Houston City Council Unanimously Passes Resolution Opposing Scarborough Development

12/17/25 – This morning, Houston City Council unanimously passed a motion opposing development on 5,000 acres owned by Scarborough Lane Development/San Jacinto Preserve immediately west of Kingwood at the confluence of Spring Creek, Cypress Creek and the San Jacinto West Fork.

In opposing the development, the resolution cited:

• “Catastrophic flooding rendering the tract unmistakably unfit for residential development”
• “Potential liability associated with placing future residents in an area of heightened risk for property damage, personal injury, and loss of life”
• The need to build homes to higher standards than Montgomery County (MoCo) currently requires
• Substantially increased flood risks for existing residents of both Montgomery and Harris Counties.

The resolution, proposed by District E Council Member Fred Flickinger, also said “the highest and best use of this property should be evaluated for flood-mitigation” and “public park purposes.”

See the Council discussing Agenda Item 18 at https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1JmfRou5CH/. It starts 2:16:17 into the video.

Today’s resolution closely matches one adopted unanimously by Harris County Commissioners Court on 12/11/25. However, neither resolution effectively kills the development. But they do send a strong message that may lead to a better outcome for nearby and downstream residents. See more below.

Scarborough’s Position

Scarborough claims that they would develop the property responsibly and observe all local floodplain regulations and development standards.

I asked their president, Ryan Burkhardt, whether they would observe the highest standards (referring to Harris County standards versus MoCo’s). He said several times that they would observe local regulations.

But MoCo standards are lower than Harris County’s. The primary differences have to do with bringing fill into the 500-year floodplain and minimum finished-floor elevations.

• Harris County prohibits fill in the 500-year floodplain; Montgomery County allows it.
• Harris County sets the height of living space at the 500-year flood level; Montgomery County sets it at one foot above the 100-year floodplain.

Burkhardt did say that his development plans are based on Atlas 14 statistics. But he also said that they are still at least a couple years away from detailed plans that show exactly where they plan to build houses relative to those floodplains.

Burkhardt also asked me to communicate to readers that his company plans to leave 52% of their acreage as green space. He objected to the characterization of the development as a 5,000 acre development and repeatedly said that they plan only to develop a subset of those 5,000 acres.

Given the fact that homes nearby on higher ground have already flooded, it will be difficult to develop new homes safely at lower elevations. I asked a hydrologist who has studied development in flood-prone areas whether there was any way to develop this property safely.

He replied that the only way to do that would be to elevate the homes on stilts. That way, when floods rise, water can safely pass underneath the homes without obstruction.

But that may be difficult for large homes. Burkhardt said he plans to build large homes on large lots similar to those that are already in Bender’s Landing Estates. HAR.com shows that the median living area for homes in Benders Landing Estates is approximately 4,522 square feet. 

Listings in the area commonly show homes ranging from about 4,000 to 9,900+ square feet in size, with many properties built at 4,000–6,000+ square feet.

Green-Space Guarantees?

In our discussion, Burkhardt repeatedly came back to the 52% of the property that he says he would leave as green space.

That’s a selling point. We have certainly seen developers throughout the region say similar things. Living next to natural areas is a strong inducement for buyers looking at expensive homes.

But often, after developers sell the homes on higher ground, they start looking for ways to monetize the green space that they promised would remain green forever.

I’m not saying Scarborough would do that. But it’s a common practice. In fact, it’s already happened to several homeowners I talked to in Benders Landing Estates. It’s also happening to people at The Commons of Lake Houston. There, the developer fought the City of Houston for ten years (all the way to the Texas Supreme Court) for the right to build on floodplain land that he promised would remain recreational forever.

Two common strategies to guarantee land remains green forever are:

• To put conservation easements on it through a group such as the Bayou Land Conservancy.
• Turn it into public parks by deeding it to the City, County or State for that purpose.

However, Burkhardt was not willing to commit to either alternative.

$140 Million Mystery: Who is the Joint Venture Partner?

In my conversation with Burkhardt, he said that his project was a “joint venture.” However, he refused to tell me who the partner was.

I have learned from three other sources that the Texas General Land Office (GLO) may have something to do with the project. One other knowledgeable source said it may have something to do with a fund managed by the Governor, which the GLO administers.

Several sources told me that $140 million tax dollars were at stake. However, Burkhardt repeatedly denied that and said his company paid “close to” $140 million for the property. Hmmmm.

If this was such a good deal and if the GLO was involved, you think they would trumpet their investment. However, nearby residents who would be affected by the development had to file a FOIA request to see what the GLO’s involvement was.

The GLO denied the request and appealed it to the Attorney General. The Attorney General’s office gave the GLO the right to keep the information secret.

However, the Attorney General’s Office dragged its feet so long that it missed the deadline for responding. That made the records public by default, according to the original requestor. He therefore demanded the immediate release of all records responsive to his request.

As of this afternoon, neither the Attorney General, nor the GLO have responded with any records. I guess they must be embarrassing to someone.

If the state has no involvement, why don’t they just say so?

But they’re not saying “We are not involved.” They’re saying, “We have the right to keep our involvement secret.”

GLO Press Office Also Non-Responsive

Meanwhile, I couldn’t obtain any records either. I personally contacted the GLO press office for information. And the press office did not respond to the request. They said they needed “more time to research it.” However, the person responsible has since stopped taking phone calls or responding to emails re: the status. So, at this time, several serious questions remain:

• What roles do the GLO and the Governor’s offices play in this “joint venture,” if any?
• Is “joint venture” a fair characterization of the relationship, if any?
• If the state is involved, is the involvement purely financial?
• If so, how much money is involved?
• Where does the money come from? 
• Are any federal dollars involved?
• Did the state legislature appropriate the money or is it part of an official’s discretionary budget?
• What happens to any money committed if the developer cannot secure the necessary permits?
• Why would an agency that manages disaster relief/flood mitigation for the state and federal government support floodplain development?

If the state invested $140 million in this property, I say we should convert it to a park and put this issue to rest in perpetuity.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/17/25

3032 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.