I am a 12-year Double Oak resident and one of eight neighbors whose homes surround the property proposed for development at FM 407 and Simmons Road. More than 170 residents have also signed a petition opposing the project.
Let me be clear: We are not against commercial development or alcohol sales. We oppose this particular development because of concerns about its projected economic benefits, its proximity to homes and its potential traffic impact.
First, residents deserve a more complete financial analysis. A five-year forecast presented by McAdams in March projects that, at full build-out, the shopping center would generate $346,000 in sales tax revenue and have an appraised value of $58.3 million, producing about $112,000 in city property tax revenue. Yet, despite requests, we have not seen the underlying financial model supporting those projections.
That $58.3 million valuation also deserves scrutiny. According to figures we reviewed, the 21.2-acre Bartonville Kroger retail area is appraised at $32.6 million, while a 16.7-acre Tom Thumb retail area is valued at $24.5 million.
The forecast also projects Double Oak sales tax revenue of about $790,000 in 2030 without the shopping center, while the town’s approved 2027 budget already reflects $800,000 in sales tax revenue. Before moving forward, the town should have a financial forecast that also considers road repairs, police and fire services and other costs associated with development.
Competition is another concern. Costco, Trader Joe’s and H-E-B have announced nearby locations, joining Walmart, Whole Foods, Target, Kroger and Tom Thumb stores already serving the area. We should consider whether another shopping center is sustainable before rezoning the property.
Second, I am concerned about placing a 24-hour gas station so close to existing neighborhoods. Residents deserve careful consideration of potential emissions, nighttime traffic, engine noise and light pollution.
Third, traffic and safety need a closer look. The traffic analysis being relied upon is several years old and based on a one-day study. Double Oak’s roads primarily serve residential neighborhoods, and increased cut-through traffic could create additional congestion and road wear. No funding source has been identified for the additional road maintenance we believe this project could require.
Most importantly, I do not believe the town has adequately studied alternative uses for this property. What would residential development generate? How would that compare with commercial development when costs as well as revenue are considered? Those questions deserve answers before a rezoning decision is made.
I am open to future commercial development that fits Double Oak’s rural character. A “no” vote on Proposition A does not mean “no” forever to alcohol sales or responsible commercial development. We can revisit the issue when we have the right approach for this area of town.
If this development were proposed next to your home and you believed your peace and quality of life were at risk, I would stand with you. I ask my fellow Double Oak residents to consider doing the same for us.
James A. Hering
Double Oak
