Thank you for responding. A lot to unpack in your reply…

You bring up the demographic pyramid, but our pyramid is incredibly distorted by TAMU. The effect of 70,000 students on the housing market cannot be ignored. (You have been a leader on the current council on dealing with the impact of student housing in neighborhoods it is appreciated.) Many people, residing both and outside of College Station, own houses here which they rent to students. They make money off of these rentals because they can charge the students relatively high rents which more than cover their mortgages and taxes. These are houses which are no longer available for homeowners who live and work here to buy. People who want to buy a house to live in some neighborhoods are in direct competition with investors who want to rent houses to students.

(When I drive through Southgate I see properties where people I knew 30 years ago raised families. For various reasons these people are gone. Their former houses have been turned into student group houses or (even worse) AirBNBs.)

Are we turning into a retirement community because people bought here 40 years ago, raised their families, and just haven't moved on/died yet? That's a cyclic situation, and in 20 years there would be a rejuvenation in demography as people do pass on and their heirs sell their houses. Or are we turning into a retirement community because old Ags are retiring from their jobs in Houston, selling their houses in River Oaks and then buying up here so they can enjoy Aggieland in their leisure? These scenarios argue for different responses. My guess is that both things are happening.

Developers want to maximize their profit. My guess is that they think they can do this either by building high-end expensive houses or by building cheap student housing which they/their clients can rent at high rates. You would strengthen your argument a lot if you could discuss actual instances where developers chose not to build a starter neighborhood because of these fees. One could argue that the city council could on a case-by-case basis waive these fees if they felt the development would advance the overall good of the city by providing affordable housing to young families, instead of student housing or another high-end neighborhood. Has this ever been proposed?

As for jobs for recent graduates in this town, well that's a whole other discussion…

How much are these fees? Are they flat fees, or a percentage of cost of the build?

EriktheRed said:

---

lost my dog said:

---

You would strengthen your argument a lot if you could discuss actual instances where developers chose not to build a starter neighborhood because of these fees

---

I am having trouble remembering if it was a workshop agenda item on impact fees, or what, but at a council meeting earlier this year there were local developers, who live and operate out of college station that have ZERO builds in CS. Bryan, Navasota, Snook, etc is where they are building. They want to build here, but its cheaper elsewhere.

Maybe Yancy or someone else can remember that meeting

---

Yes it's well known. In fact, one of the largest regional home builders for starter homes is headquartered in College Station, and yet save for a few townhomes here and there, doesn't build here because they can't make it pencil with our fees, standards and processes.

Yes we've had these meetings time and again. The builders turn out and tell us repeatedly what's happening, to no avail. One of my colleagues moved to look at roadway impact fees. That's coming in several months.

We do have some developments in the hopper for single family, but to what level of attainable housing is unclear. What's making those "pencil" is readily available access to sewer infrastructure which is often the hang up. Because of sewer availability, they'll pony up our fees but if i had to guess not much will be "attainable."

Respectfully

Yancy '95

PS3D said:

---

(I had prepared a whole response to Mr. Yancy on housing but realized it probably wasn't the right topic, and might've been deleted if seen as a derail.)

gunan01 said:

---

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.

---

The question is--even if some schools close, is it that much of a bad thing? Demographics change and in larger cities, schools in outdated locations do close and are often used by the ISD as storage or temporary campuses.

Already in many cases the closest school isn't necessarily the one it's zoned for, and if people are leaving the ISD for private and charter schools the rot has already set in.

---

I don't think public schools closing is a good thing.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

lost my dog said:

---

Thank you for responding. A lot to unpack in your reply…

You bring up the demographic pyramid, but our pyramid is incredibly distorted by TAMU. The effect of 70,000 students on the housing market cannot be ignored. (You have been a leader on the current council on dealing with the impact of student housing in neighborhoods it is appreciated.) Many people, residing both and outside of College Station, own houses here which they rent to students. They make money off of these rentals because they can charge the students relatively high rents which more than cover their mortgages and taxes. These are houses which are no longer available for homeowners who live and work here to buy. People who want to buy a house to live in some neighborhoods are in direct competition with investors who want to rent houses to students.

(When I drive through Southgate I see properties where people I knew 30 years ago raised families. For various reasons these people are gone. Their former houses have been turned into student group houses or (even worse) AirBNBs.)

Are we turning into a retirement community because people bought here 40 years ago, raised their families, and just haven't moved on/died yet? That's a cyclic situation, and in 20 years there would be a rejuvenation in demography as people do pass on and their heirs sell their houses. Or are we turning into a retirement community because old Ags are retiring from their jobs in Houston, selling their houses in River Oaks and then buying up here so they can enjoy Aggieland in their leisure? These scenarios argue for different responses. My guess is that both things are happening.

Developers want to maximize their profit. My guess is that they think they can do this either by building high-end expensive houses or by building cheap student housing which they/their clients can rent at high rates. You would strengthen your argument a lot if you could discuss actual instances where developers chose not to build a starter neighborhood because of these fees. One could argue that the city council could on a case-by-case basis waive these fees if they felt the development would advance the overall good of the city by providing affordable housing to young families, instead of student housing or another high-end neighborhood. Has this ever been proposed?

As for jobs for recent graduates in this town, well that's a whole other discussion…

---

They are choosing not to build starter neighborhoods every day. I offer as evidence, there is exactly 1 new neighborhood in town, Midtown, where a "starter home" can be bought. And even there, it's an MMD wherein the buyer pays double the taxes the rest of us do, and wherein the exact same home, in the city of Bryan, is $60k to $90k less for in some cases an identical floorplan.

It's a thing. I promise. We need to address it.

And full disclosure: I'm one of those investors. I own several houses. We rent to young families and retirees. We don't discriminate against students, my wife and I just choose not to rent by the bedroom with multiple leases even though we'd make what? 3 times as much?

There's nothing more fulfilling than renting to a young family at an affordable rate, in a well maintained home (we bust our tail on them ask our tenants and their appreciative neighbors) while they save up to take the plunge, buy a new house, and begin accumulating wealth for themselves.

We've seen that scenario again and again. Sadly though, when they do take that leap it's not College Station, Texas they are moving to.

EDITED TO ADD:

In another depressing statistic, the number of babies born in College Station (Baylor Scott & White Hospital, an organization near and dear to me) grows every year, but the number of babies in our permanent population is going down since 2018. So families are coming here from outside jurisdictions and having children in our hospital and that says a lot about Baylor Scott & White- but they increasingly don't live here. Again- not a healthy data marker for a city. Yes, it's a national and statewide trend. But must we be a national statistic? Only through good policy are negative trends corrected, or at least helped.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

I find it hilarious when people with multiple rental properties try and be like "folks just cant buy a home because we dont have them".

Bob Yancy said:

---

lost my dog said:

---

Thank you for responding. A lot to unpack in your reply…

You bring up the demographic pyramid, but our pyramid is incredibly distorted by TAMU. The effect of 70,000 students on the housing market cannot be ignored. (You have been a leader on the current council on dealing with the impact of student housing in neighborhoods it is appreciated.) Many people, residing both and outside of College Station, own houses here which they rent to students. They make money off of these rentals because they can charge the students relatively high rents which more than cover their mortgages and taxes. These are houses which are no longer available for homeowners who live and work here to buy. People who want to buy a house to live in some neighborhoods are in direct competition with investors who want to rent houses to students.

(When I drive through Southgate I see properties where people I knew 30 years ago raised families. For various reasons these people are gone. Their former houses have been turned into student group houses or (even worse) AirBNBs.)

Are we turning into a retirement community because people bought here 40 years ago, raised their families, and just haven't moved on/died yet? That's a cyclic situation, and in 20 years there would be a rejuvenation in demography as people do pass on and their heirs sell their houses. Or are we turning into a retirement community because old Ags are retiring from their jobs in Houston, selling their houses in River Oaks and then buying up here so they can enjoy Aggieland in their leisure? These scenarios argue for different responses. My guess is that both things are happening.

Developers want to maximize their profit. My guess is that they think they can do this either by building high-end expensive houses or by building cheap student housing which they/their clients can rent at high rates. You would strengthen your argument a lot if you could discuss actual instances where developers chose not to build a starter neighborhood because of these fees. One could argue that the city council could on a case-by-case basis waive these fees if they felt the development would advance the overall good of the city by providing affordable housing to young families, instead of student housing or another high-end neighborhood. Has this ever been proposed?

As for jobs for recent graduates in this town, well that's a whole other discussion…

---

They are choosing not to build starter neighborhoods every day. I offer as evidence, there is exactly 1 new neighborhood in town, Midtown, where a "starter home" can be bought. And even there, it's an MMD wherein the buyer pays double the taxes the rest of us do, and wherein the exact same home, in the city of Bryan, is $60k to $90k less for in some cases an identical floorplan.

It's a thing. I promise. We need to address it.

And full disclosure: I'm one of those investors. I own several houses. We rent to young families and retirees. We don't discriminate against students, my wife and I just choose not to rent by the bedroom with multiple leases even though we'd make what? 3 times as much?

There's nothing more fulfilling than renting to a young family at an affordable rate, in a well maintained home (we bust our tail on them ask our tenants and their appreciative neighbors) while they save up to take the plunge, buy a new house, and begin accumulating wealth for themselves.

We've seen that scenario again and again. Sadly though, when they do take that leap it's not College Station, Texas they are moving to.

EDITED TO ADD:

In another depressing statistic, the number of babies born in College Station (Baylor Scott & White Hospital, an organization near and dear to me) grows every year, but the number of babies in our permanent population is going down since 2018. So families are coming here from outside jurisdictions and having children in our hospital and that says a lot about Baylor Scott & White- but they increasingly don't live here. Again- not a healthy data marker for a city. Yes, it's a national and statewide trend. But must we be a national statistic? Only through good policy are negative trends corrected, or at least helped.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

I appreciate your concern about the community and agree wholeheartedly on impact fees and other bureaucracy. Someone else on here shared a while back about identical homes on similar lots in Bryan costing way more in CS.

Also don't forget utilities fee add-ons. These are particularly onerous on young families.

As for CSISD going open enrollment it's only a matter of time. The ISD is hemmed in to the North and East by Bryan ISD and the river to the west. Many years ago during statewide district consolidation after WWII, it was decided to cede BrazCo land closer to Navasota to NISD. So, that today restricts growth in both population in the district and eventually property taxes on new half million dollar homes built out that way.

CSISD will receive funding for out of district students they accept, making this a no brainer. For years some people with means have simply rented a cheap apartment in CS if they really wanted their kid to go there. This will only make things easier. It's a no brainer for the district.

techno-ag said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

lost my dog said:

---

Thank you for responding. A lot to unpack in your reply…

You bring up the demographic pyramid, but our pyramid is incredibly distorted by TAMU. The effect of 70,000 students on the housing market cannot be ignored. (You have been a leader on the current council on dealing with the impact of student housing in neighborhoods it is appreciated.) Many people, residing both and outside of College Station, own houses here which they rent to students. They make money off of these rentals because they can charge the students relatively high rents which more than cover their mortgages and taxes. These are houses which are no longer available for homeowners who live and work here to buy. People who want to buy a house to live in some neighborhoods are in direct competition with investors who want to rent houses to students.

(When I drive through Southgate I see properties where people I knew 30 years ago raised families. For various reasons these people are gone. Their former houses have been turned into student group houses or (even worse) AirBNBs.)

Are we turning into a retirement community because people bought here 40 years ago, raised their families, and just haven't moved on/died yet? That's a cyclic situation, and in 20 years there would be a rejuvenation in demography as people do pass on and their heirs sell their houses. Or are we turning into a retirement community because old Ags are retiring from their jobs in Houston, selling their houses in River Oaks and then buying up here so they can enjoy Aggieland in their leisure? These scenarios argue for different responses. My guess is that both things are happening.

Developers want to maximize their profit. My guess is that they think they can do this either by building high-end expensive houses or by building cheap student housing which they/their clients can rent at high rates. You would strengthen your argument a lot if you could discuss actual instances where developers chose not to build a starter neighborhood because of these fees. One could argue that the city council could on a case-by-case basis waive these fees if they felt the development would advance the overall good of the city by providing affordable housing to young families, instead of student housing or another high-end neighborhood. Has this ever been proposed?

As for jobs for recent graduates in this town, well that's a whole other discussion…

---

They are choosing not to build starter neighborhoods every day. I offer as evidence, there is exactly 1 new neighborhood in town, Midtown, where a "starter home" can be bought. And even there, it's an MMD wherein the buyer pays double the taxes the rest of us do, and wherein the exact same home, in the city of Bryan, is $60k to $90k less for in some cases an identical floorplan.

It's a thing. I promise. We need to address it.

And full disclosure: I'm one of those investors. I own several houses. We rent to young families and retirees. We don't discriminate against students, my wife and I just choose not to rent by the bedroom with multiple leases even though we'd make what? 3 times as much?

There's nothing more fulfilling than renting to a young family at an affordable rate, in a well maintained home (we bust our tail on them ask our tenants and their appreciative neighbors) while they save up to take the plunge, buy a new house, and begin accumulating wealth for themselves.

We've seen that scenario again and again. Sadly though, when they do take that leap it's not College Station, Texas they are moving to.

EDITED TO ADD:

In another depressing statistic, the number of babies born in College Station (Baylor Scott & White Hospital, an organization near and dear to me) grows every year, but the number of babies in our permanent population is going down since 2018. So families are coming here from outside jurisdictions and having children in our hospital and that says a lot about Baylor Scott & White- but they increasingly don't live here. Again- not a healthy data marker for a city. Yes, it's a national and statewide trend. But must we be a national statistic? Only through good policy are negative trends corrected, or at least helped.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

I appreciate your concern about the community and agree wholeheartedly on impact fees and other bureaucracy. Someone else on here shared a while back about identical homes on similar lots in Bryan costing way more in CS.

Also don't forget utilities fee add-ons. These are particularly onerous on young families.

As for CSISD going open enrollment it's only a matter of time. The ISD is hemmed in to the North and East by Bryan ISD and the river to the west. Many years ago during statewide district consolidation after WWII, it was decided to cede BrazCo land closer to Navasota to NISD. So, that today restricts growth in both population in the district and eventually property taxes on new half million dollar homes built out that way.

CSISD will receive funding for out of district students they accept, making this a no brainer. For years some people with means have simply rented a cheap apartment in CS if they really wanted their kid to go there. This will only make things easier. It's a no brainer for the district.

---

Interesting take, thank you.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

Schools in the RGV are mostly all open. This causes them to literally take out billboards to attract kids to their IDS.

I'm against outsiders in the district.
Looking forward to not having to build another new school.
Looking forward to not having another bond shoved down our throats by people telling us our "taxes won't go up" but purposely neglecting to disclose to the uninformed voters that our taxes will go down if we don't pass the bond.
I think CSISD leaders are worried that they will lose their bond money gravy train since they won't be able to get a big bond passed without a shiny new school, won't be able to justify a shiny new school, and won't have as much money left over at the end of the year to pay so many administrators.
Dealing with growth is difficult. Dealing with the same number of students each year is extremely easy. CSISD should be relieved to have slowing growth unless they are using "growth" and bonds to pad their salaries.

Can you imagine if CSISD was in a position where they could sell Oakwood and Consol Intermediate and return a bunch of money to the taxpayers while adding a new $50 million development on the tax rolls? Or maybe start REDUCING the CSISD tax rate every year instead of raising it??? Imagine if you got to be really picky about the teachers you hire because you aren't trying to fill all the positions with a warm body. There's a huge opportunity here, and I really hope they don't screw it up.

agnerd said:

---

I'm against outsiders in the district.
Looking forward to not having to build another new school.
Looking forward to not having another bond shoved down our throats by people telling us our "taxes won't go up" but purposely neglecting to disclose to the uninformed voters that our taxes will go down if we don't pass the bond.
I think CSISD leaders are worried that they will lose their bond money gravy train since they won't be able to get a big bond passed without a shiny new school, won't be able to justify a shiny new school, and won't have as much money left over at the end of the year to pay so many administrators.
Dealing with growth is difficult. Dealing with the same number of students each year is extremely easy. CSISD should be relieved to have slowing growth unless they are using "growth" and bonds to pad their salaries.

Can you imagine if CSISD was in a position where they could sell Oakwood and Consol Intermediate and return a bunch of money to the taxpayers while adding a new $50 million development on the tax rolls? Or maybe start REDUCING the CSISD tax rate every year instead of raising it??? Imagine if you got to be really picky about the teachers you hire because you aren't trying to fill all the positions with a warm body. There's a huge opportunity here, and I really hope they don't screw it up.

---

Here is 2023 numbers for the top people and by the way the top guy is retired now and running for school board and gets pays basically that salary for the rest of his life. Or I think it's 80%. In 2023 the average salary was $52k in the school district this guy making 5x that amount of public tax dollars. I am sure 2024 is worse and 2025 is more than 2024 etc…….

All school districts look like this and some are way worse. I will never figure out why a superindent makes so much compared to everyone else. Some school districts buy cars and give rent money and other spending allowances. I haven't researched far enough to see if college station does those kind of practices.

I am sure y'all would be shocked if I posted the city of college station salaries…………. But you can look them up yourself and tell me if there is room to cut……..

Govsalaries.com - hint they are higher for the main players than the superintendent and the average salaries were higher than the school district by a pinch

Management gets paid more, regardless of the organization.

Bob Yancy said:

---

PS3D said:

---

(I had prepared a whole response to Mr. Yancy on housing but realized it probably wasn't the right topic, and might've been deleted if seen as a derail.)

gunan01 said:

---

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.

---

The question is--even if some schools close, is it that much of a bad thing? Demographics change and in larger cities, schools in outdated locations do close and are often used by the ISD as storage or temporary campuses.

Already in many cases the closest school isn't necessarily the one it's zoned for, and if people are leaving the ISD for private and charter schools the rot has already set in.

---

I don't think public schools closing is a good thing.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

Not "not a bad thing" is not necessarily a "good" thing. Closing schools just means more infrastructure, but when I was in CSISD I was told that buildings aren't the issue, qualified teachers were.

If the CSISD was forced to close a school, it wouldn't be fully abandoned and could serve as extra office space, while the outdoor facilities could still be utilized as a de facto park. (Back in the 1990s and before, all the schools were sort of like this, I remember that South Knoll's schoolyard was basically open with street access, though only Rock Prairie is a full park-park.)

edit: Historically, CSISD has been very good at maintaining facilities and not overbuilding. I do not expect or believe that CSISD will permanently close any schools at least for another 10-15 years.

whoop1995 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Management gets paid more, regardless of the organization.

---

In most organizations there is accountability except government. Questions of downsizing or cost control go unanswered within government. Nobody is accountable, no firings etc, and for the most part these are unelected bureaucrats ruling your and my life.

We pay these people a lot of money and they do not answer to anyone.

---

All answer to the superintendent and that's why they get paid the most. They bear the most responsibility for the organization.

The superintendent answers to the board and the board is elected by the people.

So with regard to the babies being born here that's a function of the State of Texas shutting down the county hospital system 30-40 years ago. BCS is the medical center for the surrounding counties. There are not maternity wards around us. But given your career I am sure you know this.

If you want starter housing, would you be willing to waive impact fees only for housing priced at a level for young families? Developers don't seem to have an issue building and selling high-end homes, and if you eliminate impact fees entirely this is basically a gift to them since they have no reason to reduce the price on these homes (and these homes don't attract the buyers you want anyway.)

Yes, it is bad if a metro area prices out its workers. Aspen and Vail are great examples of how this goes wrong. But this is not the case in BCS a family can live in Bryan and work in College Station. Again it's not clear to me what is wrong if a young family buys an affordable house in Bryan rather than in College Station. The two cities are one metro area. Or is this just because of the school district?

Given that Midtown has an MMD, I would say it's a bad example of how to do development. MMDs are a way for developers to pass development costs onto buyers, generally with higher taxes in perpetuity rather than a one-time hit. If you wanted to work our rules so that we didn't have MMDs in College Station I'd support that. But I don't know if that is possible given State laws.

As a counter-example to Midtown I would ask about all the development west of Wellborn between Holleman and Rock Prairie. It's all student housing. Why was single family housing not built there? The developers had to pay impact fees whether the residences were for students or for families. They believed they could make more money with student housing. You simply cannot ignore the distorting factor of the students on our local housing market.

Housing will be front and center at the local, state and federal level in a BIG way come November 2026.

The school district is compelled to consider sidestepping municipal housing policy that is beyond its control but not healthy for its public school enrollment. It can do that by accepting out of district kids. I don't think you can blame CSISD leadership for considering policy action within its control to fix a problem it didn't cause.

Young parents increasingly can't afford a house here- neither can teachers- and it's time community leaders had the political courage to admit it and take policy action to address it. It's just that simple.

A community cannot thrive without a healthy job market, a healthy housing market, and healthy schools. That's what matters.

We should course correct now before further unintended consequences reverberate throughout our community.

Respectfully

Bob Yancy '95

Bob Yancy said:

---

Housing will be front and center at the local, state and federal level in a BIG way come November 2026.

The school district is compelled to consider sidestepping municipal housing policy that is beyond its control but not healthy for its public school enrollment. It can do that by accepting out of district kids. I don't think you can blame CSISD leadership for considering policy action within its control to fix a problem it didn't cause.

Young parents increasingly can't afford a house here- neither can teachers- and it's time community leaders had the political courage to admit it and take policy action to address it. It's just that simple.

A community cannot thrive without a healthy job market, a healthy housing market, and healthy schools. That's what matters.

We should course correct now before further unintended consequences reverberate throughout our community.

Respectfully

Bob Yancy '95

---

I believe this to be a reckless and dangerous statement. CSISD should not consider sidestepping any policy unless someone is in danger or faces potential harm. I find it very rich that a sitting Councilman who is directly responsible for housing policy is being a cheerleader for another government agency to break the rules.

Do residents get to sidestep one policy because another part of the government's policies are broken? Who gets to determine the if, when, and what policies a government agency can sidestep?

If CSISD has a problem they want addressed (whether they have a possible solution or not) they need to address the taxpayers who pay CSISD property tax and the governments that fall within CSISD's district (we have a small portion outside of city limits in the county that pay CSISD property tax but no City of College Station tax). At no point should they take it upon themselves sidestep any other policy, rules, regulations, or laws unless there is an emergency and people are in danger of being harmed.

We do expect CSISD leadership to take action where there are issues. There is a difference between taking action and taking action by sidestepping policy. Sidestepping policy is unethical and lacks integrity at best; it may also be illegal.

Again, this post is bizarre to me. You start out by saying 'Policy Matters' as a heading then justify breaking policy you as a councilman are responsible for. ---I see that you just edited your post and that was removed

All of this really makes me wonder:

How long have you been talking to CSISD administration and/or board members about this? Was this your idea or theirs?

Your clarification post reads much differently than the one I quoted and responded to. I was not hurling words around; I was responding to your words.

Posting on the internet can be tough. I think we have all had something mis-interpreted and typically there is no impact if someone mis-interprets your comments or even if we post and get it wrong. Many of us post about sports , general advice, or other social things that do not directly impact our taxes and quality of life. When you post about city business, there are consequences.

I wasn't the only one in my office who interpreted your post the way I did. I am the one who just replied to it. Here is how I read it. I interpreted your statement of: "The school district is compelled to consider sidestepping municipal housing policy that is beyond its control but not healthy for its public school enrollment…"

With "compelled" as meaning the district is facing a lot of pressure to act.
"to consider" as meaning they should think about it.
"sidestepping municipal housing policy that is beyond its control" as meaning disregard the rules related to municipal housing policy.

This was not a let's get Yancy post. This was an I can't believe he wrote that post.

Being the average joe citizen, nothing I say or do directly impacts city business or residents the way your words can impact as a sitting councilman. There is a completely different standard. This does not give me or anyone else to be rude or disrespectful. We do have the right to challenge and question our elected officials. You get more heat than the other council members because you post about city business on an open internet forum. You also get more praise than your counterparts because you post here.

I will be straight up and tell you I do not trust you, nor any member of the council. During the datacenter meeting I heard the word trust used by most speaker so this shouldn't be revolutionary. I do actually appreciate you. If you didn't post this on TexAgs and just said it on WTAW or KBTX; you would have received basically my same post in an email. I email all of the other council members when and if they ever make public comments.

I am not out to get you and want our city to improve. This is not personal and I almost want to like you, lol. We have a similar background being former enlisted Air Force members who became Aggies later on and made our way afterwards.

I am old school. As a councilmember, we will not be hanging out socially. Similarly to why I don't go to the big boss's house and hangout. There needs to be some separation. As a councilmember, you need to make extremely hard decisions for the entire population of College Station and each of us residents must do what's best for our own families. Often those two things are in conflict with each other.

After you leave council we can sit down and have some coffee, until then I will keep fighting for my family and you keep making hard decisions for the entire city.

I do actually appreciate you, I am being critical Councilman Bob Yancy not Mr. Bob Yancy if that makes any sense. You should post in other forums about BBQ or fun things too versus always posting about city issues, give yourself a break.

agnerd said:

---

I'm against outsiders in the district.
Looking forward to not having to build another new school.
Looking forward to not having another bond shoved down our throats by people telling us our "taxes won't go up" but purposely neglecting to disclose to the uninformed voters that our taxes will go down if we don't pass the bond.
I think CSISD leaders are worried that they will lose their bond money gravy train since they won't be able to get a big bond passed without a shiny new school, won't be able to justify a shiny new school, and won't have as much money left over at the end of the year to pay so many administrators.
Dealing with growth is difficult. Dealing with the same number of students each year is extremely easy. CSISD should be relieved to have slowing growth unless they are using "growth" and bonds to pad their salaries.

Can you imagine if CSISD was in a position where they could sell Oakwood and Consol Intermediate and return a bunch of money to the taxpayers while adding a new $50 million development on the tax rolls? Or maybe start REDUCING the CSISD tax rate every year instead of raising it??? Imagine if you got to be really picky about the teachers you hire because you aren't trying to fill all the positions with a warm body. There's a huge opportunity here, and I really hope they don't screw it up.

---

Personally, I think there is no way we'll sell anything back. This is a cyclical. People die, move on, etc and it leads to demographic turnover. Pebble Creek Elementary is increasing in enrollment due to older empty nesters moving out and families moving in. That trend will continue. It will happen in other areas of town too.

Just a separate note - I thought Southern Pointe was also entry level housing. I don't think it's been built out either.

In addition, I don't think we're immune to Texas politics and migration patterns. There are larger city districts which are losing illegal migrants in their headcounts. The HS snapshots across the state are due this Friday. I think there may be some surprises in the numbers.

birdman said:

---

I hate this.

One of reasons that we picked College Station is the school quality. And we paid a premium for it. People pay more for good schools everywhere.

Rough example. I'm paying for my kid to have 20 kids in their math class. Now we're going to have 24 kids in there? I'm paying for buildings, sport fields, etc. Now we're going to cram more people in there?

When they need more teachers, bigger buildings, and more, who are they asking for more money?

---

You probably won't see as many as you imagine.

And point of clarity, the state sends funding based on enrollment. You won't be paying extra with additional enrollment.

Now, if a bond election occurs because of the need for more space, at that time you could vote against it.

agnerd said:

---

Can you imagine if CSISD was in a position where they could sell Oakwood and Consol Intermediate and return a bunch of money to the taxpayers while adding a new $50 million development on the tax rolls? Or maybe start REDUCING the CSISD tax rate every year instead of raising it??? Imagine if you got to be really picky about the teachers you hire because you aren't trying to fill all the positions with a warm body. There's a huge opportunity here, and I really hope they don't screw it up.

---

Even if CSISD lost so many students they'd have to close schools, they would either use the dead schools for storage/office/temporary space or flip the schools to charter schools.

If they put AMCMS, for instance, on the market, it's 11 acres. If we assume it has the same value as H-E-B (7.11 acres with $3.3M on land value alone) it would put that land value at $5.1M. If you put some H-E-B-tier supermarket on the lot, it would probably increase it significantly, but would still be a fraction of what you're quoting. Until Oakwood starts looking more like an Inner Loop Houston neighborhood, that won't happen.