12/20/2025 – People pay a premium to live near green space. But will the promises made during a sale be kept? Will that green space remain green, or will it be gobbled up by more development in the future? Here’s a guide to language that should raise red flags when looking at development plans, sales contracts, and public documents. Words can imply one thing, but not be legally binding. So, buyer beware.
The Proximity Premium that Vanishes
Many developers who build in or near floodplains promise early buyers that the green space around them will be “designated as” parks and is “intended for” recreational use.
But developers’ plans can change. And the home buyer’s beautiful view disappears. And remember, wetlands may no longer guarantee that land cannot be developed.
Why Developers May Leave Green Space Initially
There are also several regulator reasons why developers may leave large swaths of green space in their original plans. They communicate:
The project provides regional flood storage
Downstream impacts are minimized
Remaining land functions as mitigation, not loss.
Framing plans this way also:
Reduces perceived flood risk
Reduces organized opposition
Narrows legal exposure
Makes the project sound less aggressive.
This is standard practice on controversial floodplain projects according to flood experts I have interviewed.
But Will Green Space Remain Forever?
Many developers promise green space. But will it remain green forever?
Scarborough in MoCo
A Dallas-based developer named Scarborough recently purchased 5000+ acres west of Kingwood through a subsidiary called San Jacinto Preserve. Most of it is in floodplains and floodways. Their president, Ryan Burkhardt says they only “plan” to develop 38% of the land. He repeatedly emphasized that more than half of his land will be used as green space.
Ryko sold its property outlined in red to Scarborough earlier this year.
But he ALSO does not plan to put a conservation easement on the green space. Nor is he donating the green space to the City, County or State. This is typical.
I don’t care to cast aspersions on Burkhardt’s integrity. He was brave in returning my phone call and seemed quite candid. But to me, those are red flags. It follows a recurring pattern. For instance…
Signorelli in Commons of Lake Houston
In Huffman, Signorelli reportedly promised buyers in The Commons of Lake Houston that the floodplain land around them would remain green space for community recreational purposes, such as hiking and horseback riding. But now, the company is trying to turn a large part of that floodplain land into more homesites. Signorelli has fought the City of Houston for ten years all the way to the Texas Supreme Court for the right to do so.
Also on the East Fork, on the Kingwood side of the river, Friendswood sat on land in Royal Shores that people used for hiking for more than 30 years. Then they sold it to developer Ron Holley earlier this year. One hundred percent of the land is in floodplains.
Holley land is in center and is criss-crossed by wetlands. From National Wetlands Inventory.
Friendswood tried to develop this land for years before selling it to Holley. Here’s what the land just north of there looks like.
A natural wonderland for wildlife and humans
Friendswood gave East End Park to the Kingwood Service Association in 1988 to preserve it for the community. It is NOT in danger of being developed. However, Friendswood retained control of their Royal Shores green space until they sold it to Holley. And now nearby residents may lose their recreational area.
Recognize the Red Flags that Could Undermine Your Home Value
How can you be certain green space around you will remain green and not be developed in the future? Some hints:
Ask for legal guarantees in the form of conservation easements or deeds donating the land to a City, County or State as public parkland. If they don’t exist, be wary.
Be wary of what advertisers call “weasel words.” If a developer says he “plans on” leaving land as green space, that gives him a legal out if plans change. Same with “intends to.”
Look for designations on maps with words like “Buffer,” “Reserve,” “Future Phase,” “Drainage Reserve,” or “Open Space.” Such words have no legal or regulatory definitions.
If the land is dedicated to an HOA or POA, who controls the entity? The developer? If so, he can dedicate it for something else when he’s ready to develop the land.
Do you see maps from Commissioners Court saying things like “subject to future engineering review”?
Does the appraisal district classify any of the land as “livable” or “usable”?
Is there a binding commitment to Commissioners Court ensuring permanent floodplain storage or a conservation function?
Do deed restrictions explicitly prohibit future fill or structures?
Use them to make sure someone doesn’t try to turn “your” promised green space into greenbacks.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/20/25
3035 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/20250423-Ryko-DIA-Floodplains-.jpg?fit=1100%2C704&ssl=17041100adminadmin2025-12-20 18:13:382025-12-21 05:39:37Home Buyers Beware: Will that Green Space Behind You Remain Green?
12/19/25 – Despite substantial hurdles, floodplain development can be very profitable for patient developers with deep pockets, even if only a small percentage of their land is developed.
For instance, Scarborough Lane Development/San Jacinto Preserve LP has purchased more than 5,000 acres of land in floodplains and floodways near the confluence of four waterways. They include the San Jacinto West Fork, Spring Creek, Cypress Creek, and Turkey Creek.
Base map from seller’s preliminary drainage analysis. Scarborough/San Jacinto Preserve property outlined in red.Shades of blue represent floodways and floodplains on property.
Buyer Says It Paid $140 Million for Property Appraised at Less Than $1 Million
Scarborough claims it paid close to $140 million for the property – 8X higher than the Montgomery County Appraisal District (MCAD) places the market value of the land and 175X higher than the appraised value. See below.
Even more stunning, Ryko, the company that sold the property to Scarborough/SJP, produced a preliminary engineering study that suggested only 38% of the land was developable because it has such high flood risk.
So, in what galaxy does this make economic sense?
Actually, it makes perfect sense – if you understand how the game is played.
Spread Makes Bread
Said another way, buy low; sell high.
The exceedingly low appraised value of floodplain land helps developers acquire and hold the land, sometimes for decades – at a very low tax cost while they work out regulatory issues. And when they do, the step change in value is so great, that if only 20% of the land is developable, they likely still make money.
This is according to ChatGPT, which costed out details of several development scenarios for me. One was even profitable with only 10% developable land.
A wide spread between acquisition costs and potential land sales after all permits and mitigation costs are accounted for is one of the main reasons why developers target floodplain land.
The dynamic is well understood in land economics and is particularly visible in fast-growing regions like Montgomery County.
Floodplain land often sells at a steep discount relative to nearby uplands because of:
Regulatory limits (floodway vs. floodplain)
Engineering costs (fill, detention, bridges)
Uncertainty (permitting, litigation, political risk)
Time value (increased holding costs because of longer periods before land becomes salable).
With steep, discounted prices in mind, even modest success—e.g., making 20–30% of a tract buildable — can make the entire investment profitable. Anything above that is gravy.
Why Floodplain Land Produces Unusually Large Spreads
Floodplain land tends to be priced as “mostly unusable.” Once permits are secured, the buildable portion prices like normal land. But the remainder can still be monetized as detention, mitigation, or open space.
Better yet for the developer, some of the land designated as green space may even be developed years later as the pain of flooding dims and political winds shift.
This can create huge “step” changes in land value.
Factors that Amplify Spread
In Texas, several factors amplify this spread. Consider, for instance:
Timber Exemptions that Lower Carrying Costs:
Developers pay only a few dollars in taxes per acre per year. On the five parcels above, taxes average $148 per acre per year. That makes patience very cheap. A well capitalized developer can afford to wait years while working out permitting issues.
Timber exemptions also mask speculative intent. On paper, the land looks like a passive forestry holding, not a development play.
Reliance on Post-Development Mitigation at Public Expense:
Some developers shift part of their mitigation costs onto the public. For example, some developers in Montgomery County have avoided building detention basins by using questionable flood routing studies. Even the former Montgomery County engineer criticized the practice. As flood peaks build over time, downstream residents clamor for mitigation. But it comes at public expense. So the developer has effectively externalized some of its costs.
Permissive Local Drainage Rules and Lax Enforcement:
This is especially true in counties that surround fast growing metropolitan areas. Some counties around Houston still use drainage criteria from the 1980s to help attract development.
Sometimes gaps in regulations cause flooding as Elm Grove discovered twice in 2019. Many floodplain developers tend to exploit such gaps in regulations and then claim they are complying with all applicable regulations.
Risk/Reward Ratio Attracts Only Certain Types of Developers
Floodplain land tends to attract well-capitalized, patient developers with a 10–20 year horizon. For those with deep pockets and powerful partners, economics may work even if 90% of the land never becomes buildable.
This is not accidental; it is a rational, well-understood land-banking strategy.
However, the spread only turns into profit ifrisk converts to permission. It collapses if floodway limits are strictly enforced, mitigation costs surge, public opposition blocks approvals, or political sentiment hardens after major floods.
In such cases, floodplain land can become a capital trap, not a bargain. But still…
The large spread between low purchase cost and high potential value is a major magnet for developers.
Courageous reporting, such as hers, makes flood risk highly visible and politically salient. And that makes the spread harder to monetize. Witness recent resolutions by Harris County Precinct 3 and the City of Houston. It will be interesting to see Scarborough’s next moves.
Next Up
I am working on a series of posts about floodplain development. Next, I’ll examine the seductive promise of green space. Floodplain developers often promote abundant, recreational green space to early buyers in a development.
But just as often, they try to monetize that green space during the latter stages of a development – green space they promised early buyers would remain green forever. Check out the warning-sign checklists in my next post before you buy property to see if your green space could someday vanish.
Scarborough property near US59 bridge west of Kingwood. San Jacinto West Fork on right.During Harvey, water was 27 feet above the level you see here.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/19/2025
3034 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/20250622-DSC_2635.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2025-12-19 10:41:562025-12-19 11:00:13The Profit in Floodplain Development Explained
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.”
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.
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.
Detail from presentation to Houston District E and Harris County Precinct 3
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.
Typical homes in Bender’s Landing Estates
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.
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?
Floodplain map of Scarborough/San Jacinto Preserve property
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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/20251211-DJI_20251211085941_0651_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2025-12-17 18:28:112025-12-18 09:17:45Houston City Council Unanimously Passes Resolution Opposing Scarborough Development
Home Buyers Beware: Will that Green Space Behind You Remain Green?
12/20/2025 – People pay a premium to live near green space. But will the promises made during a sale be kept? Will that green space remain green, or will it be gobbled up by more development in the future? Here’s a guide to language that should raise red flags when looking at development plans, sales contracts, and public documents. Words can imply one thing, but not be legally binding. So, buyer beware.
The Proximity Premium that Vanishes
Many developers who build in or near floodplains promise early buyers that the green space around them will be “designated as” parks and is “intended for” recreational use.
A review of 33 studies found that properties near green space command a premium of 8–10%. Another study suggests the “proximity premium” may be as high as 20%.
But developers’ plans can change. And the home buyer’s beautiful view disappears. And remember, wetlands may no longer guarantee that land cannot be developed.
Why Developers May Leave Green Space Initially
There are also several regulator reasons why developers may leave large swaths of green space in their original plans. They communicate:
Framing plans this way also:
This is standard practice on controversial floodplain projects according to flood experts I have interviewed.
But Will Green Space Remain Forever?
Many developers promise green space. But will it remain green forever?
Scarborough in MoCo
A Dallas-based developer named Scarborough recently purchased 5000+ acres west of Kingwood through a subsidiary called San Jacinto Preserve. Most of it is in floodplains and floodways. Their president, Ryan Burkhardt says they only “plan” to develop 38% of the land. He repeatedly emphasized that more than half of his land will be used as green space.
But he ALSO does not plan to put a conservation easement on the green space. Nor is he donating the green space to the City, County or State. This is typical.
I don’t care to cast aspersions on Burkhardt’s integrity. He was brave in returning my phone call and seemed quite candid. But to me, those are red flags. It follows a recurring pattern. For instance…
Signorelli in Commons of Lake Houston
In Huffman, Signorelli reportedly promised buyers in The Commons of Lake Houston that the floodplain land around them would remain green space for community recreational purposes, such as hiking and horseback riding. But now, the company is trying to turn a large part of that floodplain land into more homesites. Signorelli has fought the City of Houston for ten years all the way to the Texas Supreme Court for the right to do so.
Holley in Royal Shores
Also on the East Fork, on the Kingwood side of the river, Friendswood sat on land in Royal Shores that people used for hiking for more than 30 years. Then they sold it to developer Ron Holley earlier this year. One hundred percent of the land is in floodplains.
Wetlands occupy much of it. Wetlands used to deter development, but those rules could soon change.
Friendswood tried to develop this land for years before selling it to Holley. Here’s what the land just north of there looks like.
Friendswood gave East End Park to the Kingwood Service Association in 1988 to preserve it for the community. It is NOT in danger of being developed. However, Friendswood retained control of their Royal Shores green space until they sold it to Holley. And now nearby residents may lose their recreational area.
Recognize the Red Flags that Could Undermine Your Home Value
How can you be certain green space around you will remain green and not be developed in the future? Some hints:
Here are two checklists with even more warning signs to look for:
Use them to make sure someone doesn’t try to turn “your” promised green space into greenbacks.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/20/25
3035 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.
The Profit in Floodplain Development Explained
12/19/25 – Despite substantial hurdles, floodplain development can be very profitable for patient developers with deep pockets, even if only a small percentage of their land is developed.
For instance, Scarborough Lane Development/San Jacinto Preserve LP has purchased more than 5,000 acres of land in floodplains and floodways near the confluence of four waterways. They include the San Jacinto West Fork, Spring Creek, Cypress Creek, and Turkey Creek.
Buyer Says It Paid $140 Million for Property Appraised at Less Than $1 Million
Scarborough claims it paid close to $140 million for the property – 8X higher than the Montgomery County Appraisal District (MCAD) places the market value of the land and 175X higher than the appraised value. See below.
Even more stunning, Ryko, the company that sold the property to Scarborough/SJP, produced a preliminary engineering study that suggested only 38% of the land was developable because it has such high flood risk.
Actually, it makes perfect sense – if you understand how the game is played.
Spread Makes Bread
Said another way, buy low; sell high.
The exceedingly low appraised value of floodplain land helps developers acquire and hold the land, sometimes for decades – at a very low tax cost while they work out regulatory issues. And when they do, the step change in value is so great, that if only 20% of the land is developable, they likely still make money.
This is according to ChatGPT, which costed out details of several development scenarios for me. One was even profitable with only 10% developable land.
A wide spread between acquisition costs and potential land sales after all permits and mitigation costs are accounted for is one of the main reasons why developers target floodplain land.
The dynamic is well understood in land economics and is particularly visible in fast-growing regions like Montgomery County.
Floodplain land often sells at a steep discount relative to nearby uplands because of:
With steep, discounted prices in mind, even modest success—e.g., making 20–30% of a tract buildable — can make the entire investment profitable. Anything above that is gravy.
Why Floodplain Land Produces Unusually Large Spreads
Floodplain land tends to be priced as “mostly unusable.” Once permits are secured, the buildable portion prices like normal land. But the remainder can still be monetized as detention, mitigation, or open space.
Better yet for the developer, some of the land designated as green space may even be developed years later as the pain of flooding dims and political winds shift.
This can create huge “step” changes in land value.
Factors that Amplify Spread
In Texas, several factors amplify this spread. Consider, for instance:
Timber Exemptions that Lower Carrying Costs:
Developers pay only a few dollars in taxes per acre per year. On the five parcels above, taxes average $148 per acre per year. That makes patience very cheap. A well capitalized developer can afford to wait years while working out permitting issues.
Timber exemptions also mask speculative intent. On paper, the land looks like a passive forestry holding, not a development play.
Reliance on Post-Development Mitigation at Public Expense:
Some developers shift part of their mitigation costs onto the public. For example, some developers in Montgomery County have avoided building detention basins by using questionable flood routing studies. Even the former Montgomery County engineer criticized the practice. As flood peaks build over time, downstream residents clamor for mitigation. But it comes at public expense. So the developer has effectively externalized some of its costs.
Permissive Local Drainage Rules and Lax Enforcement:
This is especially true in counties that surround fast growing metropolitan areas. Some counties around Houston still use drainage criteria from the 1980s to help attract development.
Sometimes gaps in regulations cause flooding as Elm Grove discovered twice in 2019. Many floodplain developers tend to exploit such gaps in regulations and then claim they are complying with all applicable regulations.
Montgomery County recently upgraded its drainage criteria manual and adopted Atlas 14 rainfall probability standards. But willful blindness among regulators can still create a permissive environment to the detriment of people living downstream.
Risk/Reward Ratio Attracts Only Certain Types of Developers
Floodplain land tends to attract well-capitalized, patient developers with a 10–20 year horizon. For those with deep pockets and powerful partners, economics may work even if 90% of the land never becomes buildable.
This is not accidental; it is a rational, well-understood land-banking strategy.
However, the spread only turns into profit if risk converts to permission. It collapses if floodway limits are strictly enforced, mitigation costs surge, public opposition blocks approvals, or political sentiment hardens after major floods.
In such cases, floodplain land can become a capital trap, not a bargain. But still…
And that’s how the Houston region got 65,000 homes built in floodplains since Hurricane Harvey, as investigative reporter Yilun Cheng discovered for the Houston Chronicle.
Courageous reporting, such as hers, makes flood risk highly visible and politically salient. And that makes the spread harder to monetize. Witness recent resolutions by Harris County Precinct 3 and the City of Houston. It will be interesting to see Scarborough’s next moves.
Next Up
I am working on a series of posts about floodplain development. Next, I’ll examine the seductive promise of green space. Floodplain developers often promote abundant, recreational green space to early buyers in a development.
But just as often, they try to monetize that green space during the latter stages of a development – green space they promised early buyers would remain green forever. Check out the warning-sign checklists in my next post before you buy property to see if your green space could someday vanish.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/19/2025
3034 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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.