Bob Yancy, why does the city want a busy thoroughfare through Pebble Creek?

16,257 Views | 134 Replies | Last: 8 days ago by PS3D
Brian Alg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 10:10a, 8/12/25
Bob Yancy said:
When more folks are against ball fields and an events center than are for it, that'd be actionable. That's not the case. You may of course dissent, but respectfully, that doesn't constitute broad citizen dissension.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

Respectfully, Councilman. That is not true. I cannot imagine that by now you don't know it is not true. But you keep saying it. So I will have to keep pointing out that it is not true.

We know that more citizens are against your multimillion dollar gift to Uri and the Bombers than are for it. The vote happened in 2022 on that exact issue.

13,216 people voted against the championship field. You refuse to go back to the voters. I strongly suspect we all know how that vote would turn out.
https://blog.cstx.gov/2022/11/08/live-blog-2022-city-election-results/

Your actions to override the will of the citizens' will will probably work. I don't see why you wouldn't use this same play to push through other projects that you want. If it works, why wouldn't you?
Brian Alg

My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
maroon barchetta
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Brian Alg • 10:42a, 8/12/25
Reply Quote
Edited by Staff
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Brian Alg • 11:09a, 8/12/25
Brian Alg said:
Bob Yancy said:
When more folks are against ball fields and an events center than are for it, that'd be actionable. That's not the case. You may of course dissent, but respectfully, that doesn't constitute broad citizen dissension.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

Respectfully, Councilman. That is not true. I cannot imagine that by now you don't know it is not true. But you keep saying it. So I will have to keep pointing out that it is not true.

We know that more citizens are against your multimillion dollar gift to Uri and the Bombers than are for it. The vote happened in 2022 on that exact issue.

13,216 people voted against the championship field. You refuse to go back to the voters. I strongly suspect we all know how that vote would turn out.
https://blog.cstx.gov/2022/11/08/live-blog-2022-city-election-results/

Your actions to override the will of the citizens' will will probably work. I don't see why you wouldn't use this same play to push through other projects that you want. If it works, why wouldn't you?


Brian,

You know I like and respect you, but respectfully, you state some falsehoods in your statement.

The patently false statement is that we are giving a gift to the Bombers or building a ball field for them. We are not. They will likely be (once finalized which it's not) but one tenant in a multi-sport venue that can hold 7 on 7, soccer, baseball for all ages, and more. The Bombers are but one user of the facility, and they will be a tenant that pays a lease for the privilege of using it a handful of days out of an entire year.

In the 2022 bond election, citizens voted against 4 ADDITIONAL ball fields at Independence Park by a margin of 2.5%. Now, you can protest the fact that the ORIGINAL 4 fields a prior council broke ground on wasn't put to the voters, but in the voting booth when folks cast their vote it is inarguable they did so with available knowledge that they already had 4 ball fields coming. Even then, it failed by only 2.5%.

Is it completely off base to presume had that first bond election been for the FIRST 4 fields it may have passed? That folks wanted additional ball fields but thought 8 was too many? I guess we'll never know.

I want us to use bond elections more. I want us to use our expensive survey tool more. I've argued for both from the dais and in writing during strategic planning.

This is a complex matter given rise to by us not asking the voters way back then, before this council, on the original 4. It's further compounded by the fact that the original 4 fell through over the soils matter.

We've done the best we could to make lemonade from lemons. And maybe we got it wrong in our approach. We are not perfect.

But I'm just telling you I engage in media, in person and over the phone at least as much as any other council member and I'm giving you my word, I get way more feedback in support of 3 new ball fields than opposed. It's just that simple.

I think there is a lesson in all of it. We need to go to the voters in bond elections and surveys as much as possible going forward. I will continue to advocate for just that, and I hope that's fair.

Respectfully

Yancy '95
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
Reply Quote
11
EliteElectric
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 11:40a, 8/12/25
Bob I want to add a little something for the Libertarians in the room.

You are claiming witness to an overwhelming support for the additional parks and that may be true. In my circle, small government free market circle, it's the opposite. The largest, to my knowledge, baseball and travel ball complexes in the country are privately owned and operated. FE/ Baseball USA.

As our representatives, it seems it would be your duty to try to find private solutions to some of these demands for ball fields instead of merely acquiescence. Maybe that has been done I don't know.

What I do no is that when it comes to recreation there has to be a lid on how much the public (taxpayers) should subsidize others recreation. I don't know where that balance is admittedly, but I do know there are a lot of people who see this whole thing as simply tax and spend.
www.elitellp.net/

Reply Quote
6
Brian Alg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 12:04p, 8/12/25
Bob Yancy said:
The patently false statement is that we are giving a gift to the Bombers or building a ball field for them. We are not.
The Bombers are the only tenant you or anyone else with the city are willing to make any commitment to. When it comes to those prime May weekends, perhaps you are planning on leaving Little Leaguers in the lurch, perhaps you are planning on leaving the travel baseball entrepreneurs in the lurch. But the only thing we can be assured of is that Uri and the Bombers are getting primary access to a ~$10 million championship field that is built to their specifications.

Bob Yancy said:
But I'm just telling you I engage in media, in person and over the phone at least as much as any other council member and I'm giving you my word, I get way more feedback in support of 3 new ball fields than opposed. It's just that simple.
If you have evidence that 13,217 College Station voters are now telling you that they do in fact want a championship field, I would love to see it. Can you post it here? If it is something the city has, could you tell me what to ask for in an Open Records Request?
Brian Alg

My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council
Reply Quote
2
Rexter
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:13p, 8/12/25
Mr Yancy, have you considered the fact that you may be getting overwhelming positive feedback due to the fact that a large percentage of people are fed up with the projection from CoCS council and employees of "we know what's best for you". I, and a lot of folks I know, have disengaged. I vote no, and never vote for an incumbent, for that reason. My small way of rebellion.
Reply Quote
8
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to EliteElectric • 12:58p, 8/12/25
EliteElectric said:
Bob I want to add a little something for the Libertarians in the room.

You are claiming witness to an overwhelming support for the additional parks and that may be true. In my circle, small government free market circle, it's the opposite. The largest, to my knowledge, baseball and travel ball complexes in the country are privately owned and operated. FE/ Baseball USA.

As our representatives, it seems it would be your duty to try to find private solutions to some of these demands for ball fields instead of merely acquiescence. Maybe that has been done I don't know.

What I do no is that when it comes to recreation there has to be a lid on how much the public (taxpayers) should subsidize others recreation. I don't know where that balance is admittedly, but I do know there are a lot of people who see this whole thing as simply tax and spend.


I appreciate your feedback. I think it's a fair position. I wish I could properly explain the irony of me being considered by some as a tax and spender. I always seek private sector solutions first.

Remember when you first thought about being an electrician? When you first thought about opening your own shop? An entrepreneur? That was me but in healthcare. And what I learned along the way was way different than what I thought going in. I'll bet it was, to a degree, the same for you. Elected office is like that. You bring your established mentality to it, only to get in and learn it's not like that. That these decisions impact people and their quality of life. That your principals, while important and not to be abandoned, are one set of principals among thousands of constituents. I'm doing the best I can to represent everyone. To return emails and phone calls and hear folks out. To do the job.

There will always be decisions and votes and ideas that some disagree with. Some vehemently. The best we can do is make the decisions we feel are the will of a preponderance of our constituents.

Anyway. Thanks for your feedback. We have a capital projects meeting at city hall today at 4pm if anyone wants to weigh in.

We also likely have a budget update. A record setting billion dollars of property tax valuation protests were successful this year. That has thrown a wrench into the budget work done thus far. It'll likely curtail the proposed 5% tax rate cut I was so proud of, too. I'll know more after today. We rip the bandaid off at 4pm. That'll be your newsmaker tonite and tomorrow I imagine. Every entity in the county will be affected. Just fyi

Respectfully & Transparently yours,

Bob Yancy '95
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
Reply Quote
4
maroon barchetta
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rexter • 12:59p, 8/12/25
Rexter said:
Mr Yancy, have you considered the fact that you may be getting overwhelming positive feedback due to the fact that a large percentage of people are fed up with the projection from CoCS council and employees of "we know what's best for you". I, and a lot of folks I know, have disengaged. I vote no, and never vote for an incumbent, for that reason. My small way of rebellion.
Reply Quote
2
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rexter • 12:59p, 8/12/25
Rexter said:
Mr Yancy, have you considered the fact that you may be getting overwhelming positive feedback due to the fact that a large percentage of people are fed up with the projection from CoCS council and employees of "we know what's best for you". I, and a lot of folks I know, have disengaged. I vote no, and never vote for an incumbent, for that reason. My small way of rebellion.


Yes, I do consider that and I know it is a thing. Just trying to build up trust one block at a time.

Respectfully

Yancy '95
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
Reply Quote
2
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Brian Alg • 1:01p, 8/12/25
Brian Alg said:
Bob Yancy said:
The patently false statement is that we are giving a gift to the Bombers or building a ball field for them. We are not.
The Bombers are the only tenant you or anyone else with the city are willing to make any commitment to. When it comes to those prime May weekends, perhaps you are planning on leaving Little Leaguers in the lurch, perhaps you are planning on leaving the travel baseball entrepreneurs in the lurch. But the only thing we can be assured of is that Uri and the Bombers are getting primary access to a ~$10 million championship field that is built to their specifications.

Bob Yancy said:
But I'm just telling you I engage in media, in person and over the phone at least as much as any other council member and I'm giving you my word, I get way more feedback in support of 3 new ball fields than opposed. It's just that simple.
If you have evidence that 13,217 College Station voters are now telling you that they do in fact want a championship field, I would love to see it. Can you post it here? If it is something the city has, could you tell me what to ask for in an Open Records Request?


No such evidence exists to prove or disprove your quandary.

Respectfully

Yancy '95
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
Reply Quote
2
EliteElectric
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 1:10p, 8/12/25
Bob Yancy said:

I appreciate your feedback. I think it's a fair position. I wish I could properly explain the irony of me being considered by some as a tax and spender. I always seek private sector solutions first.

Remember when you first thought about being an electrician? When you first thought about opening your own shop? An entrepreneur? That was me but in healthcare. And what I learned along the way was way different than what I thought going in. I'll bet it was, to a degree, the same for you. Elected office is like that. You bring your established mentality to it, only to get in and learn it's not like that. That these decisions impact people and their quality of life. That your principals, while important and not to be abandoned, are one set of principals among thousands of constituents. I'm doing the best I can to represent everyone. To return emails and phone calls and hear folks out. To do the job.

There will always be decisions and votes and ideas that some disagree with. Some vehemently. The best we can do is make the decisions we feel are the will of a preponderance of our constituents.

Thanks for that explanation. I however believe people are elected because of their ideals. The people that voted for you likely did so because they thought they were getting one thing, the person who campaigned. What you are telling me/us is that you have changed based on something that happened after you took office. That's where the real irony lies, that you seem to be ok with tax and spend now even though that's not what your constituents voted for. Presumably.

Again and like always I appreciate and respect your willingness to engage here.


***eta***

I think a lot of CoCS's PR problems would go away if they simply went to single member districts and got rid of the PAC rules form of government.
Reply Quote
10
1 edit
Hornbeck
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:51p, 8/12/25
AG
#SingleMemberDistricts
Reply Quote
4
A Net Full of Jello
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:49p, 8/12/25
AG
I appreciate Mr. Yancy coming here, answering questions, and engaging with us. In my experience at the city council meetings I have attended, I have found Mr. Yancy to be truly interested in what the citizens have to say, asks probing questions to better understand their perspectives, and tries to come up with solutions most will be satisfied with. Unfortunately, that is not the case for all members of the council. One individual in particular seems to be there for the sole purpose of voting the way the city manager wishes, regardless of what the citizens want. I am okay with Mr. Yancy changing his mind and doing things opposed to what he campaigned on when he is clearly taking the time to listen to the citizens and tries to vote accordingly.





***This concludes the sucking up portion of the thread.***
Reply Quote
11
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to A Net Full of Jello • 3:35p, 8/12/25
AG
A Net Full of Jello said:
I appreciate Mr. Yancy coming here, answering questions, and engaging with us. In my experience at the city council meetings I have attended, I have found Mr. Yancy to be truly interested in what the citizens have to say, asks probing questions to better understand their perspectives, and tries to come up with solutions most will be satisfied with. Unfortunately, that is not the case for all members of the council. One individual in particular seems to be there for the sole purpose of voting the way the city manager wishes, regardless of what the citizens want. I am okay with Mr. Yancy changing his mind and doing things opposed to what he campaigned on when he is clearly taking the time to listen to the citizens and tries to vote accordingly.





***This concludes the sucking up portion of the thread.***

Prepare to be lambasted by the naysayers as a "fan."
Pro College Station Convention Center
Reply Quote
1
EriktheRed
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to A Net Full of Jello • 3:38p, 8/12/25
AG
A Net Full of Jello said:
Mr. Yancy to be truly interested in what the citizens have to say, asks probing questions to better understand their perspectives, and tries to come up with solutions most will be satisfied with.

100% agree. It is clear that when watching meetings, that Yancy wants to hear and listen to what people have to say. Also the only one that asks pretty hard questions instead of rubber stamping and voting along with all others.
Reply Quote
5
woodiewood1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Brian Alg • 4:20p, 8/12/25
Brian Alg said:
Bob Yancy said:
The patently false statement is that we are giving a gift to the Bombers or building a ball field for them. We are not.

The Bombers are the only tenant you or anyone else with the city are willing to make any commitment to. When it comes to those prime May weekends, perhaps you are planning on leaving Little Leaguers in the lurch, perhaps you are planning on leaving the travel baseball entrepreneurs in the lurch. But the only thing we can be assured of is that Uri and the Bombers are getting primary access to a ~$10 million championship field that is built to their specifications.

Bob Yancy said:
But I'm just telling you I engage in media, in person and over the phone at least as much as any other council member and I'm giving you my word, I get way more feedback in support of 3 new ball fields than opposed. It's just that simple.

If you have evidence that 13,217 College Station voters are now telling you that they do in fact want a championship field, I would love to see it. Can you post it here? If it is something the city has, could you tell me what to ask for in an Open Records Request?

The Bomber issue to me is almost a no-issue to me whether the park is built or not. The Bombers don't have games in May. It is not MLB team or even a minor league team that play 150 or so days a year. Assuming their schedule will be similar to what they have had, they play from Jun 1 to July 31,,,,61 days, Of those two months, the Bombers used the home field 4 weekends out of the 8. They used the park for a total of 17 home games out of the 61 days. If they need other days for practicing and/or days in May, they can practice early in the day when it doesn't have an affect on other teams using it in the evenings.

To me it would be nice to get at least one "permanent" paying tenant for at least for the two months,

I do like that the park and the fields can be and will be also used by local teams, taxpayer families, much of the time, Everything the city does doesn't have to be an effort in making a profit.

Reply Quote
5
1 edit
ElephantRider
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:26p, 8/12/25
AG
As someone living on the other side of town with no dog in the fight…Pebble Creek makes way more sense than Lakeway.
Reply Quote
2
Buford T. Justice
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:42a, 8/13/25
AG
Is Rock Prairie off of the table from a conversational perspective? (South of Fitch). It needs drastic improvement, and it appears that there is room to expand. All that is needed in my opinion is a relief valve into PC.
"Gimme a diablo sandwhich and a dr. pepper...to go"
Reply Quote
1
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Buford T. Justice • 7:27a, 8/13/25
Buford T. Justice said:
Is Rock Prairie off of the table from a conversational perspective? (South of Fitch). It needs drastic improvement, and it appears that there is room to expand. All that is needed in my opinion is a relief valve into PC.


Still on the table.

Respectfully

Yancy '95
Reply Quote
1
BCS-Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:05a, 8/13/25
It looks to me like Pebble Creek parkway was originally planned to be a neighborhood to neighborhood collector. Anyone that bought in that area should have taken this into account. This reeks of the mess that Appomattox has become, it was originally supposed to be a north-south connector that is now broken up because of very similar resistance. I get it and would resist if I was in the neighborhood as well, but we have to recognize that stopping it causes a bigger long-term problem.
Reply Quote
10
ElephantRider
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BCS-Ag • 12:42p, 8/13/25
AG
BCS-Ag said:
It looks to me like Pebble Creek parkway was originally planned to be a neighborhood to neighborhood collector. Anyone that bought in that area should have taken this into account. This reeks of the mess that Appomattox has become, it was originally supposed to be a north-south connector that is now broken up because of very similar resistance. I get it and would resist if I was in the neighborhood as well, but we have to recognize that stopping it causes a bigger long-term problem.

If local government keeps caving to everyone who complains about road projects in their area, eventually it will be too late to do anything and we're stuck with a huge mess on our hands.

People are going to be upset about projects that affect them, that's just how it is and is the whole reason eminent domain exists. Nobody complaining about the East Loop would have given a rat's ass if it was a West Loop.
Reply Quote
15
1 edit
maroon barchetta
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ElephantRider • 1:07p, 8/13/25
You just gave them a new idea.
Reply Quote
Hornbeck
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:11p, 8/13/25
AG
I remember several years ago, a group of "concerned citizens" took it upon themselves to close Munson at Dominik to keep north south traffic from University Dr to Harvey.

https://newspaper.library.tamu.edu/lccn/sn86088544/1998-06-01/ed-1/seq-1.pdf

Some of those same folks ran for city council.
Reply Quote
4
aggies_2001
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 6:11p, 8/13/25
AG
If this is the definition of Parkway then Harvey Mitchell Parkway needs to be renamed. It's definitely not "a pleasant and scenic route for recreational driving rather than serving as a high-volume transportation corridor."
Reply Quote
1
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggies_2001 • 6:20p, 8/13/25
aggies_2001 said:
If this is the definition of Parkway then Harvey Mitchell Parkway needs to be renamed. It's definitely not "a pleasant and scenic route for recreational driving rather than serving as a high-volume transportation corridor."


Indeed. Great point. To further it, I'd love to ensure Pebble Creek Parkway doesn't become that kind of parkway. And frankly, Harvey Mitchell Parkway needs to be renamed. It's not a parkway anymore, but alas once was. Harvey Mitchell Major Arterial? Harvey Mitchell Half Loop? Harvey Mitchell _____?

Respectfully

Yancy '95
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
Reply Quote
3
woodiewood1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 8:03p, 8/13/25
Bob Yancy said:
aggies_2001 said:
If this is the definition of Parkway then Harvey Mitchell Parkway needs to be renamed. It's definitely not "a pleasant and scenic route for recreational driving rather than serving as a high-volume transportation corridor."


Indeed. Great point. To further it, I'd love to ensure Pebble Creek Parkway doesn't become that kind of parkway. And frankly, Harvey Mitchell Parkway needs to be renamed. It's not a parkway anymore, but alas once was. Harvey Mitchell Major Arterial? Harvey Mitchell Half Loop? Harvey Mitchell _____?

Respectfully

Yancy '95

Excessive growth is always going to create mis-named roadways. In the 1960s, hwy 290 was a two lane highway with Cypress Fairbanks school beign right on the highway...the only high school in Cypress. Now it umteen lanes, the original Hwy 290 was on the south side of the tracks and is a two lane street. Hwy 1960 in Houston was the "Outer Loop"

Here, A&M Church of Christ moved from Church Street to 2818 and a lot of members were mad because of how far they went out to build...College Station cemetary was the edge of town,

Rather than directing traffic through the middle of an established subdivision, To me it makes more sense to extend Lakeway out south to Hwy 6 or expand Rock Prairie to Hwy 6 or widen to Peach Creek road and make that an option going south?
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Rexter
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 8:38p, 8/13/25
Bob Yancy said:
aggies_2001 said:
If this is the definition of Parkway then Harvey Mitchell Parkway needs to be renamed. It's definitely not "a pleasant and scenic route for recreational driving rather than serving as a high-volume transportation corridor."


Indeed. Great point. To further it, I'd love to ensure Pebble Creek Parkway doesn't become that kind of parkway. And frankly, Harvey Mitchell Parkway needs to be renamed. It's not a parkway anymore, but alas once was. Harvey Mitchell Major Arterial? Harvey Mitchell Half Loop? Harvey Mitchell _____?

Respectfully

Yancy '95


Inner Loop West?
Reply Quote
1
double b
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to woodiewood1 • 8:47p, 8/13/25
AG
woodiewood1 said:
Brian Alg said:
Bob Yancy said:
The patently false statement is that we are giving a gift to the Bombers or building a ball field for them. We are not.

The Bombers are the only tenant you or anyone else with the city are willing to make any commitment to. When it comes to those prime May weekends, perhaps you are planning on leaving Little Leaguers in the lurch, perhaps you are planning on leaving the travel baseball entrepreneurs in the lurch. But the only thing we can be assured of is that Uri and the Bombers are getting primary access to a ~$10 million championship field that is built to their specifications.

Bob Yancy said:
But I'm just telling you I engage in media, in person and over the phone at least as much as any other council member and I'm giving you my word, I get way more feedback in support of 3 new ball fields than opposed. It's just that simple.

If you have evidence that 13,217 College Station voters are now telling you that they do in fact want a championship field, I would love to see it. Can you post it here? If it is something the city has, could you tell me what to ask for in an Open Records Request?

The Bomber issue to me is almost a no-issue to me whether the park is built or not. The Bombers don't have games in May. It is not MLB team or even a minor league team that play 150 or so days a year. Assuming their schedule will be similar to what they have had, they play from Jun 1 to July 31,,,,61 days, Of those two months, the Bombers used the home field 4 weekends out of the 8. They used the park for a total of 17 home games out of the 61 days. If they need other days for practicing and/or days in May, they can practice early in the day when it doesn't have an affect on other teams using it in the evenings.

To me it would be nice to get at least one "permanent" paying tenant for at least for the two months,

I do like that the park and the fields can be and will be also used by local teams, taxpayer families, much of the time, Everything the city does doesn't have to be an effort in making a profit.



You're assuming that the Bombers actually paid for the field. I think this is one of the arguments against accommodating them. They wore out their welcome with the COB and failed to hold up their end of the deal.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rexter • 9:16p, 8/13/25
Rexter said:
Bob Yancy said:
aggies_2001 said:
If this is the definition of Parkway then Harvey Mitchell Parkway needs to be renamed. It's definitely not "a pleasant and scenic route for recreational driving rather than serving as a high-volume transportation corridor."


Indeed. Great point. To further it, I'd love to ensure Pebble Creek Parkway doesn't become that kind of parkway. And frankly, Harvey Mitchell Parkway needs to be renamed. It's not a parkway anymore, but alas once was. Harvey Mitchell Major Arterial? Harvey Mitchell Half Loop? Harvey Mitchell _____?

Respectfully

Yancy '95


Inner Loop West?


Lol, but that's exactly what it is.
Reply Quote
1
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to woodiewood1 • 9:17p, 8/13/25
woodiewood1 said:
Bob Yancy said:
aggies_2001 said:
If this is the definition of Parkway then Harvey Mitchell Parkway needs to be renamed. It's definitely not "a pleasant and scenic route for recreational driving rather than serving as a high-volume transportation corridor."


Indeed. Great point. To further it, I'd love to ensure Pebble Creek Parkway doesn't become that kind of parkway. And frankly, Harvey Mitchell Parkway needs to be renamed. It's not a parkway anymore, but alas once was. Harvey Mitchell Major Arterial? Harvey Mitchell Half Loop? Harvey Mitchell _____?

Respectfully

Yancy '95

Excessive growth is always going to create mis-named roadways. In the 1960s, hwy 290 was a two lane highway with Cypress Fairbanks school beign right on the highway...the only high school in Cypress. Now it umteen lanes, the original Hwy 290 was on the south side of the tracks and is a two lane street. Hwy 1960 in Houston was the "Outer Loop"

Here, A&M Church of Christ moved from Church Street to 2818 and a lot of members were mad because of how far they went out to build...College Station cemetary was the edge of town,

Rather than directing traffic through the middle of an established subdivision, To me it makes more sense to extend Lakeway out south to Hwy 6 or expand Rock Prairie to Hwy 6 or widen to Peach Creek road and make that an option going south?


Viable options.
Reply Quote
2
DoubleE65
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 9:42p, 8/13/25
AG
Bob - the real question is what happens to the two golf cart crossings on PCP? I think we both know PCCC ownership isn't footing the bill for tunnels.
Reply Quote
1
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DoubleE65 • 10:05p, 8/13/25
DoubleE65 said:
Bob - the real question is what happens to the two golf cart crossings on PCP? I think we both know PCCC ownership isn't footing the bill for tunnels.


Really really good question. Eloquent testimony to the fact that Pebble Creek Parkway must remain a parkway.

Respectfully

Yancy '95
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
Reply Quote
3
VStarr2024
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:26p, 8/13/25
The last thing that CS needs is another Holleman boondoggle where we need an extra Major Collector/Major Thoroughfare but keep it a minor collector because we resist growth. North south Major Thoroughfares and Major Collectors are lacking throughout this town and I don't remember what Lakeway is classified as, but it's too late to revise it, and is not separated enough from SH6 to justify upgrading it to one. Rock prairie is one and Southern Point Parkway will eventually connect east west to it by the Lick creek WWTP, but will be an even bigger bridge and investment by COCS to make happen. Pebble Creek Parkway has always been treated like a Major Collector with special privileges until it came time to extend it. They already made southern pointe run an upgraded major waterline from the end of PC pkwy to serve it water, and the city condemned a massive easement on private land along the power lines to do so. I don't know what the development to the south looks like or if the same guy sold off, but I remember that property owner putting up a huge fight because the waterline screwed up his plans for the property, but the city said those plans wouldn't work anyways because they would go against the MPO and the extension of pebble creek pkwy, of which they were keeping the WL in alignment with. If the MPO is changed, I can smell a nice lawsuit incoming from that property owner and potentially southern pointe. Keep the MPO as is and don't create another boondoggle because people don't want growth in their backyard and ruin their temporary special privileges. That area to the south will need multiple connections to the north outside of SH6, and I'd prefer to not be on the hook as a taxpayer for a massive bridge through Lick Creek Park to make it happen.
Reply Quote
4
aggiepaintrain
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:28p, 8/13/25
AG
What about the 8 or so houses near Murfield and PCP and 1 possibly 2 greens? There is no room there.

This idea was written by the same person who wanted to extend 2818 through Emerald Forest. Brilliant!!

Rock Prairie Rd is the obvious solution.
Reply Quote
1
VStarr2024
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob Yancy • 10:32p, 8/13/25
And to that point, a "Parkway" doesn't have to remain mostly park just because of the name : Southwest, Southern Pointe, William D Fitch, WS Phillips, etc. Weak argument in my opinion. The only other road in town that somewhat follows that logic is James Pkwy along Thomas park. If it's a minor collector or above, then the Pkwy nomenclature is just a formality and something the architect of the development thought sounded good.
Reply Quote
1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.