I recently read the full-page advertisement titled “This Shopping Center is WRONG for Double Oak.” Residents have every right to support or oppose the proposed development at FM 407 and Simmons Road. Traffic, drainage, environmental safeguards and neighborhood compatibility are legitimate concerns that deserve thoughtful consideration.
But important decisions about our Town’s future should be based on complete and accurate information, not assumptions or fear of what might happen.
Having served as Mayor of Double Oak, I understand the importance of protecting our Town’s character while planning responsibly for its future. As Chairman of Concerned Citizens for Double Oak Economic Growth, I am particularly concerned about our long-term financial independence.
Double Oak is largely built out, our population is aging, and the costs of maintaining essential services continue to rise. We have limited opportunities to diversify our revenue sources, making responsible decisions about our remaining commercial property increasingly important.
Before addressing six claims made in the advertisement, one important distinction needs to be understood: Proposition A and the proposed shopping center are two separate decisions.
Proposition A, appearing on the November 3 ballot, concerns the legal sale of alcoholic beverages in Double Oak. The proposed FM 407/Simmons development is a separate zoning and land-use matter requiring its own approvals.
Alcohol sales may influence whether certain grocery stores, restaurants or other businesses choose to locate in Double Oak. However, voting FOR Proposition A does not approve the shopping center, fuel center, drainage plan or Planned Development ordinance. Those matters remain subject to separate review and approval.
With that distinction established, here are six claims from the advertisement and the important facts residents deserve to consider.
CLAIM #1: There is no clear analysis showing substantial new revenue.
FACT: An economic-impact analysis estimates approximately $458,000 in additional annual Town revenue.
McAdams’ economic-impact analysis estimates approximately $346,000 in annual sales-tax revenue and $111,799 in property-tax revenue at full build-out in month 18 for a combined $458,000 annually, before potential franchise-fee revenue.
These figures are projections, not guarantees. Actual collections will depend on business performance, occupancy, taxable sales and property values. Nevertheless, a financial analysis exists, its assumptions can be evaluated, and the potential revenue is significant for a community our size.
Our committee has also examined Texas Comptroller data from ten neighboring communities that previously approved alcohol sales. During the two years following their respective referendums, reported retail sales increased in Bartonville (167%), Highland Village (84%), Flower Mound (46%), Prosper (23%) and Roanoke (43%). Reported dollar increases ranged from approximately $367,000 to $3.28 million.
These historical figures do not prove that alcohol authorization alone caused the increases, nor do they guarantee similar results for Double Oak. They do illustrate why expanding commercial opportunities deserves serious consideration. Our committee will publish its complete analysis and methodology shortly.
CLAIM #2: Double Oak already receives substantial e-commerce sales tax, so additional retail development isn’t necessary.
FACT: E-commerce and local development are complementary revenue sources—not competing alternatives.
The opposition advertisement states that Double Oak already receives nearly $600,000 from e-commerce sales taxes.
Even accepting that figure, why would revenue from one source be a reason to reject opportunities to diversify?
Our opportunity is not e-commerce OR local retail. It is:
E-commerce + local retail sales tax + commercial property tax + franchise fees.
Double Oak residents already spend substantial amounts at grocery stores, restaurants and retailers in neighboring communities. Much of the associated local sales-tax revenue benefits those communities rather than Double Oak.
Additional commercial revenue could help support police protection, emergency services, roads, drainage and other essential Town needs while reducing future pressure on residential property taxes.
Diversifying our revenue gives future Town Councils more financial options and reduces our dependence on homeowners.
CLAIM #3: Our existing residential tax base can adequately support Double Oak’s future.
FACT: Our aging population and property-tax limitations present a growing financial challenge.
Denton Central Appraisal District records show that Double Oak properties receiving the over-65 tax limitation increased from 310 in 2019 to 353 in the 2023 supplemental certified roll.
Those 353 properties represented approximately $185 million of Double Oak’s $691 million net taxable value, nearly 27% of the Town’s total taxable property value.
This does not mean those homeowners stop paying property taxes. It means that applicable tax limitations can constrain the Town’s ability to generate additional revenue from an increasing portion of its residential tax base.
Public demographic data also indicate that a significant number of residents are approaching retirement age. Our analysis suggests the percentage of residents age 65 and older could approach 42% within three years, further emphasizing the importance of planning for our changing community.
Meanwhile, the cost of police salaries, EMS, road repairs, drainage improvements, insurance and equipment continues to increase.
These financial pressures will not disappear simply because we choose to avoid commercial development.
We cannot create another commercial corridor five years from now when we suddenly decide we need one.
CLAIM #4: The developer hasn’t listened to residents.
FACT: Community input has resulted in substantial changes to the proposed development.
Direct Retail Partners has met with residents and repeatedly revised its proposal in response to concerns.
Changes include a smaller grocery store, relocation of the fuel center farther into the development, increased neighborhood buffering, additional landscaping and green space, trails, and modifications to access and circulation.
The development process was also slowed to allow additional consideration of drainage concerns.
Perhaps the most significant proposed improvement involves stormwater management.
The developer is pursuing an engineering concept that would redirect stormwater toward the drainage system north of FM 407 rather than allowing it to continue along its existing path through Carruth Estates.
If engineering studies and the appropriate authorities approve the concept, it could help address a longstanding drainage problem that existed well before this development was proposed.
This solution is not yet final, and engineering and regulatory approvals are still required.
But residents should recognize that the developer has responded to concerns and that additional protections can still be negotiated through the Planned Development process.
There is no guarantee another developer would offer the same drainage improvements, neighborhood buffers or other concessions currently being discussed.
CLAIM #5: The fuel center creates a proven 500-foot health-danger zone.
FACT: Environmental concerns deserve serious review, but a circle on an advertisement is not a site-specific environmental study.
Gasoline vapors can contain compounds such as benzene, and potential health and environmental impacts should never be dismissed.
However, drawing a 500-foot circle around a proposed fuel center does not establish that everything within that boundary is unsafe.
Gasoline-dispensing facilities must comply with applicable state and federal environmental requirements, including relevant Texas Commission on Environmental Quality vapor-control standards.
The proposed fuel center has already been relocated farther into the development in response to neighborhood concerns.
The development has not completed the approval process. The Planned Development ordinance, engineering review and subsequent permitting provide opportunities to address applicable environmental requirements, buffering, screening, lighting, access and neighborhood compatibility.
Regulatory compliance does not eliminate every potential concern, but decisions should be guided by site-specific evidence, sound engineering and enforceable standards.
Environmental concerns should neither be dismissed nor exaggerated. They should be evaluated responsibly and addressed through appropriate safeguards.
CLAIM #6: Reject this development and something better will come along.
FACT: Nobody can guarantee what comes next.
The approximately 23 acres at FM 407 and Simmons Road are privately owned.
Rejecting the current proposal does not create a public park, preserve the property as permanent open space or prevent the owner from selling it.
A future owner could pursue another development proposal. Depending on existing zoning, applicable law and required approvals, possible future uses could include commercial development, a private school or a qualifying religious institution.
These may be valuable community uses, but qualifying tax-exempt properties can generate traffic, lighting, road wear and public safety demands without producing the same property-tax revenue as taxable commercial development.
Likewise, no one can guarantee that another developer would offer the same drainage improvements, landscaping, trails, buffering or other concessions currently being negotiated.
A future developer might be better. A future developer might be worse.
“Something better will come along” is not a financial plan.
Planning for Double Oak’s Future
I do not believe Double Oak should approve development at any cost. Our Town’s character, neighborhoods and quality of life deserve protection.
But responsible planning also requires us to consider the long-term financial consequences of our decisions.
We know our population is aging. We know nearly 27% of our taxable property value was already associated with over-65 tax-limited properties in DCAD’s 2023 supplemental roll. We know the costs of maintaining essential services will continue to increase. And we know Double Oak has very little undeveloped land remaining.
We also know this development proposal has evolved because residents have spoken up. Important details still require review, and additional safeguards can be addressed through the Planned Development ordinance and engineering process.
Town staff is preparing an updated financial forecast incorporating the revised development proposal. That information should be made available for residents to evaluate as part of an informed public discussion.
As a former Mayor, I believe we have a responsibility to look beyond today’s disagreements and consider what Double Oak will need five, ten and twenty years from now.
We must protect our neighborhoods, maintain strong public safety services, responsibly address infrastructure needs and preserve the quality of life that makes Double Oak special.
But doing so requires sustainable financial resources.
We should insist on responsible development, enforceable safeguards and transparent financial information. We should also recognize that rejecting an opportunity today does not guarantee a better opportunity tomorrow.
Double Oak deserves decisions based on facts—not fear—and a long-term financial strategy that protects both our community’s character and its independence.
Bernard V. Carrico Jr.
Former Mayor, Town of Double Oak
Chairman, Concerned Citizens for Double Oak Economic Growth
Double Oak, TX
