|
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).
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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?
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.
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:
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:
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 (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:
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.
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 (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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
| Category | Amount | Date / Notes | Source Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| Purchase Price | ~$7.6 million (winning auction bid); ~$8.57 million (incl. costs in one report) | Oct 2023 | City auction win; appraised ~$3M at time. Funded via city resources/bonds. |
| Additional Investments / Operations / Improvements | ~$4.6M–$6.4M+ (bringing totals to reported figures) | 2023–2025 | Includes 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 million | July 2025 (official) Dec 2025+ | Direct public outlay for acquisition, holding, and repositioning. Primary taxpayer subsidy figure. |
| Sale Structure - Cash from Buyer | $1 million | Deal 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+ years | Via 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-sale | Endeavor Hotel Group commitment for rebrand/repositioning. |
| County Contribution (Related) | ~$6 million | For Maner Conference Center rehab + long-term management | Shawnee 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. |
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.
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):
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).
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.
