Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Triton

New Baker Hughes Headquarters

Recommended Posts

 

 

"Sources” are telling reporter Catie Dixon that oilfield services companyBaker Hughes is planning to build a new headquarters for itself far north of its current home (in the America Tower along Allen Pkwy.). A new 400,000-to-500,000-sq.-ft. building,she reports, appears to be under development on a piece of land “just south” of the site where Southwestern Energy has its new offices under construction hugging I-45 just north of the Grand Parkway. That’s just a bit southwest of the site ofExxonMobil’s new campus(where the first employees are moving in this month), as indicated in the older marked-up area plan shown here. Following Dixon’s description, the Baker Hughes tract would likely be the one marked “UC” (for “under contract”) just south of the SWN site in the plan. However, reps from Springwoods Village developers Coventry Development tell her that “Baker Hughes doesn’t have any property under contract in Springwoods Village, and declined to comment on any activity on the aforementioned tract.” 

 

springwoods-village-map.jpg

 

Source: Link

 

Exxon set a trend. Expect more news out of this area... Shell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"hey, (insert anyone without a suburban minded family / single people), we are moving to conroe area. We will move in 3 years"

 

response: "Oh sh!t, I need to start sending my resume out now to other companies"

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The America Tower is awesome and I feel bad for these employees. Their work lunches in Montrose/River Oaks and jogging along Buffalo Bayou will be replaced with lunches at (insert every restaurant in the burbs here). Plus, the commute on I-45. Yikes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems strange that Baker Hughes would attach itself to the teet of one oil major rather than showing equal affinity to all of them.  Can anyone who understands the oil business explain that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just a dumb business move. their location right now is awesome. they honestly should consilidate and build another tower close to their current one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BHI already doesn't have a real big presence near the city center. The current headquarters is only 4-5 floors of of space and most of their buildings are on the north side anyway, including the Woodlands. This isn't going to be a big change for most employees.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds silly but I wonder if the trees don't play a part in the relocations of all these energy HQ? Makes for a nice backdrop and a more comfortable, cozy place to work. Not to mention the proximity to the Big Airport, the beltway, hardy and 45. Not to mention the higher end residential areas such as Springwoods Village and The Woodlands that can offer great schools, big/new single family homes, safe neighborhoods, ect. I may be off the mark but does make me wonder.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to speakers at The Woodlands 2014 Economic Outlook Conference, George Mitchell and The Woodlands looms large in the oil/gas industry.  Exxon/Mobil moved where it is to be near The Woodlands.  Repsol, Talisman, Chicago Bridge & Iron, Anadarko, ChevronPhillips Chemical, all wanted to be in The Woodlands environment.  The Woodlands has received national and international recognition by the ULI and the United Nations.  Houston will always have difficulty shedding its environmentally challenged reputation due to our gargantuan industrial complex.  Placing LEED  certified buildings in the forest by or in a nationally recognized community whose central focus is living in concert with nature seems like a good way to improve your image.

 

The Woodlands amenities may not be as culturally diverse as the loop, but the positive international perception of The Woodlands is certainly a factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy, here come the Woodlands fan boys.

 

XOM didn't move up there for the trees. Heck, it clear cut the majority of trees that existed on that property and the poachers who are just now starting to follow the $$$ will clear cut even more despite giving their developments woodsy-sounding names.

 

In 20 years, the "forest" will look like FM 1960. 

 

XOM moved up there because it could build a security controlled bunker hidden from the public eye and be close to the airport. XOM could care less about being tied to whatever conservation message The Woodlands is presenting. If it did, it would be investing in green energy at least on the same level as its peers. But, it isn't. When the next spill happens, XOM will just be harder to find.

 

This move has nothing to do with nature conservation, the public schools of Montgomery County, or the "clean air" up there. It has everything to do with the amount of acreage available, the price of the land, and the ability to build a massive bunker away from the general public.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow...this is some of the worst news I've heard...its things like this that make me really hate this city sometimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy, here come the Woodlands fan boys.

 

XOM didn't move up there for the trees. Heck, it clear cut the majority of trees that existed on that property and the poachers who are just now starting to follow the $$$ will clear cut even more despite giving their developments woodsy-sounding names.

 

In 20 years, the "forest" will look like FM 1960. 

 

XOM moved up there because it could build a security controlled bunker hidden from the public eye and be close to the airport. XOM could care less about being tied to whatever conservation message The Woodlands is presenting. If it did, it would be investing in green energy at least on the same level as its peers. But, it isn't. When the next spill happens, XOM will just be harder to find.

 

This move has nothing to do with nature conservation, the public schools of Montgomery County, or the "clean air" up there. It has everything to do with the amount of acreage available, the price of the land, and the ability to build a massive bunker away from the general public.

 

Oh boy, here come the anti-Woodlands anti-XOM boys.

 

Bob Davis, Senior Advisor for XOM stated at the 2014 EOC that they were here to be in The Woodlands.  Either he or the communications manager, Leslie Hushka, I don't remember which, implied that The Woodlands proper did not have the space they needed so they moved as close as possible to Town Center.  They made it clear that their choice to be where they are is because the company wants to be located in George Mitchell's Woodlands.  I, a "Woodlands Fan Boy", was surprised to hear of their commitment, admiration, and respect for George Mitchell and The Woodlands community.

 

In 20 years, 9000 acres of The Woodlands' 27,000 acres will still be greenspace.  In 20 years, the Spring Creek Greenway Project will still be 12,000 acres of recreational space and protected forests which borders both the southern border of The Woodlands and the northern border of Springwoods Village/XOM.  It is mostly forested flood plan that can never be developed.  Your assertion that the area will look like 1960 is not entirely correct.

 

Also, I didn't say it had to do with conservation or that they moved here for the trees, I said it had to do with public image.  The design of the campus and the painted garage roofs are all environmentally conscious and being touted as how "sensitive" they are.  To say they aren't worried about public image is absurd.  The XOM campus will have approximately 2500 visitors from all over the world daily; they are hardly "hiding" in a bunker.  It's visible from every overpass, midrise/highrise buildings, and soon to be Grand Parkway.

 

.............and the thread is about the new Baker Hughes headquarters.  I simply responded to a comment wondering whether these HQs might be choosing locations based on public perception.  I believe, based on public statements by XOM officials, that they did.   You certainly seem to be in the know as to XOM's REAL motivations.  Perhaps you could shed some light on my REAL motivations for living in The Woodlands?  Or Baker Hughes?  Perhaps Baker Hughes is just an XOM sycophant following a diabolical plan to eschew responsibility for future crimes against nature?!!!  eeeegad!!

 

Where is that Baker Hughes rendering?  Urbanizer?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Woodlands and its overall master planned concept has a great deal to do with all of these companies moving there. that is a fact whether one chooses to believe it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Woodlands is also one of the only parts of Houston (if not the only part) to escape the "Houston image" for out-of-towners, especially around the state. In Dallas, when you say "Houston," people say "Ewww! Gross!" But then when you mention The Woodlands, they're like "Oh yeah... yeah, the Woodlands is kind of nice."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Woodlands is also one of the only parts of Houston (if not the only part) to escape the "Houston image" for out-of-towners, especially around the state. In Dallas, when you say "Houston," people say "Ewww! Gross!" But then when you mention The Woodlands, they're like "Oh yeah... yeah, the Woodlands is kind of nice."

I take issue on several levels with this statement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure this will generate a few responses but seriously, is The Woodlands to Houston what Conneticut is to New York?

 

Hahaha. Sure, just without the commuter rail.

 

(edit, not laughing at your statement, but at the glaring difference in public transpor compared to the NY/CT corridor)

Edited by crunchtastic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question is how long has Exxon owned the land? I'm sure they were planning this far beyond our comprehension. The Grand Parkway was the final champagne bottle on the ass of moving forward.

 

It's no secret that Exxon developed early neighborhoods in the Spring area when FM 1960 was a two-lane road with forest on both sides.

 

Anyways, Baker Hughes is relocating as mentioned above, they don't really have a big chunk in America Tower. The Hardy Toll road is a quick and easy route to the airport, avoiding major traffic and the Woodlands is only a bonus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically the Exxon Campus development is in Houston's jurisdiction outside of The Woodlands township.

 

Ah, so since this is outside of the Woodlands and Houston city limits, then this area does have lower taxes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought wxman was being too kind. Houston should strive to have a world class urban center, but that doesn't mean it should come at the expense of the suburbs. The Woodlands is a huge asset to Houston. And remember, when you disrespect the Houston suburbs, you are disrespecting 95% of Houston itself. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to businesses moving to this area, that may be the propaganda that they are moving there for the forest and what not. But at the end of the day, there has to be some type of economical incentive to move to the Woodlands...? Do the Woodlands have any capability of giving tax credits out to get companies to move in? Do the Woodlands have lower taxes than Houston? Just throwing out ideas why corporations may want to move there although I'm sure someone who actually lives in the Woodlands would certainly know more. It's almost always about cutting costs and maximizing profits.

 

I'm not why you assume that there has to be a tax incentive for a company to move to The Woodlands as there's a number of other potential reasons.  I don't have knowledge about the specifics of Baker Hughes and I'm not sure that anyone else here does, but I think that it's fair to state that both Downtown and The Woodlands are potentially attractive places for a business to locate, albeit different.

 

We don't know where Baker Hughes employees live, we don't know the preferences of the Baker Hughes team regarding a urban v. suburban environment, we don't know whether Baker Hughes has identified advantages related to recruiting employees to those locations.

 

Those and a number of other considerations are all valid reasons as to where to locate your business regardless of incentives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, so since this is outside of the Woodlands and Houston city limits, then this area does have lower taxes?

 

Exxon should expect to be annexed to Houston.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exxon should expect to be annexed to Houston.

 

Yep, Woodlands will soon officially be Houston IMO

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to a poster over at Swamplot (who is not among the more notorious trolls or water carriers), most of the BHI pooh bahs already live in The Woodlands and some even maintain secondary offices there.  I have no way to confirm or refute that, but it does seem like a reasonable factor in the mix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, Woodlands will soon officially be Houston IMO

No it won't. The managed to get excluded they some ordinance. That's why the Township was formed v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading this site for years and have decided to join so I could share a story with you.

 

Many, many years ago I was at a local play in Katy when a realtor told us how frustrated she was at Exxon. She then told us how she had taken several top level executive wives all over Houston to show them the best neighborhoods. At this time the Woodlands was in its infancy and Kingwood, Clearlake, Memorial and of course River Oaks was the in locations. (Cinco Ranch and most of Sugarland was rice farms)The wives of Exxon were checking out relocation sites from a family (VIP) viewpoint. They were checking out cities across the U.S.. Exxon was still HQ in the NE.

 

What upset the realtor so much was after taking them everywhere, one of the wives asked

"is this it?"

Another says before the realtor can answer. "This must be the armpit of Texas".

 

So, they moved the HQ to Irving?

Why?

Security, convenience and culture. Exxon has a world class security department and anyone who has seen the corporate facilities at Irving with vouch for that. Exxon also seeks out secure (at best as possible) communities for its highest level employees.

 

Just drive through the Woodlands and the Irving, Grapevine, etc. area and you will see similar cultural areas. The drive from Houston airports to DT are neither scenic nor highly safe (from a corporate security viewpoint.)

When they are fully relocated in the Woodlands they can leave Irving to the private or corporate airport (most probably do not use DFW), arrive at Houston Intercontinental and take a very short drive N. to the new facilities.

 

Thus, improved perceived and real security, convenience and neighborhoods/demographics that meet their goals.

 

Oh, and they also are close to that all important International Airports. Or in case of the Exxon Wives, just minutes from Vail, Paris, N.Y. City, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it won't. The managed to get excluded they some ordinance. That's why the Township was formed v

I don't believe townships exist in Texas. Perhaps up in the northern or eastern US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading this site for years and have decided to join so I could share a story with you.

 

Many, many years ago I was at a local play in Katy when a realtor told us how frustrated she was at Exxon. She then told us how she had taken several top level executive wives all over Houston to show them the best neighborhoods. At this time the Woodlands was in its infancy and Kingwood, Clearlake, Memorial and of course River Oaks was the in locations. (Cinco Ranch and most of Sugarland was rice farms)The wives of Exxon were checking out relocation sites from a family (VIP) viewpoint. They were checking out cities across the U.S.. Exxon was still HQ in the NE.

 

What upset the realtor so much was after taking them everywhere, one of the wives asked

"is this it?"

Another says before the realtor can answer. "This must be the armpit of Texas".

 

So, they moved the HQ to Irving?

Why?

Security, convenience and culture. Exxon has a world class security department and anyone who has seen the corporate facilities at Irving with vouch for that. Exxon also seeks out secure (at best as possible) communities for its highest level employees.

 

Just drive through the Woodlands and the Irving, Grapevine, etc. area and you will see similar cultural areas. The drive from Houston airports to DT are neither scenic nor highly safe (from a corporate security viewpoint.)

When they are fully relocated in the Woodlands they can leave Irving to the private or corporate airport (most probably do not use DFW), arrive at Houston Intercontinental and take a very short drive N. to the new facilities.

 

Thus, improved perceived and real security, convenience and neighborhoods/demographics that meet their goals.

 

Oh, and they also are close to that all important International Airports. Or in case of the Exxon Wives, just minutes from Vail, Paris, N.Y. City, etc.

 

 

So they didn't like Memorial or they didn't like the drive in from the airport? Can't imagine someone thinking this is the "armpit of Texas" after seeing Memorial, let alone River Oaks. And can't imagine anyone picking the beige neighborhoods of Dallas over the Memorial area - maybe the Park Cities which is basically a draw, but not Preston Hollow and certainly not anything else.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, so since this is outside of the Woodlands and Houston city limits, then this area does have lower taxes?

 

Let's take a look, shall we. Here's the list of taxing entities for the Southwestern Energy property, plus their 2012 and 2013 rates:

 

024 SPRING ISD Certified: 08/09/2013 1.570000 1.570000 View

040 HARRIS COUNTY Certified: 08/09/2013 0.400210 0.414550 View

041 HARRIS CO FLOOD CNTRL Certified: 08/09/2013 0.028090 0.028270  

042 PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHY Certified: 08/09/2013 0.019520 0.017160  

043 HARRIS CO HOSP DIST Certified: 08/09/2013 0.182160 0.170000  

044 HARRIS CO EDUC DEPT Certified: 08/09/2013 0.006617 0.006358  

045 LONE STAR COLLEGE SYS Certified: 08/09/2013 0.119800 0.116000  

178 HC ID 18 Certified: 08/09/2013 1.500000 1.500000  

550 HC EMERG SRV DIST 7 Certified: 08/09/2013 0.082400 0.080900  

666 HC EMERG SERV DIST 11 Certified: 08/09/2013 0.030000 0.047500

 

Here's the list for a downtown Houston property:

001 HOUSTON ISD Certified: 08/09/2013 1.156700 1.186700 View

040 HARRIS COUNTY Certified: 08/09/2013 0.400210 0.414550 View

041 HARRIS CO FLOOD CNTRL Certified: 08/09/2013 0.028090 0.028270  

042 PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHY Certified: 08/09/2013 0.019520 0.017160  

043 HARRIS CO HOSP DIST Certified: 08/09/2013 0.182160 0.170000  

044 HARRIS CO EDUC DEPT Certified: 08/09/2013 0.006617 0.006358  

048 HOU COMMUNITY COLLEGE Certified: 08/09/2013 0.097173 0.097173  

061 CITY OF HOUSTON Certified: 08/09/2013 0.638750 0.638750  

265 HOUSTON D'TOWN MGMT D Certified: 08/09/2013 0.135000 0.135000  

 

A little math shows the total rate for the campus to be 3.950738, while the City of Houston is 2.693961. The improvement district rate is pretty high, and Spring ISD's rate is almost 40 cents higher. I would say that there's no property tax benefit to moving out there.

 

Edited by Ross

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's faster to google "woodlands township" than if is to write your post...

You linked us to a page maintained by the wood lands. They will tell u anything to make themselves sound lile they're their own "towne". Anything that borders the benign to get u to move out there.

Anything.

After all... when these companies start laying off (10,000 at a time)... it's not their bottom line that takes the hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything.

After all... when these companies start laying off (10,000 at a time)... it's not their bottom line that takes the hit.

The Texas legislature also agrees that The Woodlands is a township. Not sure what your comment about layoffs is relevant to though. Last time I checked, layoffs are not exclusive to companies that are located in The Woodlands.

http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/legis/BillSearch/BillDetails.cfm?billFileID=187388&from=advancedsearch&startrow=1&number=50&IDlist=&unclickList=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading this site for years and have decided to join so I could share a story with you.

 

Many, many years ago I was at a local play in Katy when a realtor told us how frustrated she was at Exxon. She then told us how she had taken several top level executive wives all over Houston to show them the best neighborhoods. At this time the Woodlands was in its infancy and Kingwood, Clearlake, Memorial and of course River Oaks was the in locations. (Cinco Ranch and most of Sugarland was rice farms)The wives of Exxon were checking out relocation sites from a family (VIP) viewpoint. They were checking out cities across the U.S.. Exxon was still HQ in the NE.

 

What upset the realtor so much was after taking them everywhere, one of the wives asked

"is this it?"

Another says before the realtor can answer. "This must be the armpit of Texas".

 

So, they moved the HQ to Irving?

Why?

Security, convenience and culture. Exxon has a world class security department and anyone who has seen the corporate facilities at Irving with vouch for that. Exxon also seeks out secure (at best as possible) communities for its highest level employees.

 

Just drive through the Woodlands and the Irving, Grapevine, etc. area and you will see similar cultural areas. The drive from Houston airports to DT are neither scenic nor highly safe (from a corporate security viewpoint.)

When they are fully relocated in the Woodlands they can leave Irving to the private or corporate airport (most probably do not use DFW), arrive at Houston Intercontinental and take a very short drive N. to the new facilities.

 

Thus, improved perceived and real security, convenience and neighborhoods/demographics that meet their goals.

 

Oh, and they also are close to that all important International Airports. Or in case of the Exxon Wives, just minutes from Vail, Paris, N.Y. City, etc.

 

I think the Katy realtor was spinning her own Houston self-loathing.  At the time of the relocation of the Exxon headquarters to Irving, the people at Friendswood Development (who were in charge of searching for the new HQ location, stated that, much to their chagrin, Houston was never even considered because the #1 criteria for their HQ location was that it not be in a city where Exxon had significant operations.  That obviously left Houston out of the contest.  (Much like Boeing's HQ relocation a few years ago.)

 

Houston was not considered for Exxon's new corporate headquarters because executives decided it should not be in the same location as one of the company's major operating divisions, said John Walsh, president of Friendswood Development Co., the Exxon subsidiary in Houston that handled the site search.

Exxon officials believed the presence of the corporate headquarters could erode the autonomy and independence of the division headquarters if it were located right next door,Walsh said. "They made the decision early on they did not want to locate near one of their operating groups," he said.

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/ar...id=1989_659330

Edited by Houston19514

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Texas legislature also agrees that The Woodlands is a township. Not sure what your comment about layoffs is relevant to though. Last time I checked, layoffs are not exclusive to companies that are located in The Woodlands.

http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/legis/BillSearch/BillDetails.cfm?billFileID=187388&from=advancedsearch&startrow=1&number=50&IDlist=&unclickList=

You linked us to a page maintained by the texas legis lature. They will tell u anything to make themselves sound like they agree the wood lands is a township

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You linked us to a page maintained by the texas legis lature. They will tell u anything to make themselves sound like they agree the wood lands is a township

Funny. I was under the impression that "township " was not a legal entity or legally defined in the state of Texas the way they are in other states.

I checked and was not able to find any concrete legal definition of "township" in Texas. I found lists of townships and census districts and "special zones" but nothing regarding "townships".

Perhaps someone else here knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was approximately 30 year ago when the realtor told us that story. She was visibly upset and I find it hard to believe it was fabricated.  I also heard the Friendswood Development story. Many corporate decisions have several options before a path is chosen.

 

Exxon like Fluor and other Dallas based corporations enjoy the demographics on Frisco, Allen, Grapevine, Carrollton, Irving, etc. offer for their CEO's, executive staff, IT and accounting, etc..  While keeping their bulk of employees (engineers, production, refining, exploration, R&D, etc.) in Houston.

 

The Woodlands offers a competitive demographic environment to the above cities and attracts support companies like CB&I and smaller companies corporate HQ's like Anadarko and Southern Gas.

 

Another funny story told to me from a boss whose father was a VP for a Dallas based Oil Company.

A large global oil company was based in Los Angles when the CEO retired and replaced by a CEO who lived in Dallas. The new CEO had a 49 story building built in Dallas and upon completion he worked out of the new building with everyone else moving to Dallas. A few years later the CEO left the company and started his own. The Global company then got a new CEO who was from California and they began construction on a new world HQ in the San Francisco area.  Upon completion they vacated the Dallas building and relocated everyone to the San Francisco area.

 

Moral of story, surprisingly more often than people imagine, corporate HQ's follow CEO's, especially if the space needed is within reason. So, do you really believe that Chevron will leave San Ramon?

If a new CEO is installed and he lives or is from Houston, maybe. If not, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting ... was there not a global energy company from Houston (I think) who's CEO relocated to Dubai.

When interviewed I think he mentioned that while he was officing from Dubai - the HQ was still in Houston.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was approximately 30 year ago when the realtor told us that story. She was visibly upset and I find it hard to believe it was fabricated. I also heard the Friendswood Development story. Many corporate decisions have several options before a path is chose.

I appreciate your insight, unique viewpoint, and what appears to be a great deal of experience, however, realtors are usually not the sharpest tool in the shed - if you know what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find interesting (to be read appalling), is that for mere whimsy these corporate powerhouses spend millions to relocate only because of the CEOs preference? That's just asinine. Guess who ultimately eats that cost? You and I, the common folk, as usual. Reminds me of when major oil corporate heads were demanded to appear before congress to explain their stellar profiteering during some of the US's dire most economic troubles, and the bastards used private jets to travel to DC. I understand moving to a different location due to economic reasons (lower tax rates, attrition movement, etc), but because the CEO feels more comfortable in his home town. Sheesh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find interesting (to be read appalling), is that for mere whimsy these corporate powerhouses spend millions to relocate only because of the CEOs preference? That's just asinine. Guess who ultimately eats that cost? You and I, the common folk, as usual. Reminds me of when major oil corporate heads were demanded to appear before congress to explain their stellar profiteering during some of the US's dire most economic troubles, and the bastards used private jets to travel to DC. I understand moving to a different location due to economic reasons (lower tax rates, attrition movement, etc), but because the CEO feels more comfortable in his home town. Sheesh!

 

That sounds more like when the CEO's of car companies wanting a bail out flew to DC in private jets. most CEO's from companies of any size use private jets because it maximizes the efficient use of thier time, and provides better security, both personal and corporate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it car companies? Sorry, my mistake. Yes, I definitely understand the efficiency part, BUT, I would think when I am put on the national stage to explain an implied bilking of the system, I would at least have the foreknowledge to give the impression of hat in hand, not corporate superiority. I suppose that was my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@L

See this:

http://www.thewoodlandstownship-tx.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/943

 

If my understanding of the situation is right, the legislature gave The Woodlands a special status back in 1993. That's when they created the Town Center Improvement District of Montgomery County. This has become what we now call The Woodlands Township and is the only community in the state of Texas with such a quasi government status. It was in response to Kingwood's annexation and I think part of the legislation created to make annexation more difficult as a result of the said annexation. As I understand it, this prevented Houston from annexing The Woodlands and put in place some mileposts for The Woodlands city status self determination. The Woodlands gets to levy some taxes for certain things from a board that isn't elected, but also gets to rely on the county for other services like police and fire as an unincorporated are of the county would. Like I said earlier, it can't be annexed by Houston.

That's why most ppl voted last year to keep things the same b/c they get the best of both worlds, taxing authority without having to provide any services. It's cheaper than being a city which would have to tax to provide the services.

I hope this was all correct and helps with some of the confusion. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's not really a "town" but rather a special zone of sorts and they (locals, residents, people who deal with or in this zone, etc) added "township" as part of the name of the zone. Is this correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's not really a "town" but rather a special zone of sorts and they (locals, residents, people who deal with or in this zone, etc) added "township" as part of the name of the zone. Is this correct?

 

From my understanding, I would say you're correct. The state of Texas has carved out a special zone within Montgomery county that has some privileges of a city, but also operates as an unincorporated area.

 

It seems like it kind of operates like a TIRZ in a way, with some large differences of course.

 

Here's some more info that I found from the Woodlands website that you might find interesting:

https://www.thewoodlandstownship-tx.gov/index.aspx?NID=743

http://www.thewoodlandstownship-tx.gov/index.aspx?nid=331

 

Map of the Woodlands Township boundaries:

http://www.thewoodlandstownship-tx.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/149

http://www.thewoodlandstownship-tx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1188

http://tx-thewoodlandstownship2.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/127

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was approximately 30 year ago when the realtor told us that story. She was visibly upset and I find it hard to believe it was fabricated.  I also heard the Friendswood Development story. Many corporate decisions have several options before a path is chosen.

 

Exxon like Fluor and other Dallas based corporations enjoy the demographics on Frisco, Allen, Grapevine, Carrollton, Irving, etc. offer for their CEO's, executive staff, IT and accounting, etc..  While keeping their bulk of employees (engineers, production, refining, exploration, R&D, etc.) in Houston.

 

The Woodlands offers a competitive demographic environment to the above cities and attracts support companies like CB&I and smaller companies corporate HQ's like Anadarko and Southern Gas.

 

Another funny story told to me from a boss whose father was a VP for a Dallas based Oil Company.

A large global oil company was based in Los Angles when the CEO retired and replaced by a CEO who lived in Dallas. The new CEO had a 49 story building built in Dallas and upon completion he worked out of the new building with everyone else moving to Dallas. A few years later the CEO left the company and started his own. The Global company then got a new CEO who was from California and they began construction on a new world HQ in the San Francisco area.  Upon completion they vacated the Dallas building and relocated everyone to the San Francisco area.

 

Moral of story, surprisingly more often than people imagine, corporate HQ's follow CEO's, especially if the space needed is within reason. So, do you really believe that Chevron will leave San Ramon?

If a new CEO is installed and he lives or is from Houston, maybe. If not, no.

 

 

What I find interesting (to be read appalling), is that for mere whimsy these corporate powerhouses spend millions to relocate only because of the CEOs preference? That's just asinine. Guess who ultimately eats that cost? You and I, the common folk, as usual. Reminds me of when major oil corporate heads were demanded to appear before congress to explain their stellar profiteering during some of the US's dire most economic troubles, and the bastards used private jets to travel to DC. I understand moving to a different location due to economic reasons (lower tax rates, attrition movement, etc), but because the CEO feels more comfortable in his home town. Sheesh!

 

Before we get any more carried away, it might be time to interject some reality.

 

1.  Exxon.  cocorobert tells that the realtor told him approximately 30 years ago that some Exxon wives whined about being relocated to Houston.  That seems possible, as Exxon was at about that time in the process of reducing their ranks in their Manhattan HQ from 2,000+ to only 300.  Many of those relocated people were relocated to Houston.  It's possible some of the wives whined about the relocation.  That much of the story seems plausible. What is not true, is that it had anything to do with the decision of where to relocation the HQ, which occurred 24 years ago.  (And it seems entirely plausible that some DFW real estate agents have the same sort of stories from relocated Exxon wives.)

 

2. "another funny story"  As with most rumors and "stories related to me by a person I once knew whose father was once upon a time a [fill-in-the-blank] at [fill-in-the-blank]", there might be a kernel of truth in there somewhere.  But the only company this could possibly be describing is Arco. Arco never moved its headquarters to Dallas and Arco never moved its headquarters from Dallas to San Francisco.  Dallas (and the 49-story Arco building) was home to Arco Oil & Gas E&P.  When it left Dallas, it did not move to San Francisco or California.  The largest number of relocated employees came to Houston.

 

Moral of story, surprisingly more often than people imagine, people believe silly rumors and stories even though there is plenty of evidence to the contrary  ;-)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...