This morning's Eagle. It isn't just state funding challenges and an uptick in homeschooling driving consideration of this policy. I suggest the biggest driver is that families with young children cannot afford a home in College Station, Texas.

Would love to hear your thoughts.

Respectfully,

Yancy '95

We moved from south CS to just outside the city limits last year, are no longer zoned for CSISD, and are about to have our first kid. We would likely take advantage of this change in policy when it's time for our kid to start school.

This would be a good for young families, whose parent(s) live in Navasota but work in College Station.

I'd be OK with that only if the student's family had to pay the school district to attend, and not take from the assigned school district.
I'm against school vouchers. I think, one of the decision points on choosing a living location should be school assignment. Housing costs have that built in the market.
Now, if you say that "my kid doesn't attend school x and I want them to attend school y, so we shouldn't have to pay school x's district for Johnny to attend, then let's allow folks that have no kids in school to not have to pay school taxes at all.

These families would not pay out of pocket. But the district would get paid by the state for them.

I would expect this change to have quite an impact on real estate and development south on Wellborn rd and FM 159. Could be the revival of Millican.

We bought our first home for 60k in 1997, 3/2 in Wheeler Ridge in Bryan. Our rate was like 4.9, our payment was $503. At the time we didn't have children, but even if we did we wouldn't have been able to consider schools as a deciding factor, we simply bought where we could afford. Unfortunately, in CSTX, and Bryan for that matter, there just isn't any affordable "starter" homes for young families. That is a shame.

I don't understand how we can expect a young family to afford 3k a month for a mortgage and the 15-20k down on a new home in CSTX.

Bob Yancy said:

---

I suggest the biggest driver is that families with young children cannot afford a home in College Station, Texas.

Would love to hear your thoughts.

---

After owning rental properties in Bryan and College Station for a long time now, I dont agree with that. I used to think that. But after dealing with a ton of people in both cities, here's what I have found.

I own a number of "affordable" rentals in College Station. That model was a huge part of my target market when I was buying properties. I thought a decent but basic affordable home in College Station school district would fly off the shelf. Unfortunately, that just has never come to be. They are my hardest properties to rent! People that would normally live in that type of house, dont want to live in College Station!

1. People want to live where the feel like they fit in. I hear it from both sides on a regular basis. Essentially, "we don't want to live around those people". Its deeply engrained in people and is exhibited in all types and social classes. People will pay just as much in rent to be in a worse area, because that's where they feel like they fit in!

2. People place looks and finishes over quality of schools and affordability. If a home has good curb appeal and has nice finishes, I can rent it in a heartbeat, even in the worst school zoning. All while a simple but functional home, in the best school zoning, will just sit there.

Same for price, I can get more for a home that looks good, in a questionable area, than my simple but affordable homes, in the best areas.

I think a lot of it comes down to simple, shallow, human nature.

Is there a link to this article or one that's not behind pay wall? My question is why? Seems to me all I've heard on here is how CSISD is full and needs more room for students. Why raise my taxes to let in outsiders?

for 1, homeschool, private school and other options like ILT have had a decent impact on student #s in CSISD. And it seems to be growing. Maybe someone can give some actual #s

Regardless of school choice, housing prices, etc... The fact that CSISD wants to do this just to get more money is ridiculous.

CSISD has two 5A high schools in a growing, prosperous area. If there are not already enough students and enough tax dollars coming in, then the revenue side of the budget equation is not the problem.

Being that City of College Station is wholly inside CSISD, the city should be violently against this concept. I would put this up there with the data center in terms of potential negative impact.

BQ_90 said:

---

My question is why? Seems to me all I've heard on here is how CSISD is full and needs more room for students. Why raise my taxes to let in outsiders?

---

Totally agree. We already have a self licking icecream cone of overcrowding, overspending, and overtaxing. And now they want to make it worse?

Here's the question that actually matters. How does this benefit the current students of CSISD?

In listening to the super intendent sell the board on it, it is shocking that the terms he is laying out is that of a public school. Sounds like the sales pitch of a private school.

I don't want to ever hear the school district complain about the amount of money they get from the state per student. They are willing to take 300-500 kids just for that amount. We as citizens of College Station and CSISD have invested a tremendous amount of taxes to get the community and the schools to the point that they are sought after. If you want your kid to have access to this investment, move into the district.

Is this a proactive measure to deal with what's coming in 2026 - 27, specifically school vouchers?

Vouchers are going to decimate small and mid-size school districts, CSISD included. As parents take advantage of the voucher to pull their kid out of CSISD and join a private school (which will pop up with greater frequency) or home school, the ISD will lose that state money allocated for that student.

I'm seeing this effort as a way to deal with the coming exodus.

Omperlodge said:

---

In listening to the super intendent sell the board on it, it is shocking that the terms he is laying out is that of a public school. Sounds like the sales pitch of a private school.

I don't want to ever hear the school district complain about the amount of money they get from the state per student. They are willing to take 300-500 kids just for that amount. We as citizens of College Station and CSISD have invested a tremendous amount of taxes to get the community and the schools to the point that they are sought after. If you want your kid to have access to this investment, move into the district.

---

It is shocking. But this is the unintended consequence of a poorly conceived voucher law. Public and Private schools will be in competition with one another.

Our mid-size town will suffer as all the "good" kids (and the state funding allocated to them) leave public school and join private schools, the good teachers will follow, some of the public schools will close

And things will only get worse for the ISD.

CS78 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

I suggest the biggest driver is that families with young children cannot afford a home in College Station, Texas.

Would love to hear your thoughts.

---

After owning rental properties in Bryan and College Station for a long time now, I dont agree with that. I used to think that. But after dealing with a ton of people in both cities, here's what I have found.

I own a number of "affordable" rentals in College Station. That model was a huge part of my target market when I was buying properties. I thought a decent but basic affordable home in College Station school district would fly off the shelf. Unfortunately, that just has never come to be. They are my hardest properties to rent! People that would normally live in that type of house, dont want to live in College Station!

1. People want to live where the feel like they fit in. I hear it from both sides on a regular basis. Essentially, "we don't want to live around those people". Its deeply engrained in people and is exhibited in all types and social classes. People will pay just as much in rent to be in a worse area, because that's where they feel like they fit in!

2. People place looks and finishes over quality of schools and affordability. If a home has good curb appeal and has nice finishes, I can rent it in a heartbeat, even in the worst school zoning. All while a simple but functional home, in the best school zoning, will just sit there.

Same for price, I can get more for a home that looks good, in a questionable area, than my simple but affordable homes, in the best areas.

I think a lot of it comes down to simple, shallow, human nature.

---

How much does one of your affordable homes go for? Sq ft. and general neighborhood if you please

Just to clarify a few things:

Your ISD property taxes are split into two parts. One goes to bond payments (bonds can only be used to buy buildings/equipment/etc not pay staff or the light bill). The state takes the rest and redistributes as they see fit (including into the general fund).
The state gives schools a per-student basic allotment plus special funding (for instance a stipend for a dyslexic student to pay for the time staff spend on dyslexia services). The Feds also pay the ISD per-student funds that also vary by the student and the school they are going to.

The idea of taking in transfers is to keep the schools at something approaching capacity. Like any business, you want to spread fixed costs out over as many students as you can. We are still paying an elementary front desk staff, security officer, principal, air conditioning, roof maintenance, etc whether you have all the classes full or all but one empty. College Station keeps growing but the population of kids has leveled off and may shrink if all we are bringing in are more retirees and college students. I think the high school expansions and technical training center funded by recent bonds are the last added school square footage we are going to see in CSISD.

Omperlodge hit on a key issue - are they really going to pull in more money with transfers than they spend? Parents that are motivated to drive their kid to another school might send them to a charter or private option. CSISD wants those kids, the ones that are getting good grades and not starting fights in the hall and can get into a private school. What about the parents that are not happy with the care their local district is providing for their severely disabled child? CSISD spends a lot more per student than they get funding for on special education. Private options don't really exist because they would be extraordinarily expensive (or just not actually provide services). So the parents with desirable students have lots of options but students that need an exceptional level of dedicated staffing and resources are essentially limited to public education. That's why other districts taking in transfers can see a huge fraction of special needs children in the transfer group. IANAL so I have no idea if they can screen out this high-cost group like they can deny kids that are discipline problems.

Side note: Texas is about to be #1 for highest paying voucher program and ~#40 (depends on who is counting what) for spending per student on public schools.

Jinx said:

---

How much does one of your affordable homes go for? Sq ft. and general neighborhood if you please

---

I currently have one that's been empty for over a month. Ive never had a Bryan house sit that long. A simple but clean 3/2 with single color paint, formica counters, etc. Zoned to River Bend Elementary. I think I should finally have a lease signed in the next day at $1485. That's still a lot but a good bit cheaper than anything else in the area and about what I would estimate it to rent for if it were in North Bryan. People want affordable, but only if it has granite counters and stainless appliances.

gunan01 said:

---

Is this a proactive measure to deal with what's coming in 2026 - 27, specifically school vouchers?

Vouchers are going to decimate small and mid-size school districts, CSISD included. As parents take advantage of the voucher to pull their kid out of CSISD and join a private school (which will pop up with greater frequency) or home school, the ISD will lose that state money allocated for that student.

I'm seeing this effort as a way to deal with the coming exodus.

---

I could be wrong, but I don't see this being a major problem here.

With the exception of the previous social engineering zoning fiasco, I think most parents are pretty happy with CSISD schools and we see the value of having our kids in a quality public school. That's part of why many of us chose to raise families here, rather than the big cities where private schools are the norm.

My hope with the vouchers is it will give the schools a reason to do the right thing and treat students and families right rather than treating us like inferior subjects, who have no choice. Do things like jerk people around with zoning or things like bring in a bunch of students from out of town, and that's a prime way to get people looking elsewhere.

Bob Yancy said:

---

I suggest the biggest driver is that families with young children cannot afford a home in College Station, Texas.

Would love to hear your thoughts

---

Between interest rates, property taxes and the size of the houses being built it is prohibitive for families with young children to buy a home. When politicians say we need more "affordable housing" they always end up taking about habitat houses. What we need are more houses that are affordable. How we get there I have no idea.

woodometer said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

I suggest the biggest driver is that families with young children cannot afford a home in College Station, Texas.

Would love to hear your thoughts

---

Between interest rates, property taxes and the size of the houses being built it is prohibitive for families with young children to buy a home. When politicians say we need more "affordable housing" they always end up taking about habitat houses. What we need are more houses that are affordable. How we get there I have no idea.

---

You slash fees- all of em- and make infrastructure investments along with the developers in exchange for single family homes priced at or below $300k.

At one point in this country, local governments invested in infrastructure to spur smart growth. Today, there's no fee we won't assess and no requirement we won't place on builders and developers.

We make developers build concrete streets, sidewalks, street lighting, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, electrical, water- all to an incredibly high standard. Then, after making the developer build virtually every stitch inside a subdivision, we then assess impact fees and parks fees, et al, for estimated impacts OUTSIDE the neighborhood.

So, builders and developers pass these costs along to the homebuyer. Add in inflation, COVID, supply chain woes, etc and it equals a national housing crisis for young folks seeking their piece of the American Dream, or retired folks seeking a small house after having lived that dream.

Smaller inexpensive homes don't "pencil" anymore because these fees and standards simply outpace a competitive price point.

The above is EXACTLY why Navasota, Snook, Franklin, Caldwell, the county and CoB have comparable homes tens and tens of thousands of dollars less than CS. I call it "builder flight" as they flee our jurisdiction for places without those stringent standards and fees.

Meanwhile people still work here, shop here, etc so there are more cars on the road traveling longer distances- but not paying property taxes even as they beat up our infrastructure, snarl traffic, and starve our school district of students.

It's not complex. It's a readily identifiable trend that we're moving entirely too slow to address.

Builders and developers aren't the enemy. We are.

Housing is the defining issue of our time. Every level of government and every politician need to craft policies to address it, with haste.

EDITED to add: This also is driving existing homeowners taxes up. Because of builder flight there are fewer homes. Because there are fewer new homes inventory is constrained. That drives up the value of existing homes and related taxes- while stoking the fires of over-occupancy.

My .02

Respectfully

Yancy '95

We live in South College Station, and I would like for our kids to go to school in Anderson.

As a College Station resident I greatly appreciate you posting on here. You did a really good job with the data center issue.

The problem I have with your analysis here is your base assumption that local governments should spur housing development. (You call it "smart growth", but one person's smart growth is another person's sprawl.) I would argue that local governments should do what the majority of local voters want not just what developers want. If voters want to eliminate development fees, of course eliminate them. But we don't vote on that as clearly as we should. In every city council election we seem to vote on the candidates who are quietly with the developers and the candidates who are for neighborhoods (i.e. against developers.) Fees are not openly discussed.

Why is it a problem if less expensive housing is built in Navasota, Snook, etc.? Why can't someone get their piece of the American Dream in one of those communities? You seem to think everyone needs to live in College Station - that's a little College Station-centered. Navasota needs some love. Snook is cool. Every location of a certain size has more expensive neighborhoods and less expensive neighborhoods. Why is it a problem if in our metro area these neighborhoods are across city boundaries? The real issues arise when the expensive bedroom communities are outside the city center, which is the exact opposite of the situation you are describing.

And the people driving their cars on the road to the College Station stores are paying sales tax here, even if they aren't paying property tax in CS.

With respect to the home values going up-property taxes going up because of lack of housing in College Station issue this is happening all across the state. I entirely grant you that. The state legislature seems to exert a lot of effort on reducing property taxes because of this. I'm not convinced that the inexpensive starter homes which you seem to have in mind would drive down the prices of the majority of housing in College Station (the people who buy in Pebble Creek are not buying starter homes), but I think this would take a lot more analysis than can be done on Texags.

Would you be willing to repurpose the city land behind Costco to a starter home subdivision instead of baseball fields? The City could figure out how to sell it to a developer with all impact fees waived/already paid since it owns the land.

As for the CSISD policy as someone said previously it's important to keep the schools full to spread the costs over the maximum number of students. But you're a city councilman, not a school board member. Don't use school issues as your entire guide for city decisions.

lost my dog said:

---

As a College Station resident I greatly appreciate you posting on here. You did a really good job with the data center issue.

The problem I have with your analysis here is your base assumption that local governments should spur housing development. (You call it "smart growth", but one person's smart growth is another person's sprawl.) I would argue that local governments should do what the majority of local voters want not just what developers want. If voters want to eliminate development fees, of course eliminate them. But we don't vote on that as clearly as we should. In every city council election we seem to vote on the candidates who are quietly with the developers and the candidates who are for neighborhoods (i.e. against developers.) Fees are not openly discussed.

Why is it a problem if less expensive housing is built in Navasota, Snook, etc.? Why can't someone get their piece of the American Dream in one of those communities? You seem to think everyone needs to live in College Station - that's a little College Station-centered. Navasota needs some love. Snook is cool. Every location of a certain size has more expensive neighborhoods and less expensive neighborhoods. Why is it a problem if in our metro area these neighborhoods are across city boundaries? The real issues arise when the expensive bedroom communities are outside the city center, which is the exact opposite of the situation you are describing.

And the people driving their cars on the road to the College Station stores are paying sales tax here, even if they aren't paying property tax in CS.

With respect to the home values going up-property taxes going up because of lack of housing in College Station issue this is happening all across the state. I entirely grant you that. The state legislature seems to exert a lot of effort on reducing property taxes because of this. I'm not convinced that the inexpensive starter homes which you seem to have in mind would drive down the prices of the majority of housing in College Station (the people who buy in Pebble Creek are not buying starter homes), but I think this would take a lot more analysis than can be done on Texags.

Would you be willing to repurpose the city land behind Costco to a starter home subdivision instead of baseball fields? The City could figure out how to sell it to a developer with all impact fees waived/already paid since it owns the land.

As for the CSISD policy as someone said previously it's important to keep the schools full to spread the costs over the maximum number of students. But you're a city councilman, not a school board member. Don't use school issues as your entire guide for city decisions.

---

Thanks for your kind opening words.

When young folks flee a city for lack of opportunity in jobs and housing, urban decay and faltering cities are the natural result. I hope Navasota and Snook prosper and do well, I just don't want to lose our share of a healthy population pyramid by pushing folks out there. That's what's happening.

We could absolutely continue to morph ourselves into a retirement community, which our demographic studies show we are accelerating into. That would ironically be better for me personally. I'm 60 with a good bit of real estate. At this rate, the homes I paid $165,000 for in just 2014 will be worth half a million dollars. And, in just 5 years, my taxes will be frozen.

My wife and I could go out for a nice steak dinner and be served by a young person with a bachelors degree, underemployed, who can't afford to live here for a lack of jobs and housing- but thats not the kind of urban decay and lost opportunity I want for this city.

I want a healthy College Station, with ample opportunity for everyone from new graduates to the retired, like me. My kids and grandkids deserve a shot at raising their families in our great city, don't they?

Study after study tells us plainly that a healthy city requires a healthy population pyramid; that onerous fees and regulations wreck a housing market; that unhealthy urban sprawl is the result of unequal regulatory regimes pushing growth unnaturally outward.

We've created a situation where prideful local craftsmen can only afford to build homes priced half a million and up. Where only national scale home builders with their own lumber mills and deep pocketed student tower investors can afford to build here. Where neighborhoods are being encroached upon and overoccupancy is commonplace. Where families are squeezed out by our rent-by-the-bedroom market and yes- school districts are under duress- and it's absolutely my job as an elected official to take that into account in the policies I espouse.

We have to get away from the anti-builder and anti-developer and anti-growth mindset that's taken root in our city. Cities cannot be frozen in time. We will need a healthy, growing built environment to continue to be the city of opportunity we once were, and that takes quality builders and developers.

I owe a lot to this city. I got out of the Air Force in 89, graduated from Tamu, found gainful employment here, bought my first home here, built my first custom home here, raised my family here, created a successful business here, sold it and retired early here. My family could have experienced those things elsewhere I'm sure. But those things happened for my family here- and I want your kids and grandkids, just like mine, to have the same shot- in College Station, Texas.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

Is there no way to cut some of these housing fees that are just passed through to retain builders? Seems like a job council members can do.
Does the district really need huge bonds for infrastructures on school properties? Are all the improvements really nessesary? When they were voted down several times and then the games to get them passed commenced, is this really fair to the taxpayer?

Finally the opposite to raising revenue is cutting waste - is there no waste that can be cut or restructuring that can be seen? I thought the bussing was insane with people driving all over town. Cant they solve that with savings? I am sure there are 20 other cost savings that can be made that would have a huge impact.

No politician/school superintendent ever had a school cut their budget. It's always bigger bigger bigger. Why not?

We don't need to cut the fees that builders have to pay, and pass along to the initial homebuyer, but we need to smartly cut costs throughout the city's budget and cut the taxes that are collected.
I'm curious as to what the per capita tax collection is here vs similarly sized cities in the state. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing they are higher.
I'd also get rid of the 65 yo tax freeze.
The only way you get that gone is by all the young folks getting out and actually voting.
Instead, everyone complains, but no one votes for more efficient government.

gunan01 said:

---

Is this a proactive measure to deal with what's coming in 2026 - 27, specifically school vouchers?

Vouchers are going to decimate small and mid-size school districts, CSISD included. As parents take advantage of the voucher to pull their kid out of CSISD and join a private school (which will pop up with greater frequency) or home school, the ISD will lose that state money allocated for that student.

I'm seeing this effort as a way to deal with the coming exodus.

---

I do not see vouchers being that detrimental here. There is a cost to homeschool and it usually comes from a parent not working and earning a second salary. It will require a family to live on one income if they homeschool or work to join a co-op style group where they hire a teacher to teach their children. I don't think the International Leadership school has had that much of an effect.

I do not want to pay taxes for kids who do not live in CS.