A jury trial concerning Missouri City’s purchase price of the Quail Valley golf course property has been rescheduled for Feb. 2. It was originally scheduled to begin this week.
Jury selection will take place Feb. 2, and testimony should begin Feb. 3.
In March 2008, the city filed condemnation proceedings to take 392 acres of golf course property – two 18-hole and two 9-hole courses, a club house, maintenance building and driving range – from Quail Valley Country Club, owned by Renaissance Golf Group LLC.
QVCC had stopped operating three of the courses, the city said, and one of the club owners acknowledged the property was experiencing annual operating losses of about $1.5 million.
Three months later, Fort Bend County Court at Law No. 4 Judge R.H. “Sandy” Bielstein appointed three special commissioners in the case, who ruled that fair market value of the acreage was $3.1 million. The city deposited $3.1 million with the Fort Bend County Clerk’s office, and began operating the property as its own.
At Missouri City Council’s direction, the city has been renovating the property and has opened one course to the public.
But QVCC argued in a condemnation suit that Texas law doesn’t allow a government entity “to condemn a going business concern and utilize the property acquired for the same business purpose for which the property was being used at the time of the condemnation.”
Further, QVCC argued there was no required “public necessity” for condemning the property, an act it has called “merely a pretext to confer a private benefit on particular private parties, including the mayor and a number of city council members.” Missouri City Mayor Allen Owen and councilmen Jerry Wyatt, Brett Kolaja and Buddy Jimerson all live in Quail Valley.
Bielstein has ruled that the city had the right to take the property by eminent domain, and the remaining issue is the amount the city paid for it.
It is unlikely that the city would lose the property, but could end up paying more than the $3.1 million.
“We feel confident that we paid fair value for the golf course and that is how we are moving forward,” said Missouri City’s Communication Director Barbara Brescian.
The trial should last about two weeks.
‘…there was a strong element of political opportunism in the ED action.’
I can’t disagree with this statement. As santhony made mention in a previous pot, the QV HOA had intended on making an offer. However I heard (through what I thought was a reliable source from the HOA itself) that an official offer was never made. Instead the City stepped in 24 hours before the HOA was going to make the presentation to the QVCC ownership, and asked the HOA to step down. I could be wrong – frankly, we all could be, since none of us were part of the discussions… unless someone wants to step forward and identify themselves as an eye witness.
So yes – I saw it as a political move on the part of the City as well.
‘…actually its open to 100% of MC and to the surrounding areas.’
Correct. This is a public, not a private course. It is open to all walks of life. In fact, I have heard more than a few commercials for the course on 610am, inviting people to come out to, ‘… play for the first time – all over again…’ (Or whatever their catch phrase is!)
‘…will they open this up as a full service city park…’
If you wanted a public park, (which I don’t believe a golf course is technically considered a park – especially if you have to pay to play on it) then you can head over to the old Executive 9. Not exactly a park-like atmosphere at this point, but hopefully won’t be such an eyesore for much longer. I believe the thought is that the City will break ground on this project in the Spring.
Again, for all the faults the City has – I do believe the eminent domain of this land was not a bad decision. I personally would have liked to see them simply maintain what they domained, rather than pour money into it when other project are being obviously neglected. I think the tennis center project can wait. It was a dump when they purchased it and it can stay a dump for a while longer. (Just one example of many.)
Ha, there’s never a “dully” moment if you spell funny!
It’s trully not that hard “putting up” the facts: why allow emotions cart ‘em away?
I “half” a mind ..yahh!!
Like “pestimism’s will” will get you nowear !! I’m shirt of that !!.. Yahh… just cause you tie up sum body’s assets doesn’t mean you can’t have watch fore fun ;)
‘How long will citizens tolerate an amenity like this that only really services five percent of its population?’
This is the crux of the problem. Will they open this up as a full service city park or will they continue to attempt to hang onto the old glory of distant memories? The city must decide and move on. They have many projects waiting that are much more critical to the entire city that must be addressed and not just talked about before election time each cycle.
I believe that what goes around, comes around. Also, that there was a strong element of political opportunism in the ED action. Maybe the City will get the property for just $3 miilion and it will probably get exactly what it pays for, a Course that will that will consistently incur huge losses and be a mammoth drain on the City’s very limited reserves and resources. How long will citizens tolerate an amenity like this that only really services five percent of its population?
That’s what I’m talkin’ about… Insight information!!!
What I was told, during the process from several sitting on the cities GC committee, was that the HOA raised dues and then put a 5 Million offer on the table, but the QVGC wanted 8. That doesn’t sound that far off and when you look at the current involved legal costs, maybe they could have kicked in with other interested entities. I remember that being a very real option on the table at the time, but the mayor and the 4 council members living in QV at the time bragged about how they could get it for much less (again that is from inside sources). Of course that is all moot now. The city is on this roller coaster and they have little choice but to ride it out. I predict that they will end up after exhausting all legal options spending more than the original counter offer made. If they had been engaged in “good faith” negotiations, I bet they could have nailed it down for 6-7 million and rather than being entangled in this mess could be using the legal fees and other court related costs to fix the course. As I recall the city initiated the ED process and sat on the property for some time before working on the upgrades and the course deteriorated further. I’m sure this thing is long from over.
I was under the impression that the owners were not interested in selling the property to anyone but developers. I can only assume this is because they knew they couldn’t garner the type of dollars they wanted unless they sold to a developer who was just going to simply plow through and build from the ground up.
I understand the frustration – trust me, I do. I have been harping on several of the topics discussed in this thread for some time. However, if the ownership was going to sit on the land until the homeowners begged for annexation (not an exact quote, however very close to what Mark Voltmann – ownership – said) then there was only two options:
1) A private entity or the QV HOA ponied up and handed over the same amount of money the developers were going to give the ownership for the property
or
2) The City eminent domain the property
I don’t see any other option. Do you? The Renaissance Golf Group (ownership) didn’t give the City any other option. They told the City (and proved it for several months prior to the eminent domain) that they were willing to shut down the golf course and let it rot until they got their own way – which was by selling the land off to developers, just as they did in Clear Lake and at Inwood Forest.
I’m sorry mocty, I don’t agree. Most “average” citizens do not have the time to sit and play these word games or try to figure out the minutia and some of the deliberate legalese that is used. I have seen repeated attempts to sort through issues like this before council and they merely lie, misinform and then attempt to run “citizens” off (not all, but many from the old guard including Owen). You see this at the county level and other entities too. I’ve witnessed this too many times. The process must become open and transparent. As long as the special interest and their legal vendors control it we will see much, much more of the circular double-binds. These are by design and quite intentional. Process must first be addressed. Government is not friendly to those they are supposed to be serving (yes my opinion from first hand knowledge)…
‘How, do you think it could have been handled to alleviate the legal fees?’ I like the suggestion I read in here about a partnership to purchase it outright on the market. I can’t see how the current course of action is saving any money. I also might add that this is taking up county resources too since it is in a county court, not to mention the implications regarding the size of the property the city is taking over. Too bad the average joeschmoe doesn’t carry a fleet around of lawyers so they can fight cities and larger government agencies when they want their land to widen a turn or for recreational uses like this.
I would also like to see a detailed list of the current legal expenses and to see if any of the bond money was creatively used for these costs in anyway.
While a court case could take years to resolve, Renaissance Golf Group LLC brought this about by their actions. By not acting responsible. Who knows if it will cost the city any legal fees, after winning the judge will often order the losing party to pay legal feels for the other side as some here know.
Dos its a jury trial. Reliance might ask the judge to set the amount but that highly doubtful after “Judge R.H. “Sandy” Bielstein appointed three special commissioners in the case, who ruled that fair market value of the acreage was $3.1 million.”.
This is a slam dunk for the city.
Sorry if that doesn’t sit well with the naysayers.
Being that I live and pay taxes to Missouri City, I am also concerned and it is a concern that I have voiced to members of the council. This thing could linger for years and years and years… appeal after appeal… and so on and so forth.
I have to disagree with you though on your statement of, ‘They could have handled this all before it got this far.’ How, do you think it could have been handled to alleviate the legal fees?
Thanks for the history lesson mocity, but my concern his how much of our tax dollars are going into this legal battle, which may stretch on for years to come. They could have handled this all before it got this far.
‘Actually the misnomer is that the entire city was aware of the bond package, which they were not.’
I would agree with this statement, however is it not the responsibility of the voter to research what they are voting for? In my opinion, blind voters ruin the system we have in place.
‘The other side has probably invested somewhere between $10 to $15 million into this property. Would it be fair that the City walks away with the property for $3 million?’
This will be interesting, because when the City took over the course it was in rather poor shape… mainly because the ownership had closed the club down in retaliation over the fact that the City would not allow them to sell off the course to home developers. The land sat basically untouched for months before the City stepped in. The ownership had not made any significant improvements in quite a while due to ‘financial constraints’, they say could have been avoided by developing those sites into homes. The funny thing was is that this group tried (successfully) to do this same thing at two other properties. See below from a Houston Business Journal story from 2008:
The Quail Valley Country Club, located at 2880 La Quinta Drive, shared the same owner as the Inwood Forest Country Club, which closed in March 2007, and the Clear Lake Golf Course, which was shuttered three years ago.
In the case of both Clear Lake and Inwood Forest, the owner announced plans to close the clubs to make way for other land uses. Residents in Clear Lake and in the Inwood Forest area of Northwest Houston unsuccessfully fought against the moves, claiming the closures would cause property values to plummet.
The Quail Valley club’s golf courses and other related properties — including a clubhouse, tennis center, fitness center, swimming pool and an executive course — are located in Quail Valley, a subdivision in the geographic center of Missouri City.
Renaissance applied to the Missouri City Planning and Zoning Commission in 2006 to rezone the 17.5-acre site that houses the clubhouse and related improvements from a community facility to make room for a proposed development of 54 homes to be built by Ryland Homes. The request was rejected by a 6-2 vote in front of an overflow crowd of residents.
The Quail Valley Country Club golf course is best known for hosting the Shell Houston Open, a golf tournament on the Professional Golf Association Tour, in 1973.
Renaissance Golf Group purchased the Quail Valley Country Club and the Clear Lake Golf Course in January 2002.
The company closed the Clear Lake Golf Course — located at 1202 Reseda Drive — in October 2005, with plans to sell the land to a residential developer.
However, a 30-year extension of a deed restriction signed by former landowner Exxon-Mobil Land Co. prohibits any development on the land until 2021.
Meanwhile, residents of Inwood Forest are continuing to fight to keep that former golf course — located at 7603 Antoine between U.S. Highway 90 and Beltway 8 North — from becoming redeveloped. Renaissance still owns the property, but is trying to sell it to a developer.
Good points dos. It will be interesting to see how it turns out in this round, but more than likely we will see quite a few more if the judge doesn’t provide a reasonable solution. You always read about these case going on for years.
I personally think that the party that opposed the City in this case has pretty good arguments in the main case. I think the Judge also realizes that. Just because the Judge decided for the City doesn’t mean he isn’t going to balance the result by giving the other party a good settlement. He has to be fair. The other side has probably invested somewhere between $10 to $15 million into this property. Would it be fair that the City walks away with the property for $3 million? Absolutely not. Watch and see.
Isn’t Bielstein the judge in this case?
that certainly proves all judges are biased.
You mean like the local judges in these stories,
“Connect the dots…..There is a story on the front page of the Star this week about an incident that happened in a bar fight which goes to show that in some political races in Fort Bend, it pays to contribute. What is so disconcerting about this story is that it involves both the law enforcement community and the judicial system as well in Fort Bend. Chief Deputy Craig Brady’s political supporter was given a “get out of jail free” card by the judge who is Chief Deputy Craig Brady’s neighbor, County-Court-At-Law Judge Sandy Bielstein. Not only was the man arrested for fighting in the street, it was upgraded to a felony when a controlled substance was found in his pocket.”
or this one
fortbendnow.com/2006/10/04/28992 ???? Yes judges should be able to follow not only the letter of the law, but the spirit of the laws too, don’t you all think?
Yes, most expect the judge to follow the law. If not, that would be a good way to have a verdict overturned.
Will this be appealed? Probably, will they lose again, probably. When the Judge follows the law its hard to overturn.
Apparently the judge following the law is hard for some to comprehend.
wadefishin says
January 27th, 2010 at 8:28 am (#)
..Will this be appealed? Probably, will they lose again, probably. When the Judge follows the law its hard to overturn.
It would be interesting to see how much of the public dollars have been used to this early point in this case as well as to have all the records to be able to make such a boast. I don’t see them in this article so how could anyone make such a claim prior to the appeal? Wouldn’t that be a bias? This is why it is important for anyone targeted for eminent domain who can afford it to appeal the cases out of the local entity. Most attorneys accept this as normal praxis. Too much politics involved. Often legal professionals seek to recuse judges as well as “a change of venue”. It is really quite a common occurrence.
I would still like to see how much has been spent. Put that on a ballot for approval.
“wadefishin says:
January 27th, 2010 at 8:28 am (#)
..Will this be appealed? Probably, will they lose again, probably. When the Judge follows the law its hard to overturn.”
It would be interesting to see how much of the public dollars have been used to this early point in this case as well as to have all the records to be able to make such a boast. I don’t see them in this article so how could anyone make such a claim prior to the appeal? Wouldn’t that be a bias? This is why it is important for anyone targeted for eminent domain who can afford it to appeal the cases out of the local entity. Most attorneys accept this as normal praxis. Too much politics involved. Often legal professionals seek to recuse judges as well as “a change of venue”. It is really quite a common occurrence.
I would still like to see how much has been spent. Put that on a ballot for approval.
“cult_of_one says:
January 27th, 2010 at 5:42 am (#)
Did they really expect a local judge to rule against the city.”
Yes, most expect the judge to follow the law. If not, that would be a good way to have a verdict overturned.
Will this be appealed? Probably, will they lose again, probably. When the Judge follows the law its hard to overturn.
Actually the misnomer is that the entire city was aware of the bond package, which they were not. The public was sold a bill of goods with one subdivision knowing what was in the actual details. The bond, which was geared almost entirely for the former QVGC was titled the parks bond and that is exactly how it appeared on the ballot measure. Nothing new with bond packages in Texas often misleading the public, not only can they title them to misinform, they aren’t required by law to use them as advertised to the public either. We see this in city, county and school bond elections all the time. I believe Patriot Missive discusses some of these issues with a current $30 million dollar project going to regular vendors on the school system currently and not being listed on the last bond proposal.
In other words, cult-of-one: are you merely stating that “all” Judges in our Nation are biased to their County? Thus, legally must recuse themselves?
Did they really expect a local judge to rule against the city. No this will be heading for appeals soon and further costs.
Actually Wade, voters had their say to either deny or affirm…the fiscal “course” of action, did they not?
The trail of this trial should be educational. I won’t miss it!
Since the figures to renovation never appear virtually in this thread, perhaps it may be wiser to provide a link!
To run for Mayor in Missouri City and effectively deal with the excesses and mismanagement (including QVGC) that have recently been displayed by City officials, potential candidates would need a minimum of $30,000 or in available campaign funds. There aren’t very many residents out there that have or can raise that kind of dinero that also care enough about MoCity’s future to do something about it. I agree with some of the other posters, the Mayor has had his day in the sun.
as previously stated you can always vote him out.
Great idea. Get to work, maybe you can get him to resign too or not run again or to move like the last one did after he left. BTW, I heard the last mayor asked this one to resign from the P&Z board when he was serving. I wonder why he would do that. Good luck though on your efforts. Get ‘em out!
so vote the Mayor out.
Not hardly, considering the legal costs that are not being shared and the continued appeals that go with these cases. This is just step one. Stop the spin because it does no good. The city has continued to raise debt and taxes to cover for this blunder. They should have made a fair market offer to begin with and gotten the HOA and MUD to kick in. This is clearly a black hole with all the other problems in the city being placed on hold for it. Why do you think so many of the “old guard” on the council are leaving?
“Bielstein has ruled that the city had the right to take the property by eminent domain, and the remaining issue is the amount the city paid for it.”
all that’s left is deciding fair market value. Looks like the city made a smart move.
Probably the biggest thing the City has going for it is the fact that they can’t mangage the Course so that it will make a profit, either. The Course incurred a loss of about $450,000 for the year ending June 2009 and the loss will increase with the addition of the El Dorado Course. We’re in a recession and there’s several other Golf Courses in the area that have suffered severe declines in green fees lately. Also, explain to me how the City can rationalize spending about $20 million ($3 million-down; $7 million-renovations; another $10 million?(decided by the Courts)) on a Course that they say was only worth $3.1 million? This will be forever called the Mayor’s $20 million boondoggle.
Woo who everyone: strap ya’lls boot ties on!! Michael wear are you hiding anyways? It was you who legally straddled details to me– I know your listening somewear? By the way, please aim your sweetspot and putt it up nicely? After just “fore” lessons, why didn’t someone have the nerve to chat with me?
Jasmine Mock, the word you used, “Trail” is not what you meant to say and you said it several times in this article. The word you really wanted to say was “Trial.” They have two totally different meanings. I am sure it was an honest mistake, however the editor should have caught it.