Blog Archives - ROWLETT RAMBLINGS

I apologize

8/30/2018

I have received a rare criticism. I have been severely chastised. It was never my intention to cause any of my readers any discomfort. If I have, I truly apologize. It never occurred to me that I could cause such discomfort with the design of my blog site. I set my print scale rather large to provide easy readership for some Seniors that may have vision problems. I thought I was helping out. But, alas, that font size causes readers to spend exhaustive effort scrolling down the page more often than with smaller type. I never dreamed it could cause such physical exertion.

So....I now promise to keep the print size smaller to accommodate readers that do not have much physical endurance.........if I want to. There, Robbert.

Now, I'd like to get on with other important matters. If you have any thoughts about Bayside, I'd like to hear them. It's easy. Just go to the Contact flag at the top of the page and write away.

Good news, kinda

8/24/2018

I just read a post on Facebook by Tammy. She was visiting a 2 acre crystal lagoon in Humble, Texas, along with other Council members. She was very pleased with what she saw. That's good. Blake Margolis used the word "breathtaking." That, too, is good.

So, I'm pleased that Council is impressed with the lagoon look and what it can do for Rowlett. That should strengthen their resolve.

My question/comment is a little more pragmatic. If the lagoon becomes acceptable to Council at 25% of what was promised, is 25% of what was promised for the fountain and trolley also acceptable?

Tammy's reply was good. She said the 2 acre lagoon had been limited by the size of the developed land in Humble. The implication being that perhaps a 2 acre lagoon would not be large enough in Bayside. The fountain and trolley were not mentioned.

Stay tuned.

It's your call..........

8/23/2018

Okay, now what? There may be a few relative facts yet to be uncovered on Bayside. However, enough has been discussed for you to form some preliminary thoughts. I've voiced my opinion. I am not telling you what to think. That's your job.

Is the city guilty of buffoonery, or is the city a victim of an unprincipled developer? Then, what would you do about it?

You can send comments to this page.

Oops......forgot the survey.

8/17/2018

Well, no one has stepped forward to claim the $100 donation to charity. No one even tried to lie about it.

So......what conclusions can you draw? Well, there are a number of suppositions, plus some new facts.

First, because of the inability to uncover any evidence of any survey conducted about Bayside before the July 26th public meeting, I can conclude that none was taken. Therefore, it is my opinion that the developer lied about the survey which supported their decision to delete the lagoon, fountain, and trolley from the development of Bayside. The question occurs to me that if the developer lied about the survey, what else did he lie about? It's my position that the credibility of the developer has been destroyed. I don't like lies. I do not like manipulation of any kind......on either side of the table.

However, I now have evidence that a survey of Bayside is now underway. That compounds the intrigue. Now it looks like, "Oops, I've been caught, and I'd better do some damage control." That reaction is almost juvenile in nature. The survey underway is completely amateurish in it's structure. Some questions have nothing to do with Bayside. For example, the survey asks for political affiliations, right or left. That question has no business in a survey about an amenity package of any real estate development. In addition, it asks by name your opinion of certain political leaders......not all. That has absolutely no business being in a survey about real estate development. REPEAT: The survey is very amateurish. That means the survey questions were developed by someone not good at it. Not professionals. Who? The developer? Or.....the owners? In any event, the survey is a tool of manipulation, not information gathering.

I have a very good idea of what questions are being asked. The Mayor, Tammy, sent me some paraphrased questions that was given to her by citizens. Larry Beckham's wife took a call. My wife received a call on her cell phone. My wife refused to answer some questions because they had nothing to do with Bayside. I have a smart wife.

I do not believe that a survey was ever taken prior to July 26. I think that the developer was telling city Staff that it had been taken, but I believe the developer was lying. I now have ample evidence that a survey is currently underway. However, it is being taken in response to a demand for the evidence made by this blog, and probably other doubters. I think it is being done for damage control. I also think the current survey is designed for gaining unwarranted political information, and manipulating information to support the developer's desire to eliminate the lagoon, fountain, and trolley from the Bayside development.

I am strongly on the side of taking action to fight the developers, no matter the action. This action can only be mitigated by the developer searching and finding their original integrity in a box somewhere, and making amends for their recent ill conceived actions.

I am angry. I want Bayside developed materially within it's original presentation. The fountain can be redesigned to become a less expensive maintenance issue, but all else stays. The balance of the development can be tweaked somewhat, but the amenity package stays. Period.

A couple of side notes:

First, what do you figure the odds are that Larry Beckham and my wife would be randomly chosen in the 200 citizens out of the estimated 30,000 voters in this city? We're probably the two who write most about Bayside. The odds are astronomical, and suggests there might be some back room shenanigans. Someone may be on the payroll that we don't know about. Is that beyond the integrity of the owners?

Second, what motivated the elimination of the amenity package? Folks, follow the money. How much is another 8 acres of waterfront land worth on the Bayside property? A price of $25/sq. ft. on 8 acres is $8.7 million. Plus, it saves development costs of the amenity package. It's worth more than that.

Bayside, by design?

8/12/2018

       ******Special Notice******
I will donate $100.00 to the favorite charity of the first person that can provide me the answers to below questions regarding a certain market study:

Fact: On July 26, 2018, the developers of Bayside cited a market study taken that supported their decision to eliminate the lagoon, proposed fountain, and trolley from the amenity package from the development of Bayside.

Fact: In the above representation, the developer reported that 1300 people were interviewed and 200 of them were in Rowlett.

Fact: In this blog site I asked any Rowlett resident to step forward who may have been contacted by the developer, or their assigns, conducting a survey regarding the lagoon, fountain, or trolley.

Fact: As of this date, no one has responded to this blog's request.

Therefore: This blogs makes the above $100 donation to the first Rowlett resident that can provide reasonably provable information on:

1. Who contacted them representing themselves as poll takers of Bayside?

2. What questions were asked? ( A copy of the survey would be ideal).

3. How did you respond to the questions?

4. If return address of questionnaire is different, who did you return the survey to?

If the first Rowlett resident who steps forward with reasonably provable evidence of any of the above facts, this office would happily donate the money on behalf of the respondent. Happily, because some of my sinister thoughts would remain unproven, and the developer's word would continue to contain some substance.

My sinister thoughts?

Folks, ya gotta put your real estate analyst hat on. What have we got here? Well, we started with a really valuable piece of land......in it's raw state some of the most valuable commercial land between downtown Dallas and Memphis. It is surrounded on three sides by a 23,000 acre lake and within about 45 minutes driving time to 7 million people.

However, it needed some "stuff." It needed a lot of sanitary and storm sewer facilities. It needed water for much enlarged usage. It needs street infrastructure, police and fire protection. The City of Dallas couldn't, or wouldn't, provide it. The developers couldn't afford to do it themselves. They needed a municipal partner. Rowlett was the logical choice.

Regardless of who started the negotiations, Rowlett was offered a "deal" in turn for their support. A spectacular offer of world class lagoon, fountain, and trolleys were a major enticement to cause Rowlett to join forces in a partnership. This was more than a financial enticement. It was more than tax revenue. It put Rowlett on the map. It was a trophy. It helped re-brand Rowlett as a destination, a great place to live, work, and play. It was good for our sense of pride.

Then, Lucy pulled the football out from Charlie Brown's kick. Charlie becomes upset. Now, is there anybody alive in this world that does not understand why Charlie Brown was upset? If you understand that, you then understand Rowlett.

Now, real estate school time.

The current owner's of Bayside paid $31.5 million for the land and some tax incentives For simplicity, I am going to ignore the tax incentives for this discussion.....so, the owners paid $31.5 million for the land, and the City of Rowlett joined up in a partnership whereby the city would provide much needed infrastructure too make the development work. Development started on the north side of Bayside and the city started their work on their obligations. As in all real estate developments, once work begins, values start going up. All is rosy.

Oops. Something happened.    The developers are going to remove the world class amenity package of lagoon, fountain, and trolley, the very items that excited Rowlett in the first place. The developer's argument is that more recent facts and surveys prove that the amenity package is no longer warranted. Of course, the hue and cry goes up, as most assuredly has to be expected by the developer. Why would they risk the ire of the city?

What if it was by design?

As valuable as the land is, it is not nearly as valuable as it would be if all the infrastructure were in place, fire and police protection in place, and I-30 modifications worked out. (Not enough has been discussed about I-30.)

If Rowlett commits to their share of obligations, then starts the wheels turning to honor those obligations, the value of the Bayside land starts going up, and up. Some land has been sold out of Bayside for the development of a garage and some apartments, townhouses, condos, or whatever they are on the north side. There was probably enough profit from that (those) transactions to pay for the marina modifications on the south side of I-30. You must understand, the construction sites are no longer managed by Bayside. They have another owner and another mortgage.

So, Bayside has sold some land, improved a marina, and done some other modest work. What has the value of their land done? Rowlett is performing their obligatory improvements. Those improvements are enhancing the value of the Bayside land. As a modest improvement, they rehabbed the marina. (By the way, the new plan for the marina and it's kayak basin is dreadful. The new concept was not designed by anyone that knew anything about boating. Also, how far are the proposed boat slips from the parking lot? Anyone having back or walking issues can move their boats to Captain's Cove.)

What if everything is going as designed by the Bayview owners?    Was the owner's plan to purchase the land, while getting the city of Rowlett obligated to provide infrastructure that enhanced the value of the land?   After the city was firmly aboard whereby it would be difficult to bailout, was it the original plan to yank the football back to save on costs. If successful, and the city bought into the "new" plan for development, look what was happening? Bayview land was increasing in value because the city, thru their efforts, was making the land "more easy to develop and more valuable," while at the same time, cutting tens of millions of dollars from costs by eliminating the lagoon, fountain, and trolley. It's one of those instances whereby 2 + 2 = 6.

It would have been a good plan, except for one speed bump. The citizens of Rowlett revolted. The Council was pissed. In an effort to "quiet the natives," it seemed to me that the owners went into damage control. If they didn't, they should have.

I know my thoughts. I have taken my musket down from over the mantel. I am greasing the wheels on my oxcart, and looking for someone with oxen. I'm putting new straw in the torches. I got coveralls and a straw hat around here somewhere.

If this whole thing was a result of poor research at the beginning, and more accurate research for the new and improved design, let someone prove it. Were is the data? Where are the people? The developer's behavior could be horrible mismanagement. If this whole thing is by design, you have to ask if a criminal ingredient is present. Is it a scam? Is it bait and switch? It's certainly misrepresentation, if our legal work at the beginning was competent.

I want someone to pay for this insult.

But what do I know?

Putting on the gloves

8/9/2018

I'm really disappointed in the response issued by City Council regarding confrontations of the developers of Bayside. In a time gone by, it would be considered acquiescence. Acquiescence is butt ugly. Nothing is solved, but certainly extended, at considerable cost. It is almost guaranteed to extend negotiations, and cost more money.   If there's going to be a fight, lets get it on. Otherwise, both sides, with heavy emphasis on the developer, better rethink their position.

Much of my career in real estate lending was as a "work out guy." That means negotiating with subs, suppliers, and developers. Subs and suppliers are protected by lien laws and they have the hammer. Plus, they had my sentimental support that says, "if they did the work they deserved to be paid."

Developers, on the other hand, made promises. If they defaulted on their representations, they were accountable. This is where you pull in the "fix it" guys. That would be me.

That's what we have in Bayside, and it's easily provable as represented by news reports.   So, what happened? I don't know, but I know that some questions are warranted. First of all, what's our legal position. That would depend on the strength of the documentation of the very first contract with Bayside, and any forward.   If the City of Rowlett has good strong agreements with Bayside, then we have the negotiating hammer. If the original agreements with Bayside are weak, where was our legal representation? If our legal position is weak in this confrontation, somebody's head on the city's side should roll.......maybe more than one. If our position on contracts with Bayside are strong, binding, legal agreements, Bayside is in a lot of trouble.   When I was in the real estate development lending business, our documents were time tested and very effective. When we went into negotiations, we were well armed.

The problem with the city response after the Executive Meeting was that a "wait and see" attitude would be the present position of the city. That is sending a message to the developer that you have a weak position. Not good.

My game plan was always to investigate the advisory's strengths and weaknesses. I did that with "preliminary negotiations." That is, sit around a table and argue.   If you listen carefully, in that preliminary negotiation, the adversary will tell you their strong points and their weak points. They will try to cover them up, but listen carefully. Armed with that info, recheck the legal documents. Do your documents protect you from the adversary's strong points?    If so, its time to load up and head to the court house.

It's not a big deal to file a law suit. Probably, it costs no more than $100.   However, there is another document that can be filed at the same time. This document is called a lis pendens, a Latin term meaning "a law suit is filed." A lis pendens is filed of record. It puts the whole world on notice that a law suit has been filed.   However, significant in that filing is that if the defendant loses the law suit, anyone advancing money to the landowners or does any work on the project after the filing is in a junior position to the claimant. This is serious. It means all money and expense incurred after the filing of the lis pendens is subject to the claimant's claims.   Furthermore, for all practical purposes, it notifies any purchaser that the property probably can not be sold until the law suit is adjudicated. Folks, this really cranks up the heat without costing too much money, and it almost assures that someone (read defendant) wants to talk seriously. It would have become time to get serious.

Two things to remember:

1. No one on the current city council was in office when the deal was struck and the contract review and signing was done.

2. Never, never, allow attorneys to do the business decisions.   They are very necessary for legal issues and legal advice. Business people make business decisions.

My opinion?........hang 'em. I don't like being flim flammed. (Not the attorneys..........Well, maybe.)

Tell the world...

8/8/2018

With FACEBOOK, I don't know how you missed it, but here it is.
___________________

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGZ2Tye4Iyk
_______________

http://amp.fox4news.com/news/plans-now-murky-for-rowletts-crystal-lagoon-project
______________________

A comment on top of a comment

8/6/2018

Below is a Facebook article by Jeff Winget.   I thank and appreciate Mr. Winget's efforts to gather info and inform Rowlett citizens of a very important topic. Behind some of Mr. Winget's comments are some of mine. Please do not think any of my comments are a criticism of Mr. Winget. They are not. I am only commenting on the story as represented to Mr. Winget by the developer, Tom D'Alesandro.   I have some input because Mr. D'Alesandro called me on the following day, Aug 1, at 11:06, and we talked for about an hour. The two stories don't quite match up.
______________________________

FACEBOOK
Jeff Winget
This is a summary of my conversation with Tom D'Alesandro (Lead Developer for Bayside). I spoke to him for about 45 minutes on Tuesday 7/31 and promised him I would share this information in an unbiased way. All of this is my paraphrased interpretation of what Tom told me. None of it is a direct quote from him, and should not be treated as such. I hope you find this informational.
Tom's view of the situation is that there is a fundamental disconnect between two goals -
1) A financial goal: Rowlett's effort to attract large users of 1.7M sq.ft. of office, hotel, conference center, retail, entertainment, dining space (the majority of which do not currently exist in Rowlett). What does the office and hotel portion need to be successful? Attracting users who are not near Rowlett today. (Duh. Do you think desirability has anything to do with it?)
2) To construct a Caribbean style resort including the Crystal Lagoon. (I have sailed all over the Caribbean. Many islands I have visited more than once. I kinda know what the Caribbean looks like. I have not seen anything yet that cries out"Caribbean!!".........maybe Southern Italy.)
NEW PLAN - The broad strategy being to create an environment that is attractive to those users. This plan combines the hotel and conference center, leveraging the lake by connecting a plaza with restaurants and open space. To leverage the lake, which is what the hotels are really looking for (not a lagoon), and create a border to I-30 which is not just parking lots followed by buildings like you would see all through Mesquite/Garland. (I know what financial leveraging is, but at a little loss on how to "leverage" a lake.   Does that mean take advantage of? The lake has been here 45 years and no one has experienced any success of the lake providing any overwhelming attractiveness to a business........except the marinas.   The lake is nice, but has not had a history of providing more magnetism than good old sound business acumen.   Everyone knows the lake is here. About the only recognizable financial plus, is the price of waterfront lots. All else is pretty basic. If there is a demand for a hotel, there is a demand for a hotel, lake or not. Same with office, housing, or restaurants. Most of the developer's story to Jeff is just "spin." I want them to show me the facts.)

OLD PLAN - The package proposed originally (the Crystal Lagoon, zip-line, trolley, waterjet fountain and etc.) were not tactics that aligned with attracting these users. (Sez who? Where's the facts?) While they are attention-grabbing, it did not accomplish the goal bringing in users to those spaces. (Sez who?) The target audience wanted a more natural setting, and an 8-acre lagoon does not accomplish that. (Again, sez who?) The Crystal Lagoon as was presented was too "exotic/tropical" in theme, and not native to the North Texas area. (Prove it!! Everyone I have talked to wants the lagoon to remain in the development.    Killer bees aren't wanted either, but they're here. Must be attracted by something. I know!! They're here because there is no lagoon.)

JEFF: How did you come to such a different conclusion from the previous developer?
TOM: This is a plan that appeared to be created by an owner, city, and developer without prior experience with this type of development. (Well, that captures everybody except Tom. However, it's hard to find good help.) It appears research was not done because there were just too many things wrong with it. The property looks like 3 bands (see attached graphic) - upper (strip shopping on the north face, much like I-30 already has between Dallas & Rowlett with parking lots and box retailers), middle (massive apartment blocks), bottom (Caribbean fantasy land, with the lagoon, single loaded retail similar to what Rockwall has, poor parking, etc). Furthermore, the wind coming off the lake from the south would carry the 60-foot fountain into the northern parts of the penninsula, plus the cost to operate will be thousands of dollars per night. (Folks, this is all "spin." I have to take issue here. Apparently, our City Council was so stupid as to buy into what the idiot first developer and the uninformed owners wanted. Only Tom could see the light, and raced in to save the day. In addition, the wind is so bad coming off the lake that it would blow the water spray over the lower acreage south of I-30, across I-30 and into the northern parts of the peninsula.   Folks, that's a long way, and every day, too. Being an old dumb sailor that has sailed on the winds of Lake Ray Hubbard for 40 years, my only solution would be to flip the power switch on the fountain to the OFF position. But, what do I know? I've only been in the business as long as Tom is old. And, let's see......thousands of dollars per night operating costs? That's plural, so I assume something over $2,000 per day.   Do you believe that? You don't even run air conditioning while spraying water.)

There seems to be a conflict within what the City wants this to be. The City wants this to be a park, but also wants it to be a successful commercial destiation, and then also wants it to be an 'amusement park' (referring to the Crystal Lagoon, zip-lines, etc.). What we should do is to bring back the original market studies that show a problem and then develop solutions. The first market studies identified problems but did not present solutions. (Most of the above is pure spin, but there is some fairly meaty comments.   First, as I've said all along, where are the facts? Where is the market research data? Tom keeps telling us what it says, but never produces it. Secondly, I don't know what the city wanted. I did not sit in on planning sessions. Again, it's what Tom tells us. What meetings with the city? Where did the city communicate their desires? The first developer grew up in the family business of finance and real estate development. To paint him as a dupe and inexperienced is not very professional.   So far, Tom is not winning me over.)

JEFF: What type of office space users are you trying to attract.
TOM: Office space should not be reduced, or if it is, only slightly. The goal is to replicate the office and hotel space shown in the original plan. The retail cannot be replicated because of the 'retail apocolypse'. (What is a "retail apocalypse"?) A lot of people are shopping outside the Rowlett Market (such as Firewheel, etc.). Retail could be what it was originally only if there is a "retail-rennaisance". (What is a retail Renaissance?.. most retailers I talk to seem to feel business is pretty good and really don't need an "awakening.")" One rumor that's been passed around is that we are increasing residential, however there is a cap on residential and only 20% of the land can be devoted to residential per the FBC. (Okay, at the citizen's meeting, it was said that there would be an increase of townhouse land because of the absence of the lagoon.    How does that not increase the 20% residential....or was the 20% understated before?    Folks, more spin. Talking without thinking.)

JEFF: Do you think a bigger focus on developing places to go experience things rather than shop is the way to go?
TOM: Yes, we are focusing on creating outdoor spaces. The new lagoon is more natural and is 2 acres in size. It looks more like Barton Springs rather than something out of the Caribbean; and 2-acres is still massive and is scaled better. (Where did a 2 acre lagoon come from? This is the first I have heard of it. Furthermore, where did a four year build out time come from? ) There are also 4-5 acres of lawn that lead up to a stage where performances can happen. There is beach volleyball, pickleball, and others. The marina will be moved out, and the cove will become a kayak area which is actually in the lake (but behind the breakwater). (They have a horrible plan for a kayak basin. The City of Rowlett has a much better potential for a kayak and canoe basin than Bayside, but that's another story.)

JEFF: The FAQ page on your website indicated you had met with the Mayor's office previously. Without getting into gossip, can you elaborate on that?
TOM: Yes, we gave a 2-hour presentation on July 10 at 2:30pm to the Mayor, City Manager, City Attorney, Asst. Economic Development Director, and with the architects & land planners. The presentation given this week was the same one as before, with only a few added to answer questions that were asked during the first meeting. That meeting spurred the meeting in front of the entire council. At that meeting, we were told we weren't doing what the zoning required, but in fact we are. There is a framework plan which governs zoning and our plan is more consistent with that than the Crystal Lagoon was. (This would be very, very debatable, and now would be a good time for legal advise regarding representations, not differences of opinion.).
We were asked not to share this with council until city leaders had seen the presentation, and we honored that, so I see why council was upset. (I thought the City Council were city leaders. Is there a shadow government that I don't know about? Who asked Tom not to share with Council?    So, I guess everyone except Council knew about proposed changes? Where was legal council in this subterfuge?)

During the meeting, we also asked which if any of the Council members had even seen a Crystal Lagoon, and none had. (I see. It was the City Council's fault. Folks, the City Council was not investing the money. The owner's were.) For us to invest hundreds of millions of dollars having not even seen one is a very risky position. (Hundreds of millions of dollars for a sand bottom vinyl lined pool!!??   The lagoon is essentially a very large vinyl lined pool. Take a cheap sand bottom vinyl lined pool of about 15' x 20' that cost about $15k to build. To expand to 8 acres would be 1,161 times for a cost of $1.742 million to build.........a little less than "hundreds of millions of dollars. Give me a break, Tom. I got out of the 6th grade and was pretty good at arithmetic.) The stragegy is to build a financially successful district. The lagoon is a tactic to accomplish that, but the City is making it out to be the strategy, not a tactic. (Whatever the hell that means.)

JEFF: Given the previous plan was touted as "world-class", how do we convince people to travel here from DFW Airport rather than staying somewhere like the Gaylord Texan?
TOM: First, we are celebrating the lake. From PGBT to the lake, you are arriving at a 4-star resort hotel on the lake. It's more of a park-like setting, with trails and extensive landscaping, than it is today. There is a heavy focus on nature which will pull people in. (The two previous comments are pure BS.) What we will create is a combination of this natural setting with an urban core where you can still see the lake, that forms a tight mixed-use center surrounded by park land. (Some more BS.)
Under the old plan, aside from the Crystal Lagoon, the rest of Bayside is not world class. The new plan is to produce a well-designed development. Unfortunately the City did not give us time to prepare some of the more attractive graphics for the presentation, but we plan to set up public venues for people to see these plans in the coming months. (Once again, it s the city's fault. Plus, some more BS) We have done our homework and hired great designers to make this work. (By who's opinion?)

JEFF: How do you feel about the public reaction so far?
TOM: I don't think we've had a chance to tell our story yet, and because the City told us to not tell our story until we'd talked to them, we haven't had our chance yet. (Once again, would the city please get out of the way? We're trying to build something here.) But when we did, the City reacted in an abrupt way. We are definitely open to discussion, but it must be anchored in - are we trying to create Coney Island or are we trying to create an elegant commercial center and park? (Coney Island has boardwalks, basketball shooting booths, kuppie doll baseball throwing booths, and bumper cars. I don't remember the original plan having any of these features.) If we are really going after a commercial hotel and class-A office space, we can't do Coney Island. We've done the research to prove our plan will work, but with the City's plan, it's all based on hope that the Crystal Lagoon will do all that for us.
______________________________________

I disagree with the whole idea that the City of Rowlett was basing their entire comfort level on the development of the crystal lagoon.   Every one that I have talked to knew that the lagoon was only part of the package. It was an important part, but still only a part. Far more significant was the whole picture. The original presentation certainly put a trophy on Rowlett's mantle, however it was the complete program that was important.    The current developer is acting as tho he is the only smart guy in the room without proving it. Some of his "concepts" I just flat disagree with. And.....I've had more experience in this business than he is years old. I could probably put up references from 30-40 real estate lending bank officers to support my claim.

Tom's claims are pure spin. But, you must remember he's a good ole boy from Chicago. I know a little bit about Chicago developers. I once sit in a deposition with three Chicago lawyers at the same time, right in he Loop, because I was suing a City, a title company, and a Savings and Loan association. I only had my attorney from Dallas with me. We kicked their ass.

I have not heard one scintilla of evidence supporting Tom's presentation. Am I against change? Of course not, but I want to see the data. I want to know the questions, who were asked, and where they come from. I want to see some cost estimates. I want to hear about progress on the I-30 renovations.   I want to see a reasonable estimate of the time line. I want to see the benefit package flowing to the City of Rowlett. Lastly, I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ANY MORE SPIN. I'm an adult. I expect to be treated as one.

Again, thanks to Jeff. Good job.

Some more stuff

8/5/2018

I just read Ray Leszcynski's article in the Dallas Morning News. Good article. Its a history of The Harbor and Garland's Bass Pro development. It mentions some of the hits and misses and how Bayside might benefit from their reconnoitering efforts.

Again, in the news article the developer is saying that market studies show that the construction of lagoon and fountain are not supported by the study. Another way to say the same thing is that the market study supports the abandonment of the lagoon and fountain. That is what the developer is spinning. The two meanings are not exactly the same thing. The developer is trying to twist his story as being supported by the people to justify eliminating the amenities. Well, I don't know who he is talking to. He won't tell us. All I have is his opinion of what market research shows, without disclosing the data or the manner in which the data was compiled.

In other words, "Trust me." If the city has information supporting the developer's wishes, where is it? If they don't, I can give them the names of awfully good lawyers.

Well, the beat goes on.........

8/5/2018

I'm still collecting comments, criticisms, and questions about Bayside. Some questions are pretty good and worthy of discussion.

There was an observation and question submitted by a friend and a very credible source. He asked if an article appearing in the Dallas Morning News on February 28, suggested changes in the lagoon feature in Bayside, and perhaps a preview of what was coming. He sent a link to that article. It is below.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/real-estate/2018/02/28/rowletts-1-billion-bayside-project-new-developer-crystal-lagoon-plans-flux

The question is valid. My response essentially was that I had seen the article,, but the overall message did not seem to suggest a complete abandonment of the "water feature." I thought it probably meant that some acceptable "tweaking," that always accompanies land development, was the point of the article. I felt the major announcement of the article was the removal of the first developer and replacement by the second developer. In any event, if the intent of the article was to preview the demise of the lagoon and fountain, I totally missed it.

However, the question posed further thoughts about timeline. Who knew what, when, and did they recognize the importance of what was going on?    This is a serious question, because anyone who missed it totally blew any pretense that they knew anything about the Rowlett citizenry and their desires.   They had no idea how important Bayside was to Rowlett. Whether an owner, developer, elected official, or city staff, if you didn't understand the importance of Bayside to Rowlett, and not savvy enough to recognize the misrepresentations, you have no business working on this project. This is a complicated project in both development and market savvy. It is not for people still playing with rubber duckies in the bathtub, while a diploma from Fred & Ethyl's Sheet Metal Shop and Real Estate School hangs on the wall. It takes experience and knowledge to play in developments such as Bayside.

Now, let me point out some things emerging from the article above. First, notice the date of February 28, 2018, and the announcement of a new developer. Second, notice the words saying that the new developer was already engaged in market studies. Third, notice the comments of the developers on their website Q&A page. They are saying that the city was being informed of changes at that early date. The city seems to be denying that on their website. We have a classic standoff in Dodge City on Front Street.

Apparantly, the new developer was working on a market study, or two, sometime before the announcement of their arrival. They reference the events in the article of Feb. 28. Now, I know a little bit about market studies. You don't put them together in a couple of days. You have to design the protocols first. You need to know the exact right questions and you have to determine that your sampling of respondents is suitable for accuracy of the study. Also, how big is the study. You can't just ask two or three people. The developer says they sampled 1300 people, 200 of which live in Rowlett. Folks, if I can pick my own 200 people, and I have a couple of cases of wine, and a couple of hours, I will get you any answer you want from any question. Please, please, if any of you were questioned as part of the referenced 200, would you please contact me?

Where did the other 1100 respondents come from? Seattle? Denver? Kansas City?.........or Garland? What were they asked? "Do you like trees and grass?" "Do you like good paying jobs within walking distance?" "Do you like great restaurants and beautiful people?" If all the answers to above are "Yes," then there is no need for a lagoon and fountain. They were not mentioned. NO DATA was offered at the public hearing of July 26.   All we got was the developer's interpretation of what the alleged market studies said.   I'm an ex-loan officer. I want more than that.   I also want to know who in the city first got an inkling about removing the lagoon, fountain, and trolley from the amenity package. If they didn't recognize the significance of that, they really need counseling. Also, who did they tell? Who else knew as early as February. The developer states that the City of Rowlett was always in the loop. Who did the developer meet with?.....the grounds keepers of City Hall? Again, who knew what, when? If I was on staff and I first heard about the bait and switch, I would have started handing out Lewisville Sluggers to all and lead a charge to the developers office. I guess most people would file a lawsuit, but that's less dramatic. Where in the world was legal council in all this? It was surely present when the deal was struck between the developers and the city. Where were they when, and if, certain attempts were made by the developers (our partners) to abandon certain representations? In the business world, that would be an invitation to a lawsuit. Of course, we want to avoid legal action. That means we have to "work it out." However, I will say the city should have the hammer.

As for me, I say the lagoon stays. The fountain can be redesigned to avoid the operating costs, and 60 foot jet stream of water, now in the forecast. I don't need a 60 foot stream of water in the air. I can settle for a more maintenance free waterfall, or a 10 feet stream of water in the air. All a waterfall needs is a pump to push water back to the top. The trolley stays. See......the city can give up something. The developers better pay attention. The next sound they hear with be the knock on the door of the process server.

I don't know who's telling the truth, but I know what the citizens of Rowlett think. They think they have been bamboozled.    That's almost all you need to know. What I want is simple. I just want someone to start telling the damn truth around here. Now it's my understanding all of the city participants have been advised to shut up. Geez.