• Rowlett over coffee
  • About Ron
  • Contact
  • Poll
  • Notes
ROWLETT RAMBLINGS

In closing........

7/31/2018

0 Comments

 
I have written a lot of "stuff" about Bayside.  I hope it caused some to think.  I have my opinions, and of course you have yours.  Mine are pretty simple, based on years spent in the real estate development finance business.  I'd like to pull everything I have written together.

First, I am very "pro" developer.  I have learned over the years how hard they work to receive the sometimes big paycheck.  I have also seen the financial devastation caused by guessing wrong.  The risks are enormous.

But, even in the sink or swim atmosphere of development, there are some rules.  In almost every new development plan there are representations made before the very first shovel full of dirt is turned.  Those representations are important because they cause others to take actions, and more than likely spend money. 

As I've written before in this blog site, tweaking of plans are always underway during development of a large commercial site.  This tweaking is almost always done to enhance profitability.  That is fine.  That's what a developer is supposed to do.    However, there is a big difference between "tweaking" and "gutting" a  project of it's main anchor.  For example, say a developer is creating a new shopping center.  He tells all the proposed tenants of smaller store space that he has Tom Thumb anchoring his center.  Of course, he will get a lot of tenants wanting to take advantage of the traffic that Tom Thumb will generate.  Then, lets say half way thru development he tells all his smaller tenants that he really didn't have Tom Thumb, after all.  And, this announcement came after money had already been spent by the smaller tenants.    How long do you think it would take that developer to land in the court house?   Twenty minutes?

Upon inception, Bayside represented to the City of Rowlett that their development would contain an eight acre lagoon, a one acre water fountain and a trolley system.   these items would cost several million dollars and clearly were meant to create "buzz" for the development and ballyhoo the spectacle that's  coming.   These items were the anchor of what was being announced.  Removing them is not "tweaking."  It is "gutting" the project.  These items will be replaced by grass, some trees, and townhouse lot sites.  Certainly profitability will increase because costs will decline and profitability of townhouse sales will go up.  The developers are basically saying the development of these items are no longer "cost effective." They are saying these items will no longer pull in the "traffic" they need to offset the costs.  To paraphrase, they say, "Its not really a big deal."

I disagree.  I allege that Bayside misrepresented very important features of the development to gain the city's cooperation and money and enhance their development, then recant their representations of important features to save money and expand the income opportunities at the expense of Rowlett.

Both the developers and the city want the development to succeed.  Profitability is certainly not the issue.  If Bayside is successful, the city will benefit from increased tax revenue.  However, the developer's goals and the city's goals are substantially different beyond the success of the project.   The developer's interest is pretty much contained by the deed lines of Bayside's  property.  If it works good on the site, they are not all that much concerned about city matters. (In spite of what they say).  On the other hand, the city has a much broader scope.  They think about other things besides tax revenue.  Bayside is the lynch pin of the image that Rowlett wants to portray.  It was the final building block to fall into place to convert Rowlett into a truly interesting and fun place to live.  We would have the lake, excellent transportation facilities, great medical facilities, and finally, the bloom on the rose, Bayside.  Bayside not only provides the profits to the developer and the tax revenue to the city, but Bayside is also the beacon of the city that lets everyone know where Rowlett is and what a charming place it is.  Even tho Bayside is privately financed, it is the trophy sitting on Rowlett's mantel.  It is upscale everything.  ALL of Rowlett wins with Bayside and it's lagoon and fountain.

The lagoon, fountain, and trolley are all part of that image.  If it is removed, the bloom is taken from the rose.  ALL of Rowlett no longer wins.

Are there sound economic reasons for removing the lagoon and fountain?  I don't know.  The developer certainly failed make the case.  All I heard from him was boring rhetoric about his past projects and how good they were.  No hard logic, traffic data, cost studies, revenue studies, and market data was offered.  All that was offered was, "Believe me. Would I lie to you?"  In addition, a very serious part of the development planning of the traffic control, particularly at the I-30 exit ramps.  Not a peep was uttered about it.  I was certainly interested in that story.

I just flat don't believe their data.......however little it was.  I don't believe there are 50 lagoons underway in Texas.  I don't believe their studies they say supports removing the lagoon and replacing with trees and grass.  Everybody loves trees and grass, but not everywhere.  There are exceptions.  I don't believe the expansion of the kayak basin would cost as much as the lagoon and fountain.  And, I think the kayak basin is a lousy idea.

Rowlett has been flim flamed.  I don't find fault with the developers trying to maximize the profit picture.  However, there are rules.  Lake Ray Hubbard has been here for 45 years.  Nothing spectacular has happened because of it.  It's nice, and I use it, and I bought a house here here because of it........but that's about it.  But, like any chemical mixture, sometimes a catalyst is what is needed to transform the stuff in the test tube into something special.  The lagoon and fountain of Bayview is that catalyst. 

Much is asked about The Harbor in Rockwall.  Why does it have such a hard time and is Bayside going to be a larger version?  Nope.  Any real estate analyst knows why The Harbor is having a hard time.  They spent too much money, the parking is atrocious, and the rents are staggering.  Garland's lakeside development started out slow, but picked up steam and is doing nicely now.  It also has $10 per foot per year less rent fees.   Bayside is more desirable than either of them.  In fact, Bayside's existence will actually help both of them.

When taken it total, the lagoon and fountain means more to Rowlett than just another development.  The developer has fallen far short of demonstrating why the lagoon and fountain should be removed from the plan.  Altho, both the city and the developer wants success for the project, each has different goals to achieve.  Both want profits, and that's okay, but the city needs and wants a beacon saying, "Here we are and we are great."  The lagoon and fountain in Bayside are the catalyst.

To the City Council, hang tough.






0 Comments

Continued Bayside analysis

7/30/2018

0 Comments

 
Let's pick up where we left off.

7.  Q  What’s in this new plan for the citizens of Rowlett?
In the recently released Imagine Rowlett survey conducted by the City of its citizens, the top four trends that emerged were more green space (parks, trails, bike paths and walkability), increased dining and shopping options, entertainment and cultural amenities, and better interactivity with the lake.  What is Imagine Rowlett?  I never heard of it.  In any event, I think the conclusions were meant for Rowlett, as a whole.......not Bayside specifically.  Furthermore, the desires are almost universal with the desires  all over the USA.  The developer just used them to support the argument of deleting lagoons and replace with grass, trees, and sidewalks.  Wanna guess what costs more?  Also, some of that newly found land will become townhouse land.  Only a small part goes to grass.


In the new plan, we’ve more than doubled the open spaces, including trails, parks, water gardens, a splash park and a kayak lagoon, than the prior plan. It also far exceeds the prior plan by providing a more natural setting and visual amenities that visitors can both experience and enjoy.  Read as much cheaper to develop, and converting proposed lagoon land into more income producing townhouse land.
Additionally, the new plan can accommodate several thousand more visitors for large-scale events like outdoor concerts, festivals and holiday events, while providing options for smaller events like farmer’s markets, craft fairs and school events.  This is what grass does for you instead of lagoon. 
Financially, we see this new plan as more beneficial to the City of Rowlett as well. Our internal estimates for the new plan exceed the economic study that was completed with the City in 2015. Tax value is estimated to be over $1 billion, as compared to $878 million for the original plan. Tax revenue to the city is estimated to exceed the original $149 million planned. We are working with Stein, the firm that developed the original study, to update their findings.  Now, I understand.   It's all for Rowlett's benefit!!  I always heard it was $1 Billion, anyway.  I don't know where the $878 Million came from.  What a bunch of crap.

8.  Q  What are your next steps?
We hope to continue the conversation with the City and its citizens to create a development that meets our shared goal of boosting tax revenue and attracting more commercial, hospitality and retail to the area. At the same time, we hope to create a space for the citizens of Rowlett and its neighbors to enjoy on a regular basis.  With so much crap being spread like fertilized, my next step would be the take the first step of the required number of steps to kick the developer's butt all the way to Texhoma, one step at a time.  One thing a lender (or ex-lender) hates, is to be lied to or conned.  We learn to spot it.

9.  Q 
Who created this new plan?
We’ve assembled a design and development team, which consists of some of the top experts in their respective industries. They’ve been involved in tremendously successful projects, such as The Woodlands near Houston and Reston Town Center in northern Virginia, as well as the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the US Capitol, the Pearl District in San Antonio and many other highly-regarded spaces. 
Well,okay.  If you say so. Not very specific, tho.  I guess we just have to believe you.


Team members have been involved in world-class projects around the globe, as well as throughout the State of Texas.

  • Developer: Tom D’Alesandro, Blake-Field (Chicago)
  • Developer: Dan Leverett, Place (Houston)
  • Architecture & Planning: Alan Ward, Sasaki (Boston)
  • Architecture: David Lake, Lake Flato (San Antonio)
  • Landscape Architect: Christine Ten Eyck, Ten Eyck Landscape Architects (Austin)

Please note:  The Dallas area is home to some of the best land developers in the world.  In fact, they develop all over the world, including all the places mentioned by our new Bayside developers.  Crow and Lincoln Properties just to start.  There are many more.  I did not notice one single name from Dallas.  I think it would be nice to tell us what they know about the Dallas area rather than Beijing.   By the way, I have even been in Beijing and walked on the Great Wall of China.  I didn't see our developers there.   Certainly Boston and Chicago did not help their case.  I don't even like those places. 
_____________________________
This concludes the nine questions on the developer's FAQ website page.  I wish to write a conclusion as a separate post.    I had absolutely nothing against the developers of Bayside.  In fact, I would defended them in most cases.  However, after last Thursday's performance, I was horribly disappointed.

Stay tuned in.


0 Comments

Analyzing the "stuff"

7/29/2018

0 Comments

 
7/29/18
This issue with the "re-design" of Bayside is very controversial. Previously, something had been promised by developers and held out as highly "desirable" to  encourage excitement among future visitors, business owners, apartment builders, condo developers, and other existing residents.  There was a lot of ballyhooing.  There was some really neat "stuff."   Last Thursday,  the second developer on site said, "Well, not so fast, Murphy."  Since last Thursday's presentation, the email I have received and the Facebook posts I have read clearly demonstrate local concern that Rowlett residents think they have been bamboozled.  I think we have been, too.  

There are a couple of places that are sources  of information supporting my following commentary.  They are 1) the developer's website, and 2) the city's website whereby Thursday's meeting is available for viewing.

 
The link below takes you to the developer's website whereby Frequently Asked Questions seems to draw a lot of attention.  Ya think??!!   Also, another place to visit is the city's recording of the meeting, and it's found on the city website.  Please pack a sandwich if you intend to watch in its entirety.  It's on the city's website.

http://discoverbayside.com/faq/   


I'm going to comment in order of questions asked on Bayside's website. 
1.  Q, "Why did the developers change the plans without notifying the City?
"  The developer said, "We’ve been in regular communication with the Mayor’s office and City Staff about our concerns, our research and these preliminary ideas for a path forward. In fact, we made this same presentation in early July to the Mayor......." 

Now Folks, I'm not all knowing.  I've been hoodwinked before.  However, at the meeting my observation of the first questions out of the Mayor's mouth was that she was surprised and a little angry.  I felt no impression that the Mayor knew what was coming.  Could I have misdiagnosed what I observed?  I suppose, but I don't think so.  If I am right, the developer's answer above can not be right.  The developer is suggesting that "the mayor and staff" knew what was coming and had implied tentatively approval of the changes.  One of us is wrong. 

2.
Q  "Why do you propose eliminating the 8-acre lagoon and fountains?"  And the answer was, "Our research shows that the lagoon and fountains would not be a driver for attracting large office and commercial tenants, one of the primary goals of our shared vision."
I'm going to put on my loan officer hat, now.  Something is blatantly missing here.  Where is the data supporting the developer's answer?  In fact, the lagoon would be an eaxcellent visual amenity for office workers, and depending on the "commercial" entity, it would be a huge draw for retail merchants.   I can assure you, lagoons and fountains will attract more people than grass and townhouses.

Let me tell you something about their "research."  I don't remember the number exactly, but I think the developer said they contacted about 1300 people in their research.  I DO remember that they said they contacted 200 people in Rowlett.  Folks, I know a little bit about market research sampling.  First, they didn't identify their sampling protocol.  Who did they ask?  Secondly, in a small town like Rowlett, if a market survey is going on, someone will hear about it.  I never heard about it.  Third, 200 people is too small a sample for the accuracy needed on this question.  Let me tell you, if you allowed me the opportunity to select my own 200 people, allow me two hours, and two cases of wine, I'll get you any result you want.  Although, I didn't hear about any free wine, either.


To continue.

"Additionally, we’ve all seen the winds on Lake Ray Hubbard lift kiteboarders 40 feet in the air and test the tacking and jibing skills of local sailors."  Folks, I've been a sailor on Lake Ray Hubbard for 40 years.  I have forgotten more about the winds on LRH than the developers know.  Try this on.  If you want to get rid of a lagoon, what do you do with a "left over" fountain?  Need a reason.  Kite Boarders WANT to be 40 feet in the air instead of 10.  Their equipment is designed to accomplish exactly that.  As a sailor, I handle jibing and tacking very nicely, thank you.  I also handle wing on wing and broad reaches, and sheetlines very nicely, too.  Let our developer experts explain what that means.  If you don't want your water fountain to shoot water 40 feet into the air, design one that only shoots water 10 feet into the air.  The developers are acting as though Rowlett has unusual wind conditions.  We do not.  West Texas has unusual wind conditions.    The developer is full of crap.   

And.


"We’ve also learned that there are as many as 50 similar lagoons currently in the works throughout the state of Texas."  Lender question again.  Where are the lagoons?  With such a dramatic statement, you would think data would be submitted to prove such a colossal statement.  I only know of one in the DFW area.  It is the largest metro area in Texas, with Houston close behind.  Add in San Antonio and Austin and you have most of the people in Texas.  Are they putting in 12.5 lagoons in each of these four metro areas?  Where in the hell are they!!  I don't know about you, but I don't like being taken for a fool.  Tell me where they are!!

Now, if you add up all the above, do you think they built a provable case for eliminating the lagoon?  Or, do you think the developer built a weak-kneed case for eliminating costs of a lagoon and securing more land for buildings?

3.  Q  "
We were excited to swim in the lagoon. What are you proposing instead as similar civic amenity?"
"The lagoon was never planned to be open to the general public for swimming. Only smaller portions on either end would have allowed swimming as an amenity exclusively for hotel guests and owners living in the condominium tower." 
It was this writer's opinion all along that the lagoon was not exclusive to hotel residents.  If it was, it was never explained in my presence........and I was present at a lot of meetings.  If it was exclusive, it should have been so noted.  If the general Rowlett population was banned and could not pay a fee and participate, we should have been told.  I feel this was an after thought.  Either that, or we were deceived.
"
In our new proposal, we’ve incorporated an 8-acre kayak basin, where the marina currently floats, that allows visitors to rent kayaks and paddle boards to enjoy the lake, while their friends and family watch from nearby cafes and engaging public spaces. We’ve also added a splash park designed with natural stone waterfalls and shallow pools for families with children of all ages to enjoy."

That's a horrible design and location for kayak, unless it's only somewhere to occupy kids.  the City of Rowlett has a much better location for kayak, canoe, paddleboats, and dagger board shallow draft sailboats.  Kayaks and canoes need to be in quiet water with places to explore.  The developer is proposing bouncing around with a rubber ducky.    As far as bragging about building an 8 acre site for kayaks, it's already there.  The developer is just moving boat slips around to incorporate a larger area.  It's just part of the existing Lake Ray Hubbard.  That costs only moving the slips, which isn't that expensive.......no matter what the developer says.  "Tom" was not quite accurate (by a whole bunch) in the meeting when he said that it cost as much to move the slips as to build the lagoon.  He probably thought no one in the meeting would know the real costs.  I do.    The previous owner moved the slips all the time during droughts to keep his slips in deeper water.  He didn't like to spend money, either, but did to accommodate his boat tenants.  The "splash park" isn't much if you can't get into the water (as prohibited by City of Dallas).  Just another flim flam.
4.  Q 
"Are there more apartments?"
"No, there is no increase in apartments. The City’s zoning places a 20% cap on residential uses and we have always been comfortable with that."


"In fact, within the new plan, rental apartments have decreased in favor of owner-occupied, resort community-style townhomes. Further, the apartments have been broken up and spread out into lower structures throughout the mixed-use core rather than larger, taller, more prominent blocks as originally proposed."

I've got no comment here.  Other than I think I like this.

5.  Q
   Did you propose eliminating the trolley?
No, we still regard the trolley as a transportation amenity.  Remember this.  I would not at all be surprised if this is on the chopping block.

6.  Q
   Why did you reduce the amount of retail space?
It’s no secret that the retail environment has changed dramatically over the past five years. Retailers nationwide are closing or reducing the size of their locations as more consumers are choosing to shop online. We are proposing that more space will be dedicated to restaurants and entertainment than traditional retail.
We intend to build the maximum amount of retail that the market will absorb. Our team has extensive, national retail experience on large scale and believes we can create an extremely vibrant retail experience. It is a critical part of our design. It is in our best interest to maximize the retail space, but only to the extent it is market-driven.

Little bit of a head fake, here.   It's the "big box" stores that are the main  stores to close.  Amazon is the cause.  I do not believe Bayside ever intended to have "big box" stores.  If they are such experts, they ought to know that.  This was just a coverup to increase more restaurant and entertainment, a higher revenue producing venue.  I'm okay with that.  I just wish they would tell the truth instead of lying or covering up logical rationale.  It just seems like they can't tell the truth, even if their lives depended on it.

( I am now going to close and post this episode.  There are four more questions I want to address, however I will do that in my next post.)






0 Comments

Kudos to Council, Part II

7/28/2018

1 Comment

 
My most previous blog post was getting too long.  I purposely left out some points.  I have also thought of other points that I consider salient.  I want to blend Bayside and Rowlett together. 

A couple of posts ago, I wrote that I thought Rowlett should be rebranded as a resort town.  I still believe that.  We've been dealt all the cards for this opportunity.  Now we have to play the hand right. 

A good resort town (or any good town, for that matter) needs some things to make life desirable and comfortable.  A good resort town orchestrates the good hand into a place where people want to be, over all else.  What's in it for us?  We residents, that already own property, will watch the value of that property grow beyond the norm for the area.  Not only is it good for our balance sheet, but it's also good for our self esteem.  We will feel good about where we live.

What's a good town need?  It needs something to bond it .........an identity......something like a 23,000 acre lake, or an ocean.  It needs good housing for all residents, slum free.  It needs Schools, restaurants, and major grocery shopping.  A really good town has excellent medical facilities and excellent transportation capabilities.  Jobs can be important, but nearby jobs will suffice.  The town needs to be so desirable that others want to live there.  Every one of those ingredients above are within five minutes of my house.

Rowlett has all that.    Now we need to apply our good fortunes.

First and foremost, we have 23 miles of shoreline on Lake Ray Hubbard.  That is better than being surrounded by wheat fields.  By annexation, we have acquired I-30, after never having an Interstate thru town.  Earlier, we had acquired DART and the Bush Tollway going right thru town.  Our medical community has grown very fast, with increased hospital facilities, nursing homes, and doctor's offices.  I have watched Rowlett acquire all these attributes during my 43 years of living here.   All the above supplied ingredients to provide marketing opportunities for a major development.  Bayside was added to the formula, and rounded out the appeal list.  The lake, the transportation, and the willingness of a nearby town with all the necessary qualities made Bayside possible.  Please note:  The City of Rowlett needed Bayside to round out their needs, and Bayside needed the city to provide help that Bayside needed.  Folks, that's called a "symbiotic relationship."  In other words, we need each other.   

About 10 years ago, I began writing some columns for the Dallas Morning News.  I wrote three stories on Lake Ray Hubbard and what should happen to an area we now call Bayside.  They came to pass.

To shorten a story, a developer purchased the land we now call Bayside, with intentions of development.  The City of Rowlett was courted as a partner because of Bayside's  need for police protection, utilities, infrastructure roads, and tax help.  The developer made representations to entice the City of Rowlett to enter into a "relationship" whereby Bayside would be developed to provide certain characteristics that appealed to the City of Rowlett; like an 8 acre, clear water pond with a large fountain, and world wide notoriety, plus other "stuff.".  This was exactly the thing Rowlett needed to round out the excellent cards dealt and become a very desirable place to live, intending to include all the people that own snow blowers.  When these "snow blower" people decide to relocate and retire, they bring a lot of disposable income with them.  They like nice "stuff."  When we think about retiring in a resort area, we think of sandy beaches and palm trees.  When people in St. Louis, Kansas City, and Omaha think about retiring south, they go where Home Depot doesn't have snow blowers.  The Rowlett Home Depot doesn't offer snow  blowers.

Now, the owners of Bayside made representations, along with the first developer, to the City of Rowlett.  Those plans were accepted by the city to justify their entry into the project with the aids they could bring to the table.  Commitments were made by the city, including tax deference.  Subsequently, the first developer was replaced and the owners appeared on Thursday evening with their new developer.  What a surprise!!

It would appear many of the promises made by the owner and new developer are not now intended to be honored.  Reasons were given.  Very weak reasons.  Therefore, in the presence of such weak arguments, and an absence of good factual data, I am furious.  The CON was in!!

Was it planned this way?  I really don't think so.  What I think happened was a new business plan was developed by the new developer and submitted to the owner.  For what ever reason, the owners replaced the first developer and they proposed a new development plan concocted by the new developer.    I can almost guarantee you the new plan provided for a  much more generous income stream for the owners.  I don't object to that.  That is, providing the redrafting of the plan did not materially change the plan from what was presented to their "partner," the City of Rowlett.  Tweaking the dials is almost always present in development.  However, in this case, Lucy pulled the football right out from under the City of Rowlett.  I think the current developer pulled a successful con job on the owners with an arithmetic game to provide more income to the owners.  They did this by removing some of the amenities, including the pool and fountain.  This was without any additional consideration to other principals.   Folks, that's stupid.  Particularly when your partner controls zoning, inspections, permits and tax considerations.  I can't think of any other word than Stupid. 

The same con that worked on the owners didn't work on Rowlett's City Council.  Oh, all that BS that the costs of the remodel of the marina would cost as much as the pool and fountain is just crap.  It's a lie.  Tom, the spokesman for the developer is not to be trusted.  If I was the police chief, I wouldn't allow him back in town.  Besides that, he talks too much. 

Look at what out Council now has to do.  They get to go out to their constituents and outside world and say,  "Remember that pool and fountain?  We didn't really mean it."

If I was King of Rowlett, I would contact the owners of Bayside, and remind them they have a partner.  Secondly, I would have them  fire the second developer before they could ever set foot in my kingdom again.  Thirdly, I would try to set down at the table with them and work out the deal around  a more formal basis. (Absent Tom).

The owners of Bayside need Rowlett.  However, Rowlett needs Bayside for more than just another development.  We need it to make Rowlett the town it should be.  Representations were made to entice the City to take a course of action.  Now the representations  are recanted.   In my opinion, I think our Council were treated as dummies.  They ain't.

I used to be a "big dollar" work out specialist on large defaulted and foreclosed  development loans.  If the owners wanted to play "hardball," I could show them how.






1 Comment

Kudos to Council

7/27/2018

3 Comments

 
City Council did the city a great service last night.  There was a special session called  to hear the developers of Bayside.  I attended that meeting.  This will be somewhat of a lengthy response.  Therefore, I believe a little background review is due in order to justify some of my comments.  In the immediate previous post, I set out my qualifications to render a reasonably acceptable basis for my opinions. 

First, I am a strong supporter of the development community.  I nearly always come down on the side of the developer.  I understand the hard work and costs incurred in trying to bring a development of any kind to fruition.   Are there some sleezeballs in the development fraternity?  Yes, but probably  not as many as you think.  Most are just trying to run their business as best they can.  The money they earn is their paycheck........just like yours.  Their risk is enormous, therefore the higher paychecks. 

I consider one of my skills to be analyzing the highest and best use of land.  I have long considered the land now called Bayside as one of the most valuable pieces of undeveloped land between downtown Dallas and Memphis.  In fact, I wrote three columns in the Dallas Morning News, two in 2007 and one in 2008, advocating that Rowlett buy the land from Dallas and developing it themselves.  In my articles Rowlett was to "partner up" with a prominent developer for expertise and advice. 

What came to pass was something similar, however structured differently.  What developed was that a developer purchased the land with Rowlett as somewhat of a partner.  Rowlett was to provide city services and reap tax revenue, with some sales tax money flowing to the City of Dallas, in addition to $30 million purchase price. 

What followed was a grand announcement about all the cool things that would be incorporated into the Bayside development.  This presentation was supposed to  include a much  ballyhooed 8 acre clear water pond with sandy beach, towering water fountain, and small track train connecting all the important places in the development.  This story was spread all over the metroplex,  Texas, and to some extent, over the USA.  It was a big deal. 

I could see the new construction north of I-30.  I drive by it nearly every day.  However, I had heard little about south of I-30.  The meeting Thursday evening was to update Council and citizens about the most current development plans.  I had to go.   What I heard was 70% okay and 30% pure el toro poo poo.......intended to "smooth over" major changes to the project. 

During my career, I have been to many "dog and pony" shows.   I had only set in this meeting a few minutes before I recognized a "dog and pony" show.  It's easy to recognize.  Just start looking for WHAT isn't being discussed.   The main attraction to the whole development wasn't being mentioned.  Everything BUT the main attraction was being discussed.  Then, a triangular park for the public was mentioned in detail.  The site plan showed no pool.   However, an expanded marina with doubling of a kayak basin in which no one had heard about, anyway, was discussed.  The bloviating was beginning to stifle the air. 

When it was clear to Tom, the developer's statesman, that the question on the table was really about the pond, the discussion about everything except the pond kicked into high gear.  It was actually boring. 

If the pond is abandoned, and valued at $25/sq.ft., $8.7 million of land will become available for development as income producing.  Some of it became townhouse land.   To replace it, Tom, pontificated on the new design for the marina.  Now, let me see.  They just spent a bunch of money redoing the marina.  I guess Tom was referring to a previously unbeknown Phase II.  In this "redo" the marina provided 8 acres, instead of 4, for kayaks. 

Now I have to tell you a quick story to exemplify  my observation of the kayak story.  I am a sailor.  I have sailed on Lake Ray Hubbard since 1978.  I also sail the Caribbean as often as I can.  I have sailed the Caribbean so much nearly all major islands are a re-visit.  One thing an ocean sailor wants is a "place to go."  I can sail in circles around the lake anytime, but when going to the ocean, I want someplace to go.  Now, the developer made great noises about Lake Ray Hubbard being too windy for the water fountain that was proposed.  High winds are not good for kayaks and canoes, either.  Kayaks and canoes are best in quiet waters exploring different and interesting places that other boats can't get to.  That's the type of water Rowlett has.  The developer of Bayview is proposing that kayaks and canoes paddle around presumably in a circle contained in a 4 or 8 acre "area."  Now, they are free to enter the main portion of the lake, but the kayaker would incur less than quiet water with higher winds.  That's where I want to be in my 27 foot sailboat.  This was a dumb attempt to partially cover up the absence of the clear water pond and fountain.  Tom also said it would cost the developers MORE to enhance the marina than build the pond.  That is not true.  I forgot more about costs while shaving this morning than Tom knows.  In fact, the previous marina owner used to move boat slips all the time to keep the boats in deep enough water during low water periods.  He did not spend money easily.  Tom was bloviating again. 

Rowlett, if they want to help kayakers and canoeists, has a better deal to offer than Bayside.   Rowlett has Paddle Point Park as a base spot.  They can then select 6-8 sites within the "take line" and up some feeder creeks for additional bases.  That gives kayakers and canoeists places to go.......in quiet kayak friendly water.  This improvement can be handled by Rowlett's Park Department.  The city can purchase a used pontoon boat, and used lawn tractor mower, and a used ramp to get the mower off and on the pontoon boat.  They could call it the Rowlett Navy, and their job would be to mow the sites 6 times a year.  No street development, parking lots, porto potties, grills, nothing.  Very, very cheap and would offer more than Bayside's program by a large margin.

After the presentation, Tammy, the mayor, went straight to the key question.  "Where is the pool?"  Right after that Debbie Bobbit posed questions about the entire concept that seemed to be abandoned.  All Councilpersons were less than kindly to the presentation. 

I honestly worried about whether the Council would see thru the presentation.  They did......and I was proud of them.

Where was discussion on TxDot and I-30 and the traffic issues?  Tom kept talking about areas for the public, but not mention of costs to the public.  Do they pay for the use of kayak basin? the"beach like" parks?  Access to green areas? 

Let me tell you how stupid I think the current developers are.  They released Kent Donahue, a guy I liked.  The owners replaced him with Tom, and his retinue.  Tom is a BS'er.  He's more interested in talking about his earlier accomplishments than the project at hand.  I guess that is supposed to impress the Council and allow them to believe anything he said.  However, the real test of intelligence was the fact that the first thing the new developer does was piss off the project's partner, the City of Rowlett.  The stupidity is compounded by the fact the developer pissed off the partner that has control on how the project is zoned and developed.

I guess that's what the meeting was for.  If I was the owner, I would fire these knuckleheads tomorrow.  In order for Rowlett to become a highly desirable place to live, and the land owner to make reasonable income commensurate with the high class development proposed, Rowlett and the owners have to work together.  It's a symbiotic relationship.  We may have to slap them around a little bit.  If they can't placate Rowlett, they have probably made the worst investment in their business life.

The developers made representations to our City Council.  They are defaulting on those representations. 

City Council did well.

3 Comments

    Archives

    January 2021
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.