"This is a great opportunity to report on the whole history of this deal from the beginning when Wyatt was still on council."

Don't count on that any time soon.

This is a great opportunity to report on the whole history of this deal from the beginning when Wyatt was still on council. What most of us see here is not seen by the general public who do not view your online service..
I just think there needs to be some good non bias reporting as to proposed budget ammendment (which we couldn't accept two months ago) on the land deal and why, if we didn't think we needed to purchase this land earlier in the year "at a reduced cost" possibly, do we see it as a neccesary thing now.. Thanks..

Chris, Can you answer this for me then? Who on the staff was given direction and from whom to write a check to secure this deal from failing?..
Someone had to tell someone else to do it and it is going to cost the taxpayers.. Thanks..

One clarification we should make is the mayor has no authority to write a check on behalf of the city. The city staff has the ability to do this.

There is something smelly about this deal. Think about the flies that will get the sewer bacteria and transport it to near by residents.

Check this out:
http://victoriareporter.com/

TPO,
Thanks for digging that up. I wonder how they are going to get their way around that when it is brought up. Sure when the facility is first built and everything is brand new it may not smell (much) but what about 15-20 years down the road?

April 27, 2009 Council Minutes:

"The Council reconvened in regular session at 5 52 p m with City Manager Charles E Windwehen announcing that the Council gave staff direction to not pursue purchasing the property at this time The majority feel that it was too close to the City limits and housing and the smell would be a problem They instructed staff to do some more searching for other parcels not as close to the City and that is what staff intends to do....Cm Wyatt commented that he was glad that the other members listened to his concerns because that property was only five-tenths ofa mile from the Convent and Hopkins School That would have beenagood piece of property engineering wise but we owed it to the citizens inthe community
to make sure that they felt comfortable and safe"

Were council members Armstrong, Hagan, Halepaska & Polasek included in the majority that voted in April NOT to purchase the property? What is different today except for paying more money then it would have cost just over 6 months ago?

I join with those that state some investigative reporting needs to be done. People need to know why this transaction was delayed for six months and is going to cost taxpayers 2 to 3 times as much, if it gets approved.

There were riders on that property the weekend prior to the council hearing on Tuesday evening. I assumed they paid fares to ride, so the owners were still in business.

Think Happy1 was taking the check to the bank before it happened? Happy1 definitely was making a fat check off the taxpayers. Land not worth price, besides I would think the city would negotiate through a third party for secresy and keeping land owners from raising the price because of the purpose and purchaser.

Yes, Gren, I think you are right. Happy obviously is somehow related and on the side of either the city or the current owner.

Sorry Bill, but I think you are the one that needs to get your facts straight. The zoo did own the property. It was given to them by an O'Connor for a new zoo. The zoo and the city are two totally seperate entities, and the city has never owned this property. The zoo sold the property directly to the current owner about 6 months ago. The city had looked at buying it from the zoo as a location for the sewer plant, but it did not get approved. I don't know what if any agreement the city had with the current seller, but obviously until the money is approved, you have no sale.

One more fact. Tax roles do not necessarily define the actual market value of a property. The true market value of any property is what one person is willing to pay for the property. This is esp. true in regards to the accessed values of land in Victoria County.

Think happy1 works for the mayors office, or is one of the land owners, seems pretty mad at everyone that the citizens of this town are mad about te blank checks the mayor likes to give out.

Wow, some of you are really lacking the facts here. The owner has been in business just for months. This land was originally meant to be the new location of the zoo and was discussed at a prior city council meeting. The owner purchased the property from the city recently. The city then turned around and offered to purchase the property back. In real estate transactions, the owner (seller) has to be removed from the property because once it is closed and funded; the buyer takes possession of the property, unless other written arrangements are established by both parties. This was not premature on the part of the seller, from what I am reading here, but a standard operating procedure in regards to a real estate transaction. The issue is that the city council, along with their fearless leader, are doing the Texas two step on this agreement. Now that the seller has ceased his business and source of income, he should be reimbursed for the city dropping the ball and may have the right to sue for nonperformance unless there was a contingency in place. Either way, the city has screwed this up as usual and I am beside myself as a tax payer.

The land was valued at approximately 1300 per acre when it was purchased by the current owner. The owner was very premature to close his business because the money had not been approved, even if the purchase had. The zoo was in a bind financially and were anxious to sell, that along with the tax role value is the reason they sold it for what they did. There were very few people that even knew the land was for sale, and as far as them putting that much money into the property, I seriously doubt it. They used buildings that were already on the property. They cleared and reshaped the land to create the track and mud pits, and beyond that, did little more. Some people may not understand, but that does not cost a whole lot of money. There are three sellers listed in the article, and two of them appear to be related, possibly husband and wife, which would count as one.

Anyone know what the tax role values the property at?

I don't think it's the current owners fault that the zoo underpriced it's land when selling it. Please check your information because the zoo did take more than one offer on this property. As for the ATV Park I used to go ride there and the city has been talking to them about the property for awhile. What you are not understanding is that they put a lot of money into their business and that is why they are asking $4500 per acre. They were told the city would want the property at closing this week, which turned out not to be the case. How can you hold them responsible for city politics? Also please note that there is more than one land owner so all the money isn't going to any one guy. Where else can you purchase 77 acres for less than that?

Someonewhoknows, I agree fully with your statement. I think the city should pull back on this whole idea and look at other options or go back to the drawing board on this issue. This is not the only place in Victoria. That's a lot a profit for this landowner. The VA did a story on this out fit a few months back. There is no way this property increased that much. What made this land so valuable for a new start up business? I better e-mail David Hagen get him to look into this. In closing this sounds like Obama and his health care plan.

"The business on the property closed because the city and the buyers were supposed to close this week after the council voted to transfer the funds."

Happy,
You basically are supporting Gren's statement with that comment. You don't close the business in anticipation that it is going to happen. Something stinks with this whole deal and it's not the sewer plant.

Actually it has been less than 6 months since this owner came in and purchased this land. Prior to his purchase, the land was a beautiful piece of property with a lot of wildlife that are now being pushing into the backyards of the homeowners in the area. The purchase itself was a little odd. The Zoo did not open the land up to bids and simply sold it to this man. A neighbor wanted to purchase the property, but was pretty much not even considered. It is also odd that the city didn't work this hard to buy the land from the zoo for less than half the money, but is now determined to help this guy make a killing. I don't think this guy is too honest either. He claims he had "shut down" his business, but just this past Sunday afternoon 11/15, there was an aweful lot of activity going on there, with mud races and people on the dirt track. It's a dirt and mud track, what is there to move around and in less than two days. This is a weekend type business anyways. The noise of all this activity is highly annoying, but that is another issue. I think that there is something very fishy going on with this whole thing. The citizens in the area would not even know about this latest purchase if someone with an inside track had not told them and got them going on it. I hate to see this guy make a pot of money when he is obviously dishonest and for lack of another term, a crook.

Mr. McGarrah bought this land from the zoo less than a year ago for about $150K. He's now selling it to the city for $342K. Not a bad $192K profit for less than a year's work.

Actually I heard this guy was in business at this location for generations. The city began harrasing him about a year ago by sending out inspectors and threatning him. They tried to cite him for everything under the book in an effort to get him to abandon the land. Typical for a council who were all indited!! Guilty!!! We should clean house on city council, they are all corrupt!! Gabe where all you! We need you to be our watch dog! woof woof!

So the "seller" prematurely "closed" his business in anticipation of fleecing the city for the said land. Bad call, poor reasoning.

Unless, of course your business was already failing and needed to close to start with.

Please, Mr. Armstrong. Explain again why the city should pay for the "sellers" bad judgement?

Hey Gren, maybe you should check your facts. The business on the property closed because the city and the buyers were supposed to close this week after the council voted to transfer the funds. This did not happen. The owners withdrew their offer and the city contacted them. There was NO bribery here so maybe you need to learn to keep your big mouth shut until you really know the story. I guess people don't have anything better to do than this in our one horse town.

Ok, so let me get this straight… person A has land for sale and agrees to sell it to the city. Person A then says…”heck, I’m gonna close my business down and wait for the check!” Then the city goes to vote on the subject and it is rejected…Person A now refuses to sell the land unless he gets what is essentially a bribe to keep the land on the market. What the heck is going on in this town?

If the guy was dumb enough to stop his business before the deal went through then that is his own fault. That is like giving notice to an apartment complex that you are leaving before you even get approval from a bank for the loan. I suggest that since there is no “business” on the land anymore, then condemn it and use imamate domain and take the land.

Hey mayor…that is why we have a city counsel…to vote on stuff like this. Not for you to just write a check for everything you think is best. That $10k should come out of your budget!

Great point. Our mayor is cruising the USS WILL into an iceberg. But remember your justataxpayer. Diddlyscwat. Seriously, the spending needs to stop we are headed for disaster.

Victoria's mayor is one class act. $10,000 here and $428,000 there. Now he lectures our elected representatives about the ramifications of their actions. Yep, the ramification is Will giving away another $10,000. "Heck, lets just give it all away." Good old boy politics is alive and well in Willsville, Texas. Yep, that iceberg is getting a whole lot closer.

Theme song for the openning of council meeting. Play Money money money Moneeeey. It would really be cool as they walk to their THRONE.

This really Stinks. Move the plant to the empty lots along Main St. and Loop 463. No one will ever know its there. Besides you don't just close a business if its successful to sell the property. Back out its only 10K. This is one rich city.

Next year the City Administrators will be in a budget shortfall. Laying off and cutting hours of the City employees will follow. Morale at an all time low. Some of this sewer plant and sidewalk money would have come in handy.

If the Mayor/City, whomever ,is going to write checks out and then tell us we're going to pay for it with higher sewer rates, why are they even voting on it.. Just do what you want. I really don't get where this guy is coming from.
I also thought we didn't want to do all this budget amendment stuff, right?
IMO

Since when does our City Council operate on a "blank check" mentality?