Huntsville's Planning and Zoning Commission approved the 150-acre development project early November despite a rocky start. The project will bring a Target to the area and space for over 32 additional retail stores.

By Rachael Gleason
Students and residents in the Huntsville area have been up in arms over the looming Ravenwood Project.
City Council meetings became battlegrounds between disgruntled and supportive citizens, while students have become continuously engrossed in the issue.  
The conflict has been brewing since President of the Houston-based Property Commerce Jay Williams announced plans for the project last year.
According to the Development Proposal, The Ravenwood Village Project “includes over 650,000 square feet of retail space with an anchor store of 133,000 square feet.” 
The proposal said the project is “100 percent developer funded up front,” so the City of Huntsville risks nothing.
The Huntsville Item reported that the project will bring a Target to the area next (to the Raven Nest Golf course), as well as 32 potential retail business and approximately 200 homes.
Despite all of expected development, the project is causing unrest in the City of Huntsville because it will be located in a Tax Increment Zone or TIRZ zone.
According to the City of Houston Planning and Development website, TIRZ zones are “special districts created by the City Council to attract new investment to an area. TIRZ help finance the cost of redevelopment and encouraging infill development in an area that would otherwise not attract sufficient market development in a timely matter.”
The development proposal stated that the projected property tax base increase is $96.8 million dollars, resulting in a decrease in city and country wide property Texas rate and a reduction in the community’s retail leakage.
A series of City Council meetings are indicative of the sensitivity of the project in the Huntsville community.
The Huntsville Item has chronicled developments and delays in the project over the past year.
The first set back took place in early February, according to a Feb. 20th article when Williams canceled a workshop and meetings about the project.
“The 150-acre project was delayed when developer Jay Williams, president of the Houston-based Property Commerce, notified city manager Kevin Evans that ‘he said he was not ready to take the project to City Council level at this time’.”
City Manager Kevin Evans said that despite controversy with the TIRZ and 380 agreement, the Ravenwood project was “an exceptionally financially feasible project for this community.”
The project also spawned debates during City Council meetings. A March 7th meeting had comments from over 13 Huntsville residents (sidebar) expressing their concerns and support for the project.
Students and residents have been vocal of the project from the beginning. Sam Houston State University President James F. Gaetner published a column in the Huntsville Item on January 31, 2007 in support of the project.
“With the opportunity for unprecedented increases in tax revenues for our city, county, hospital district and school district, and for the lessening of the tremendous retail leakage from our city, Ravenwood Village certainly appears to be an excellent opportunity for Huntsville from a business investment perspective,” he said.
Holly Green reported Nov. 5th that the project “overcame its last obstacle on Monday afternoon” when the Huntsville Planning and Zoning Commission approved the 120-acre project’s final plat at City Hall.
“The commission approved the plat and the project is now contingent upon final engineer approval – then, it can move forward,” City Planner Stan Hamrick said in the article.
Target will be the anchor store and open in March 2009. There is also room for 15 retail stores and 55-acres of residential area.
The Huntsville Item reported the same day that the City of Huntsville was served with a federal lawsuit filed by Former Mayor of Huntsville Karl Davidson and Huntsville Business Owner John Strickland.

In the lawsuit, both David and Strickland assert that constitutional rights were violated and therefore, the city ordinance approving the project is void.