Disagree.

Here's a guy who's showed up, and stayed engaged at the city since his loss in the last election. White (his opponent) hasn't exactly set the world on fire, and has been all over the place. I went to his town hall on Pebble Creek Parkway, and that was… something. A lot of folks would lose an election, and walk away. That did not happen here.

I have been drug into local politics over the past year, and here is a guy that is at every council meeting. You can't say that about either of his opponents. He has been endorsed by a few local groups, and I feel like his WTAW interview was good. He certainly didn't say "I think Terafab will fail, because that Elon Musk guy doesn't follow through".

I haven't always agreed with Valen, but I certainly respect the work, time and effort he has put in over the past few years. Besides Yancy, which current member of council is actually working to build trust and transparency, versus being the city manager's buddy?

It's interesting that you mention "being the city managers buddy" in that way. I've also had the opportunity to be more involved locally over the last few years and from the interactions that I've witnessed, Valen and Bryan Woods seem to have quite the special relationship. Coupled with the fact that Valen specifically could not even commit to removing said city manager, when asked ON THIS FORUM, I think you're being a bit naive.
Valen claims that he will be a representative of the people's wishes even in his post this morning, yet I have yet to hear a single person in support of keeping the city manager after the last half decade of blunders. I'm certain that when the public sentiment becomes clear after others champion the cause, he will be first in line to say he was a champion for it all along though.

Again, who besides Yancy doesn't think Woods is doing a great job? I've literally heard them call him "The CEO" and defer to him.

They certainly aren't showing it in the raises year after year…

I'm of a mind that "The CEO" is doing a terrible job, and has as you point out, for the last half decade.

2020 said:

---

It's interesting that you mention "being the city managers buddy" in that way. I've also had the opportunity to be more involved locally over the last few years and from the interactions that I've witnessed, Valen and Bryan Woods seem to have quite the special relationship. Coupled with the fact that Valen specifically could not even commit to removing said city manager, when asked ON THIS FORUM, I think you're being a bit naive.
Valen claims that he will be a representative of the people's wishes even in his post this morning, yet I have yet to hear a single person in support of keeping the city manager after the last half decade of blunders. I'm certain that when the public sentiment becomes clear after others champion the cause, he will be first in line to say he was a champion for it all along though.

---

As far as committing on Tex Ags to fire Woods, I think that would be a bad move, and could cause the city problems, assuming he is terminated. At least in a corporate setting, wrongful termination lawsuits have been based on less.

I find it very telling that both the police and fire associations passed on endorsing valen. It definitely makes me doubt his "strong public safety" stance a bit.

I was not elected in 2024. After that, I decided that if I still wanted to serve the community and have real impact, I would have to build relationships and earn influence the long way. The goal is simple: be in a position to do good even without holding the office.

On hiring or firing city staff, it would be foolish for me to make a public comment. I do not yet have the full picture. I do not sit in closed sessions. I do not see everything that happens behind the scenes. I have a good portion of the facts, not all of them.
I currently sit on three city boards. I am not there because I agree with every decision or every process. I am there to learn the systems, understand the culture, and know how to make effective change the moment the work begins.

I reject the idea that I simply ride in Councilman Yancy's wake. I respect his experience and I have taken his counsel seriously on a number of issues. We disagree on Flock and I am certain we will disagree on others. He is, however, a trusted voice in this community. It would be ignorant to ignore what he says or how people respond to him.

Anyone who wants to ask me a question can. Some do. Some don't. My contact information is public. Send a message. I will talk. Anything I post here is public. I therefore use caution. Facts change. New information appears overnight. I will not lock myself into a position that later forces me to break my word. My word is everything.

As for AI, it has never written a post for me. I use it only to clean up grammar because writing is not my strongest medium. It has never spoken in my place.

The police department and the fire department do not endorse. The unions do. There are more than a hundred sworn police officers in this city. Twenty seven members of the union voted on the endorsement. That vote came early, and my position on Flock was not the one they preferred. This year, police and fire wanted to present a united front.

Whether I received the endorsement or not, I believe I am the only candidate in this race who actually spends time with both departments. I go to the stations. I bring food. I sit with our firefighters. I talk with officers all over the city.

I did not need their endorsement to understand which issues and policy priorities matter most to them.

I will also say this, because I intend to remain human, not being endorsed stung. It did not feel good. That is part of the process. You do not win every endorsement. What I can promise is that I will do the absolute best I can.

I am very confused by this response. You said the PD association didn't like your position on Flock when they voted, yet you spent quite a long time telling us you hadn't made up your mind and didn't have a position. Then you say that the Fire association just went along with the cops. It would be interesting for someone from the fire association to chime in to confirm this as I am guessing that is not entirely an accurate representation of their position.

What so many people are failing to understand is this- You can be pro LEO and pro public safety and anti surveillance, they are mutually exclusive. Studies all over the country are showing violent crime decreasing in communities our size, before and without mass surveillance, we are being told we need it for our "safety" and that is simply untrue.

These are the same kind of arguments anti- 2nd amendment folks use for their argument on confiscating guns, it's for our "safety".

Well- watched, tracked and disarmed do not make me feel "safer" in fact it's quite the opposite. There are warning labels on Tide Pods telling us not to eat them for a reason, people misuse things. ALPR's are no different. Warrants for surveillance or no surveillance that is my position.

Give me liberty or give me death.

AggiePhil said:

---

The Kidd interview is hard to watch.

---

So what do you think about the Terafab facility?

Terafab....what's that?

Woof

EriktheRed said:

---

AggiePhil said:

---

The Kidd interview is hard to watch.

---

So what do you think about the Terafab facility?

Terafab....what's that?

Woof

---

That's two candidates who either didn't know about or poo pooed the biggest employer to arrive since TAMU…

Place 5 Candidate:
Terafab? Not going to happen…
That guy never follows through…

I'm over here thinking - oh, yeah, Elon Musk, what a hack!
Electric cars…
Rockets….
Satellite Internet….
Twitter….

He won't follow through with Terafab.

EriktheRed said:

---

AggiePhil said:

---

The Kidd interview is hard to watch.

---

So what do you think about the Terafab facility?

Terafab....what's that?

Woof

---

Yeah, we call that an "Aleppo moment."

Wow.
I just listened to that Kidd interview. Ug...that was embarrassing for him. Uninformed. Couldn't argue his talking points. Just bad.

lwd78 said:

---

zigag09 said:

---

Wasn't the entire city council a 'yea' for the midtown data center before word got out less than a week before the vote and before they were subjected to the public backlash?

The city had been interacting with the company since late 2024 under an NDA.

With less than six days' notice, residents gathered over 5,000 signatures on a petition and filled the City Hall chambers to maximum capacity.

He gets credit for jumping on the bandwagon at the last moment?

EDIT: How did the public receive word? City Council agenda packet released on Friday evening, September 5, 2025.

---

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but you need a better source. First, our City Manager signed an NDA, binding the Council to secrecy, before telling them about this. That in and of itself is a huge issue for me.
The agenda comes out on the Friday afternoon before the Council meeting the following Thursday, so less than six days, or about 3.5 business days, for the Council to digest the 1000+ page agenda. Bob took a calculated risk and called for a Town Hall on the Thursday prior to the meeting. He strongly opposed the data center then, and he's on record as having strongly opposed it all along. Other Council members criticized him for speaking to the citizens. On the radio. The Mayor and our City Manager, separately, lamented the loss of income the data center would have provided for the city, also on WTAW.
I spoke at a Council meeting and called their radio comments "tone deaf", as I've followed this one very closely. While the vote wasn't close, that was only after 70+ people spoke at a Council meeting.
I'd go a step further and say that the contract, also in the "long form" agenda, was so one-sided it was laughable. But that's my non-lawyer opinion. The nearby neighborhoods were being cast aside. The Langford retirement center was not considered. The affect on wildlife was never a concern by most.
This was the single most ill-considered agenda item in our city's history, and it was within a a few days of passing. Yancy gets credit, and thanks, for stopping the data center.

---

"This was the single most ill-considered agenda item in our city's history, and it was within a a few days of passing."

Perhaps, but I would consider the purchase of the Chimney Hill shopping center and the number of million dollar hit the city took and the purchase of the Macy's property and the hit the city is taking now every month, month after month. equally ill-considered......and both passed muster.

The city should never purchase property without a direct current and future plan to use the building directly as a city facility,

EFR said:

---

I am very confused by this response. You said the PD association didn't like your position on Flock when they voted, yet you spent quite a long time telling us you hadn't made up your mind and didn't have a position. Then you say that the Fire association just went along with the cops. It would be interesting for someone from the fire association to chime in to confirm this as I am guessing that is not entirely an accurate representation of their position.

---

Honestly, besides anyone with an Android, who really had a strong opinion on Flock before the vote last week? When the woman who walked up in tears to tell the council how Flock helped her family find the person responsible for her loved one's homicide, how do you dismiss that? Then on the other side you hear new stories about a women who was wrongfully locked up because of the technology. If you're even an ounce of human, you also would have a hard time.

Personally, I'd rather have someone who is willing to listen and hear me out versus the guy who literally said, "I hope Terrafab fails," and the other guy who claims to have fought against the comprehensive plan, but then later says the plan should never change.

wareagle044 said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

Well I know you weren't looking for a pat on the back but I am giving it to you anyways. You may have had more resources than the others but you also had more courage. I don't always agree with you but I always believe you have citizen's best interests in mind, and that will get my support every time.

---

This is just Bob Yancy being Bob Yancy.

Years ago, I skipped my graduation ceremony at Auburn and drove to College Station to interview for a job with a small medical equipment company. I arrived with a clinical background in radiology, but very little understanding of everything that happened behind the scenes to procure, install, and operationalize the equipment I had relied on every day while caring for patients.

I met Bob briefly during that interview, and one thing became clear very quickly: if I joined that company, my experience would matter. It would be heard, valued, and put to use.

I ultimately took the job and had the opportunity to work with and for Bob for several years. What I saw then is the same approach I still recognize in him today: listen to the subject-matter experts first. Evaluate and learn. Execute. Then repeat.

One of the things I respected most about working with Bob was his willingness to listen to people who knew something he didn't. He understood that good leadership didn't require having every answer yourself. It required bringing the right people into the conversation, listening carefully, and then turning what was learned into action.

And no matter how involved Bob was in developing a vision, when that vision became reality, the accomplishment belonged to the team. Success was shared and celebrated together.

I learned a great deal during those years, and I continue to have a tremendous amount of respect for Bob and for the way he approaches leadership.

I may not live in College Station anymore, but fortunately, my mom still does and is a voter!

---

Another MEMdata alum here, although it was Premier by the time I joined. Good times we had, wareagle, good times!

Bob has the business acumen needed for this job. I'll be voting for him and predict he will win comfortably.

scd88 said:

---

wareagle044 said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

Well I know you weren't looking for a pat on the back but I am giving it to you anyways. You may have had more resources than the others but you also had more courage. I don't always agree with you but I always believe you have citizen's best interests in mind, and that will get my support every time.

---

This is just Bob Yancy being Bob Yancy.

Years ago, I skipped my graduation ceremony at Auburn and drove to College Station to interview for a job with a small medical equipment company. I arrived with a clinical background in radiology, but very little understanding of everything that happened behind the scenes to procure, install, and operationalize the equipment I had relied on every day while caring for patients.

I met Bob briefly during that interview, and one thing became clear very quickly: if I joined that company, my experience would matter. It would be heard, valued, and put to use.

I ultimately took the job and had the opportunity to work with and for Bob for several years. What I saw then is the same approach I still recognize in him today: listen to the subject-matter experts first. Evaluate and learn. Execute. Then repeat.

One of the things I respected most about working with Bob was his willingness to listen to people who knew something he didn't. He understood that good leadership didn't require having every answer yourself. It required bringing the right people into the conversation, listening carefully, and then turning what was learned into action.

And no matter how involved Bob was in developing a vision, when that vision became reality, the accomplishment belonged to the team. Success was shared and celebrated together.

I learned a great deal during those years, and I continue to have a tremendous amount of respect for Bob and for the way he approaches leadership.

I may not live in College Station anymore, but fortunately, my mom still does and is a voter!

---

Another MEMdata alum here, although it was Premier by the time I joined. Good times we had, wareagle, good times!

Bob has the business acumen needed for this job. I'll be voting for him and predict he will win comfortably.

---

Hearing these comments makes running for public office a heartwarming experience. It's not all peaches and cream, mind you ;-) but I love these memories and the success we shared. Thanks for the kind words, whoever you are! :-)

Respectfully

Yancy '95

Valen,

If you're elected, would you commit to calling a vote of council members to add the removal of ALPRs to the ballot, for the citizens to decide?

Valen-

Small piece of unsolicited constructive criticism-

I believe you to be the type (from our interactions here mostly), that would be open to a little CC.

When you get super wordy with your responses it often appears that you are doing so to avoid committing, whether that is your intention or not. That's not what the average voter wants to hear. I have worked on several successful (and one unsuccessful ) campaigns and can tell you unequivocally concision is best. Always. That's what potential voters crave, they want to know where you stand before voting for you. If you don't know how you would hypothetically vote, say that in 3 words. "I don't know" or "I need to do more research before I commit".

I think where people get frustrated is when they ask a binary question and get a multi paragraph answer. That's the type of word salad that politicians are famous for and quite frankly the average voter has become immune to and turned off by. They quit listening/reading and immediately write it off as fence riding political word salad. You should do your best to avoid that.

When I was a child my Pappou (grandpa) used to say "if anybody ever answers your yes/no question with a story, they are lying to you, never forget that"

I appreciate that feedback. I do appreciate constructive criticism.

Trust is imperative for me because it's been so lost at city hall. I try to answer in a way that allows you to understand my process on how I got to that point. If I am publishing something I am going to stand by it and I want to get it right. I've been working for a couple of years to be a man known for action, showing up, and being trustworthy.

I can understand how not being concise and direct can prevent trust from being built. I will take this into consideration and try to word my answers with that in mind.

(After this post because I understand the irony of me doing it right now)

Why it's important to vote in local elections - The erosion of trust in College Station

The erosion of public trust in College Station over the last four years stems from a series of high-profile financial losses, project failures, state-level legal battles, and transparency disputes that have shifted the relationship between City Hall and local residents.

The timeline of these events shows a pattern of administrative decisions that frequently bypassed community input, resulting in costly course corrections and unprecedented interventions from state authorities.

A Pattern of Costly Real Estate and Infrastructure Failures

The friction began in earnest in 2022 with the city's purchase of the vacant Macy's property at Post Oak Mall. After a local private developer had a deal to buy the building for $3.5 million, city staff intervened and orchestrated a $7.3 million purchase using the general fund effectively blocking a private development. The city's subsequent plan to partner with Texas A&M for an eSports arena in the space fell apart. The building has sat vacant for years, accumulating millions in looming repair liabilities and drawing zero bids when put up for public sale, while the city was successfully sued by mall ownership for unpaid maintenance fees.

This was closely followed in 2023 by the Texas Independence Ballpark failure. The city broke ground on the $23 million youth sports complex in Midtown, only to halt construction months later due to severe soil instability that had been reportedly identified but later ignored by engineers. Remediation estimates climbed to as high as $16,000,000 forcing the City Council to abandon the project after already sinking $5 million of taxpayer capital into unusable dirt.

Infrastructure and neighborhood disputes added to this strain, notably during the Rosemary Drive wastewater line expansion. The city faced sharp public pushback from residents in established neighborhoods who felt the infrastructure rollout cut through residential lines in a prominent historical neighborhood in neighboring Bryan, requiring a heavily brokered compromise to calm Bryan/College Station relations over how city planning was being executed.

State Interventions and Legal Defiance

As administrative decisions increasingly impacted residents, the conflict moved to the state level, resulting in direct interventions in College Station by the Texas Legislature, state regulatory boards, and the judiciary:

The $27.4 Million PUC Penalty: The Public Utility Commission of Texas determined the city had been improperly inflating electric transmission fees to covertly route cash into its general fund, ordering College Station Utilities to pay a massive $27.4 million lump-sum refund to overcharged operators.

The "Sanctuary City Style" Defiance & Supreme Court Slapdown: When local landowners attempted to use Senate Bill 2038 to exit the city's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ), the City Council passed a resolution enacting a blanket denial of all requests. The bill's author, Senator Paul Bettencourt, publicly slammed the move during a Senate Committee on Local Government hearing, stating that College Station was using a "sanctuary city" style resolution to intentionally refuse to implement state law. The Supreme Court of Texas subsequently stepped in and unanimously revived a lawsuit against the city, explicitly admonishing municipal overreach. Justice John Devine firmly established the state's hierarchy, writing: "In our republican form of government, the legislature retains the power to bring local government to heel."

The Overturning of Housing Limits: Following intense pushback against the city's "no more than four" unrelated persons occupancy ordinancewhich critics argued unfairly targeted student rentersthe Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 1567, stripping College Station of its authority to restrict housing based on familial or relationship status.

Secrecy and Public Backlash in Midtown

The transparency crisis peaked in winter 2024 when city staff executed a strict non-disclosure agreement regarding a massive, high-industrial 600-megawatt AI data center in Midtown. The NDA was signed one day before a newly elected City Council was sworn in, legally binding incoming elected officials to silence for nearly a year.

When the deal finally went public in September 2025, public outrage was swift. A 5,000+ signature petition and a grueling six-hour public meeting forced the council to unanimously reject the land sale. To repair the political damage and address the community's "loss of vision" for Midtown, leaders pivoted the property into a youth sports complex behind Costco. While the shift from an industrial data center to a recreational venue apparently helped allay immediate neighborhood anger, public skepticism remained highparticularly after the council later in September 2026 overrode hours of public pleading to pass a $300,000 Flock AI surveillance camera contract renewal, despite the governor's executive order rescinding grant funding.

The Parallel Effort to Restore Trust

Just across Texas Avenue, the conversation around institutional transparency took a contrasting tone. On September 28, 2026, Texas A&M University President Susan Ballabina introduced the university's new "Beyond 150" strategic initiative, explicitly centering her leadership plan on rebuilding public trust after years of campus and local friction.

Reflecting the broader sentiment felt throughout the local community, Ballabina noted that "people are tired of the noise, and they are ready to get to work" to establish a transparent, service-oriented foundation.

An Unprecedented Municipal Election

While university leadership attempts to map out a path toward restored trust, the ultimate test of municipal accountability remains on the immediate horizon.

The compounding fallout from the Macy's acquisition, the data center NDA, and multiple state-level legal losses has triggered a significant wave of civic mobilization. Moving into the upcoming local cycle, an unprecedented number of candidates have officially filed to run for municipal officeshredding the city's historical trend of quiet, often uncontested local races. As voters prepare to head to the ballot box, political newcomers challenging the status quo has left observers wondering whether College Station is about to experience a significant shift in leadership.

wish I had 10000 more stars to give this

Thank you for this.

It's always been about trust. When someone says Macy's or whatever blunder from the city, the subject is really trust.

Most in the the city do not want to build trust the old fashioned way through increasing their credibility by making good decisions and treating people right.

They just jump on to the next big shiny issue like the past never happened. 2 things the next council and mayor can do to start building trust.

#1 take care of the obvious. Such as terminate the city manager. If he stays trust can never be earned. You cannot keep an employee either you nor your customers trust.

#2 take care of the little things. If you cannot take care of the little or routine core functions how are we suppose to trust you with bigger issues.

#2a - related note. If you are new knock out some small easy wins to increase credibility.

These are basic concepts we teach our kids as they enter the workforce and basic leadership lessons in general. Yet our government official seem to throw it out the window when they take office.

Hornbeck said:

---

Again, who besides Yancy doesn't think Woods is doing a great job? I've literally heard them call him "The CEO" and defer to him.

They certainly aren't showing it in the raises year after year…

I'm of a mind that "The CEO" is doing a terrible job, and has as you point out, for the last half decade.

---

Woods should have been fired before 5pm the day the council found out he didn't tell them that Jim Lewis was interested in purchasing the Macys building.