Sunday, June 28, 2026

Shaquille O’Neal’s “Accidental” Google Investment – And the Real Estate Lesson Hidden Inside

By Henry McClure

MCRE, LLC – Commercial Real Estate Brokerage & Development, Topeka, Kansas Published: [Insert Date]

Shaquille O’Neal earned more than $290 million during his NBA playing career. That’s an enormous sum by any measure. Yet one early investment he almost forgot about may have delivered some of his best long-term returns.

Back in the late 1990s, Shaq was at a hotel when he overheard two entrepreneurs discussing a small search startup called Google. The internet was still new, chaotic, and full of companies burning cash with no clear path to profit. Most high-earning athletes were focused on luxury spending. Shaq started paying attention to ownership instead.

He invested roughly $250,000 in Google before its explosive growth. Years later, he admitted he had basically forgotten about the investment until a newspaper article reminded him of its massive payoff (reportedly growing to around $16.5 million).

The Genius Wasn’t Luck — It Was Pattern Recognition

At the time, Google didn’t look like a sure thing compared to the big tech names dominating headlines. To most people, it was “just another internet company.” But Shaq (and the people around him) recognized something deeper.

Google wasn’t building a simple website feature. It was building infrastructure — the gateway to the entire internet. Search became essential for:

  • Every person needing navigation online
  • Every business needing visibility
  • Every advertiser needing targeted traffic

By dominating search, Google gained control over attention, data, and digital commerce. That positioned the company at the center of one of the most powerful economic systems in modern history. The rest is history: Google scaled into a multi-trillion-dollar empire.

The Deeper Lesson for Investors and Developers

Shaq understood a principle that separates those who build lasting wealth from those who don’t: The biggest opportunities are usually available before the crowd fully understands them.

He didn’t stop with Google. Over time, he invested in Apple, Ring (a major exit to Amazon), restaurant franchises like Five Guys, Krispy Kreme, and Papa John’s, car washes, fitness chains, and other systems built on recurring revenue and everyday consumer behavior.

He shifted from thinking like an entertainer to thinking like a capital allocator — someone who owns pieces of scalable systems rather than just trading time or talent for dollars.

How This Applies to Real Estate and Local Development

In commercial real estate, the same mindset wins. The highest returns often come from identifying undervalued assets, emerging trends, or underutilized locations before the market prices them in.

Think about:

  • Shovel-ready sites with proper zoning, drainage, and infrastructure in place
  • Sale-leaseback opportunities that provide immediate liquidity and tax advantages while keeping strong operators in place
  • Mixed-use or redevelopment plays (like the pickleball/pub concepts or 55+ housing we’ve been modeling here in Topeka/Shawnee County) that tap into changing demographics and lifestyle demands
  • TIF, CID, or STAR bond districts where public-private alignment can accelerate growth

Just like Google controlled the “search gateway,” prime real estate controls location, access, visibility, and traffic flow. Owning or developing inside those systems creates exponential value over time.

Most people chase quick income. Smart operators and investors focus on ownership in assets that generate cash flow, appreciate, and benefit from broader economic tailwinds.

Final Thought

Shaq’s Google story isn’t really about one lucky bet. It’s about positioning yourself near transformative systems early, doing the homework, and maintaining the discipline to own equity rather than just consume.

Whether you’re a professional athlete, a real estate developer, a small business owner, or someone building for the next generation — the principle holds: Study the systems. Own the infrastructure. Think long-term.

The internet didn’t exist in its current form when Shaq made that investment. The Topeka and Shawnee County of tomorrow won’t look exactly like today either. The question is: Where are you positioning yourself now?

Madison, Wisconsin (state capital, Dane County seat) has a layered but well-coordinated planning system typical of growing Midwestern metro areas.

It features strong local control (city and county), a regional planning commission for land use and water quality, and a separate federally required Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for transportation. This structure supports integrated planning while respecting municipal boundaries and home rule.

City of Madison Planning Structure

The City of Madison handles planning and zoning within its incorporated limits through the Department of Planning, Community & Economic Development (DPCED), specifically its Planning Division.

Key functions include:

  • Developing and implementing the city’s vision for growth.
  • Creating and updating long-range and area-specific plans.
  • Supporting development review.
  • Managing historic landmarks (184 local ones).
  • Integrating public art (1% of major capital projects).
  • Data analysis and extensive public engagement.

The division supports 12 planning areas and has facilitated major housing approvals (over 2,500 homes via Plan Commission in 2025 alone). Recent work includes approval of Southwest and Southeast Area Plans by the Common Council in June 2026.

Plan Commission (advisory body to the Common Council) reviews and recommends on:

  • Comprehensive plan amendments.
  • Zoning changes/rezonings.
  • Subdivisions/plats.
  • Major development proposals.
  • Certified survey maps.

It holds regular public meetings (often Mondays at 5:30 pm or other scheduled times) and is a key venue for public input and debate. There are also related bodies like the Urban Design Commission, Landmarks Commission, and Madison Arts Commission.

The guiding document is the Imagine Madison Comprehensive Plan (adopted after extensive “Imagine Madison” public engagement campaign). It addresses housing, transportation, equity, complete neighborhoods, growth management, and sustainability. It functions as a “living document” with updates, supported by area plans and data/maps. Wisconsin law (smart growth statutes) requires comprehensive plans for many land-use actions, and they are typically updated at least every 10 years.

Contact: planning@cityofmadison.com or via cityofmadison.com/dpced/planning.

Dane County Planning Structure

Dane County (which contains Madison and many suburbs/rural towns) has its own Department of Planning and Development (often referenced via danecountyplanning.com or plandev.countyofdane.com). It primarily serves unincorporated areas of the county (not inside Madison or other incorporated municipalities).

The department has three divisions:

  • Planning.
  • Zoning.
  • Land Records and Support (includes County Surveyor; maintains parcels/tax data countywide except Madison proper).

It administers zoning ordinances, reviews development, issues permits (zoning, conditional use, floodplain, shoreland), and assists with comprehensive planning issues. Many towns and villages either handle their own zoning or contract/rely on county services; local clerks are often the first point of contact.

Oversight comes from the Zoning and Land Regulation Committee (ZLR), a standing committee of the Dane County Board. It acts as the policy/supervisory body for the department, holds public hearings, and recommends rezonings, ordinance amendments, and subdivision actions to the full County Board. There is also a Board of Adjustment (5 members appointed by the County Executive) that handles variances and zoning appeals in a quasi-judicial capacity.

Director-level contact examples from public info include Todd Violante (Planning & Development leadership references). General: plandev@danecounty.gov or 608-266-4266.

Regional Entities: CARPC and the MPO

There is no single “metropolitan planning commission” that combines everything. Instead, two distinct regional bodies exist with complementary roles:

  • Capital Area Regional Planning Commission (CARPC): An independent regional planning agency created in 2007 by gubernatorial executive order under Wisconsin Statute § 66.0309. It serves Dane County and its municipalities (cities, villages, towns within the county).

    Primary responsibilities: Regional land-use/master planning for physical development and areawide water quality management planning (under contract with WDNR). It develops the 2050 Regional Development Framework (RDF) emphasizing smart growth, compact/sustainable development, resource protection, and intergovernmental collaboration. It supports local planning efforts and addresses cross-boundary issues like natural resources and economic development. CARPC is not the transportation MPO.

  • Greater Madison Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO): The federally designated MPO (required for urbanized areas >50,000 population under 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303). It is administered/housed within the City of Madison’s DPCED structure but serves a regional area covering most (but not all) of Dane County and 36 communities.

    It leads the continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive (“3C”) transportation planning process. Key products include the long-range Regional Transportation Plan (currently updating as Pathways to 2050 / Connect Greater Madison), the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the Unified Planning Work Program. It balances roadways, transit (Metro Transit), biking, walking, and other modes.

Governance of the MPO: A Policy Board (decision-making body, meets monthly) composed primarily of local elected officials (from member cities, villages, towns, and county), plus required state (WisDOT) and public transit agency representatives. A Technical Coordinating Committee provides staff-level input. The Policy Board approves the TIP and other core documents after public involvement and technical analysis.

Who delegates traffic/road funds? The MPO Policy Board is the key local/regional decision-maker for programming federal transportation funds (FHWA highway and FTA transit funds) in the metropolitan area. The TIP lists and prioritizes specific projects eligible for these funds; projects generally must be in an approved TIP to receive federal aid. Priorities reflect regional goals, performance measures (safety, congestion, equity, environment, etc.), the long-range plan, and public input. WisDOT coordinates on the state highway system and provides technical/funding support but the MPO leads the regional allocation of formula federal funds for the urbanized area. Local governments often provide matching funds. This is the primary mechanism for “delegating” where major traffic/road/transit capital investments go in the Madison metro.

CARPC and the MPO coordinate closely—e.g., the RDF and RTP use shared growth projections and aligned performance indicators for integrated land-use/transportation planning.

Madison and Dane County Context

Madison (2020 Census: 269,840; recent estimates ~279k–285k) sits on an isthmus between Lakes Mendota and Monona, with a distinctive geography that shapes growth. It is Wisconsin’s capital (State Capitol building downtown), home to the University of Wisconsin–Madison (major employer and research anchor), and a hub for government, education, biotech/tech, healthcare, and tourism. The city is known for progressive politics, strong environmental ethos, bike/ped/transit culture, food scene, and outdoor recreation.

Dane County (2025 est. ~590k population; 2020: ~561k) is one of Wisconsin’s fastest-growing counties. Projections vary but show strong growth to 778k–887k by 2050 (higher local/CARPC-linked estimates). Madison captures much of the growth, with suburbs like Middleton, Sun Prairie, Fitchburg, and others also expanding. The county blends urban core, suburban communities, agriculture, lakes, and rural areas.

Key Planning Issues and Dynamics

Madison’s planning environment is active and often contentious, reflecting rapid growth, housing needs, and competing values (density vs. neighborhood character, preservation vs. redevelopment, cars vs. alternatives, equity vs. existing patterns). Notable themes include:

  • Housing Supply, Density, and Affordability: Persistent push for more housing via zoning reforms. In 2025, the Common Council unanimously approved changes allowing duplexes/twin homes in more residential zones and simplifying permitting for small/mid-sized downtown projects (Housing Forward initiatives). Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) overlays near Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and major routes aim to boost density and housing near transit—but have sparked opposition from some historic district and single-family neighborhood residents concerned about character change, demolitions, parking, and “upzoning.” Critics have labeled some resistance “progressive NIMBY-ism.” High volumes of housing approvals continue.
  • Historic Preservation vs. Development: Ongoing debates at the Landmarks Commission and Plan Commission over demolitions, adaptive reuse, and new construction in or near historic districts. TOD overlays have extended into some historic areas after council votes.
  • Growth Management and Sprawl: CARPC’s 2050 RDF promotes compact, sustainable patterns to protect farmland, water resources, and natural areas while accommodating growth. City area plans and comprehensive plan updates guide where and how development occurs.
  • Transportation and Multimodal Priorities: Strong emphasis on transit (BRT implementation and future planning), biking, walking, and reducing car dependency. MPO’s Pathways to 2050 update is actively seeking public input. Debates persist over road expansions versus alternatives and equity of access.
  • Environmental and Water Quality: Sensitive lakes (eutrophication concerns on Mendota), stormwater management, groundwater protection, and climate resilience are central. CARPC’s water quality planning role is key here.
  • Downtown and Infill Redevelopment: Pressure for mixed-use, housing, and hospitality projects (e.g., Brayton Lot visions). Isthmus geography creates both constraints and opportunities.
  • Equity and Inclusion: The comprehensive plan and initiatives stress equitable neighborhoods, access to opportunity, and inclusive growth.
  • Public Engagement and Process: Madison emphasizes robust outreach, but development reviews can involve lengthy hearings, appeals, and political dynamics at Plan Commission and Council. State laws (including recent housing/zoning reforms) influence local processes.

Other notes: Annexation and extraterritorial issues occasionally arise between the city and surrounding towns. Public art, historic landmarks, and design review add layers to development review.

Overall System Strengths and Notes

The system features clear separation of roles (local vs. regional, land use vs. transportation) with intentional coordination between CARPC and the MPO. Local elected officials (via city Plan Commission/Council, county ZLR/Board, and MPO Policy Board) hold significant influence. Strong data resources, public engagement traditions, and planning capacity (bolstered by UW-Madison and professional staff) support evidence-based work. Challenges include balancing growth pressures with neighborhood concerns and achieving housing goals amid rising costs.

For the most current details, visit:

  • City Planning: cityofmadison.com/dpced/planning
  • Dane County Planning & Development: danecountyplanning.com or plandev.countyofdane.com
  • CARPC: capitalarearpc.org
  • Greater Madison MPO: cityofmadison.com/mpo (or greatermadisonmpo.org)
  • Plan Commission agendas/materials: Via Legistar or city channels.

This structure offers useful models for comparison in other growing capitals or mid-sized metros, particularly around integrated regional planning, MPO-driven transportation investment, and zoning reforms to address housing. Specific projects or comparisons (e.g., to other states) can be explored further if needed. 

Hotel Topeka Taxpayer Costs: A Consolidated Summary of Public Investment and Recovery Efforts

By Henry McClure | MCRE Kansas | June 28, 2026

As a longtime Topeka real estate broker and advocate for transparent economic development, I've closely followed the Hotel Topeka project at City Center (1717 SW Topeka Blvd). The City of Topeka's acquisition and repositioning of this property raises important questions about taxpayer dollars, incentives like CID and TGT, and accountability in local government spending.

Below is a consolidated summary of the key costs based on official city announcements, Topeka Development Corporation (TDC) discussions, council actions, and local reporting. This aims to bring clarity to the numbers amid evolving figures and deal structures.

Consolidated Cost Summary Table

CategoryAmountDate / NotesSource Context
Purchase Price~$7.6 million (winning auction bid); ~$8.57 million (incl. costs in one report)Oct 2023City auction win; appraised ~$3M at time. Funded via city resources/bonds.
Additional Investments / Operations / Improvements~$4.6M–$6.4M+ (bringing totals to reported figures)2023–2025Includes capex, ops support (~$1.2M in 2024; ~$1M additional in periods), legal, interest on temp notes, etc.
Total City/Taxpayer Investment (Cumulative)$12.2 million (official baseline) ~$14 million (later reports) Mentions up to ~$17.7 millionJuly 2025 (official) Dec 2025+Direct public outlay for acquisition, holding, and repositioning. Primary taxpayer subsidy figure.
Sale Structure - Cash from Buyer$1 millionDeal with Endeavor Hotel Group (2025–2026)Down payment / initial recovery.
Balance to Recoup via Dedicated Revenues~$11.2M (from $12.2M baseline; higher with updated totals)Over ~17–20+ yearsVia CID (2% additional sales tax on hotel property) + incremental/special Transient Guest Tax (TGT) from guests. Approved by Council.
Buyer / Private Investment~$6M (rehab) + ~$2M (ops support)Post-saleEndeavor Hotel Group commitment for rebrand/repositioning.
County Contribution (Related)~$6 millionFor Maner Conference Center rehab + long-term managementShawnee County, tied to overall campus deal.
Incentive Package Discussed~$15 million economic development grant + 20-year property tax increment (TIF-like)Bid/offer process (2024–2025)Offered in developer solicitations; may represent total support value (grant equivalent + tax mechanisms). Not always separate in final structure.

Detailed Breakdown and Context

  • 2023 Purchase: The City stepped in at auction to acquire the hotel with the goal of boosting tourism and convention business. While the move was framed around economic impact (projected ~$20 million annual visitor spending if redeveloped), the premium over appraisal has been a point of discussion.
  • Ongoing City Spending: Post-purchase investments covered operations support, capital improvements, and holding costs. By mid-2025, the official total reached $12.2 million, rising to around $14 million by late 2025 in subsequent reports.
  • Current Deal Structure (Endeavor Hotel Group): The property is transitioning to private operation. The buyer provides $1 million cash upfront, with the balance of the City's investment targeted for recovery over 17–20+ years through CID (2% on-site sales tax) and incremental TGT revenues—both tied specifically to hotel guests and spending. This is intended to minimize ongoing burden on general taxpayers.
  • Incentives and Tools: Discussions included a potential $15 million economic development grant and property tax increment financing during the bidding process. A CID was formally approved, and TIF options were evaluated (TIF typically for increments on increased property values and eligible improvements).

Analysis and Taxpayer Implications

This project exemplifies the use of tools like Community Improvement Districts (CID) and Transient Guest Taxes to fund redevelopment while attempting to recoup public dollars from project-generated revenues. Proponents highlight potential jobs, visitor spending, and revitalization benefits. Critics, including those focused on fiscal responsibility, point to the initial outlay, carrying costs, long payback period, and risks if performance falls short of projections (e.g., room nights, RevPAR).

Net takeaway: Taxpayers have fronted approximately $12–14 million+ directly. Recovery mechanisms are in place via dedicated taxes on the hotel itself, but success depends on execution and market conditions. Related county investment in the Maner Conference Center adds to the public commitment.

Full transparency in these deals—through clear reporting, audits, and uniform processes—is essential for building trust and ensuring Shawnee County remains competitive. I encourage residents to review city council packets, TDC minutes, and budget documents for the latest details.

What are your thoughts on this project or similar incentives in Topeka? Share in the comments or contact me at MCRE, LLC. Let's keep pushing for "Shovel-Ready" projects and accountability that put Shawnee County first.

Sources: City of Topeka announcements (topeka.gov), TDC meetings, WIBW, KSNT, and related public records. Figures are consolidated from available reports as of June 2026 and may be updated with final closing or audit data.

Figures have evolved with updates (e.g., from $12.2M to $14M+), and exact final accounting depends on closing documents, interest costs, and actual revenues.

 Approximately $12.2–14+ million in direct city (taxpayer) investment since the 2023 purchase, structured for partial/long-term recovery via hotel-specific revenues rather than a traditional upfront grant or broad TIF/STAR bond subsidy.

Here is the breakdown of the key numbers based on official city announcements, news reports, council actions, and Topeka Development Corporation (TDC) discussions (primarily 2023–2026):

1. Purchase (2023)

  • City of Topeka won the auction for the existing Hotel Topeka (at 1717 SW Topeka Blvd / City Center) in October 2023.
  • Winning bid: ~$7.6 million (commonly reported; one source cites $8,573,600 including costs/fees). The property had a 2023 appraisal around $3 million, so the city paid a premium.
  • Funded via bonds or city resources; purchase authorized by governing body (7-2 vote) to support tourism, conventions, and economic development after the hotel went to auction.

2. Total City Investment/Spending to Date

  • By July 2025 (official city announcement): $12.2 million total spent on Hotel Topeka (purchase + operations support, capital improvements, legal/fees, interest on temporary notes, etc.).
  • By December 2025: Reports of ~$14 million invested (including improvements and operations).
  • Additional context: ~$1.2 million supplementing operations in 2024 alone; further ~$1 million+ in one reported period. One 2025 reference mentioned $17.7 million spent so far (possibly including projections, interest, or broader accounting). Earlier 2025 council actions added incremental funding (e.g., $291k bringing a running total to ~$11.53 million).
  • These funds came from city resources (general funds, bonding capacity, possibly TGT allocations), representing the core direct taxpayer outlay/subsidy for acquiring and propping up a distressed asset.

3. Sale/Recoupment Structure with Endeavor Hotel Group (2025–2026 Deal)

  • Sale to Wichita-based Endeavor Hotel Group (which plans ~$6M rehab + $2M ops support; rebrand/reposition, possibly as Hilton DoubleTree or similar/Wyndham-related).
  • $1 million cash payment from buyer.
  • Remaining balance of city’s investment (~$11.2 million from the $12.2M baseline, or adjusted higher with later totals) to be recouped over ~17–20+ years via:
    • Community Improvement District (CID): 2% additional retail sales tax on sales at the hotel property (approved by City Council, e.g., 8-2 vote). Dedicated to recouping city costs.
    • Incremental/special Transient Guest Tax (TGT/bed tax): Captured incremental or dedicated TGT revenues from hotel guests (city council actions approved mechanisms; city-wide TGT also adjusted/increased, with portions tied to this). Earlier projections: redeveloped hotel could generate ~$440k+ annual TGT and ~$1M sales tax.
  • Official city framing (July 2025): Taxes collected only from hotel guests/spending; structured so the city recoups its investment as the hotel succeeds under private operation. Projections (e.g., RevPAR models) showed payback in 17 years for ~$9.8M or 19 years for ~$11.3M under strong performance assumptions.
  • Related county commitment: Shawnee County to provide long-term management of Maner Conference Center + invest ~$6 million in its rehab to match hotel upgrades.

This is more of a self-liquidating/public investment recovery via dedicated property revenues than an outright permanent subsidy. General taxpayers bear interim carrying costs (interest, opportunity cost, risk of underperformance/shortfall).

4. Additional Incentives Discussed (~$15 Million Scale)

  • During bid/offer processes (e.g., late 2024–2025), documents and reports referenced the City offering developers a $15 million economic development grant + a 20-year property tax increment (TIF-like mechanism to capture increased property taxes from improvements).
  • TIF discussions occurred in TDC meetings for potentially capturing increments to help reimburse purchase price + improvements (TIF can apply to purchase price and exterior/public improvements under Kansas law; CID handles on-site sales tax). A full TIF district for Hotel Topeka was considered but the executed structure emphasized CID + TGT.
  • The $15M figure likely represented the total contemplated incentive/support package value (grant equivalent + tax increment financing benefits) to attract private investment/rehab, in addition to or encompassing the low effective sale price and recoupment tools. It was not always framed as new cash on top of the $12M+ sunk costs in later official sale announcements.

Summary of Taxpayer Subsidy

  • Direct/public funds committed: ~$12.2–14 million+ (purchase + ongoing costs through 2025–2026). This is the clearest “subsidized” amount—taxpayer dollars used to buy and sustain the hotel.
  • No major pre-2023 TIF/STAR/CID subsidies identified specifically for this hotel’s original development (city acquired an existing asset at auction).
  • Recovery mechanism: Mostly from hotel guests and on-site spending (CID sales tax + TGT increment), not ongoing general taxpayer levies. Full recoupment projected in 17–20+ years if performance targets are met; risk remains with the city/taxpayers.
  • Incentive context: Up to ~$15 million scale in grant/TIF-style support discussed in deal structuring to enable private redevelopment.
  • Broader context: Aimed at tourism/convention economic impact (~$20 million annual visitor spending projected if redeveloped successfully). Critics (including local advocates) highlight the premium purchase price, total outlay, carrying costs, and questions about net return vs. alternatives.

Figures have evolved with updates (e.g., from $12.2M to $14M+), and exact final accounting depends on closing documents, interest costs, and actual revenues. Official sources like topeka.gov and TDC materials provide the baseline; local reporting (WIBW, KSNT, CJOnline) tracks the debate. For the absolute latest post-June 2026 closing details, check city council/TDC minutes or recent financial reports, as the deal was progressing toward a mid-2026 handover.

This aligns with common Topeka economic development tools (CID, TGT increment, limited TIF discussions) but stands out due to the city’s direct ownership and large front-loaded investment in an existing property.