.
The Hwy 30 front of the old Sears store where the appliance store went belly-up is vacant and also the old Sears service center nearby on Holleman is still vacant. Both are about 20,000 square feet of CHVAC area.
At 104,000 square feet and two stories, IThe Macy's is going to be a tough sell.
I got a crazy idea... and hear my out here
How about COCS publish criteria by which they must meet before anything like happens again.
I dont know about yall but I am getting really tired of the
"what the heck did you buy a mall for"
"this is gonna be great esports - blah blah blah, dont worry you dont know anything:"
.... a few moments later
"hey citizens, this thing was a total failure and we dont know what to do with it"
At what point is anyone gonna admit the propaganda coming from folks is really transparent at this point and it needs to stop already. Like some of us are idiots and actual believe it
COCS took 7m dollars out of the general fund (after claiming the budget is reallllly tight and we cant lower taxes) and rather buy down utility rates or freeze PROP taxes... you buy a total failure.
Did i miss anything?
How about COCS publish criteria by which they must meet before anything like happens again.
I dont know about yall but I am getting really tired of the
"what the heck did you buy a mall for"
"this is gonna be great esports - blah blah blah, dont worry you dont know anything:"
.... a few moments later
"hey citizens, this thing was a total failure and we dont know what to do with it"
At what point is anyone gonna admit the propaganda coming from folks is really transparent at this point and it needs to stop already. Like some of us are idiots and actual believe it
COCS took 7m dollars out of the general fund (after claiming the budget is reallllly tight and we cant lower taxes) and rather buy down utility rates or freeze PROP taxes... you buy a total failure.
Did i miss anything?
Yes.
You forgot to blame TAMU in some vague manner for not jumping into the old Macy's with an investment in e-sports.
We have seen that accusation in this thread although I haven't see where there was any written contract between the city and TAMU for such a partnership.
You forgot to blame TAMU in some vague manner for not jumping into the old Macy's with an investment in e-sports.
We have seen that accusation in this thread although I haven't see where there was any written contract between the city and TAMU for such a partnership.
January 27 I did an ORR for:
"Documents related to the city's decision to purchase property at Post Oak Mall including correspondence with any outside consulting firms or Texas A&M or its affiliates. This may also include plans to use the property for a specific purpose. Documents relating to a city agreement with Texas A&M or its affiliates regarding an esports facility or other use by the University or its affiliates. These documents might be dated from January 1, 2020 to the present."
They responded with a request to the AG "to withhold a portion of the information pursuant to exceptions found in the Texas Government Code 552.101 to 552.158."
They didn't actually release anything. So I am not sure what they meant by "portion." And the sections of the code they vaguely cited are basically the whole exceptions list. I am not sure what the deal is. But they were required to turn docs over a couple of days ago.
Edit: to be clear, they indicated that on the 17th they'd put together "comments to [the AG] stating the reasons why the exceptions apply and a labeled copy of the information to which the exceptions apply as required under 552.301(e)."
Edit: I just looked at what 552.301(e) is. I don't get to see that one. glol. They are withholding everything because secret reasons I am not allowed to know allow them to withhold a portion of the documents. They've played a lot of games with ORR in the last couple of years. But this one is new. lol
Edit: They sent a big portion of the docs on 2/14/2025 along with a more detailed discussion of the exceptions they are claiming: "The City claims certain exceptions further described in the City's brief pursuant to Tex. Gov't Code. Ann. 552.107 and Tex R. Evid. 503."
"Documents related to the city's decision to purchase property at Post Oak Mall including correspondence with any outside consulting firms or Texas A&M or its affiliates. This may also include plans to use the property for a specific purpose. Documents relating to a city agreement with Texas A&M or its affiliates regarding an esports facility or other use by the University or its affiliates. These documents might be dated from January 1, 2020 to the present."
They responded with a request to the AG "to withhold a portion of the information pursuant to exceptions found in the Texas Government Code 552.101 to 552.158."
They didn't actually release anything. So I am not sure what they meant by "portion." And the sections of the code they vaguely cited are basically the whole exceptions list. I am not sure what the deal is. But they were required to turn docs over a couple of days ago.
Edit: to be clear, they indicated that on the 17th they'd put together "comments to [the AG] stating the reasons why the exceptions apply and a labeled copy of the information to which the exceptions apply as required under 552.301(e)."
Edit: I just looked at what 552.301(e) is. I don't get to see that one. glol. They are withholding everything because secret reasons I am not allowed to know allow them to withhold a portion of the documents. They've played a lot of games with ORR in the last couple of years. But this one is new. lol
Edit: They sent a big portion of the docs on 2/14/2025 along with a more detailed discussion of the exceptions they are claiming: "The City claims certain exceptions further described in the City's brief pursuant to Tex. Gov't Code. Ann. 552.107 and Tex R. Evid. 503."
Brian Alg
Brazos Coalition for Responsible Government and Moderator Restraint
Brazos Coalition for Responsible Government and Moderator Restraint