One day after the Corpus Christi Housing Authority Board voted to void controversial workforce housing agreements covering 13 apartment complexes, property owners filed an emergency request for a temporary restraining order to s top the Housing Authority from implementing that decision.Companies that own the apartment complexeswith a combined appraised value of approximately $350 millionfiled the motion on Wednesday, warning that the Housing Authority's actions could trigger foreclosures, displace hundreds of families, and cause "catastrophic" financial harm.In sworn declarations filed with the court, property owners detailed the severe consequences they face if the Housing Authority follows through on its January 6 resolution.William J. Bruggeman, who owns five apartment complexes in Corpus Christi participating in the program, told the court he paid $839,500 in upfront fees, refinanced his properties, and personally guaranteed tens of millions of dollars in loans based on the agreements."If the CCHA votes to void these legally binding contracts, there will be several extreme, severe results," Bruggeman told the board last week. "The lenders may foreclose on all 13 of the properties...This will eliminate a program hundreds of local working families depend on to afford their rents, likely leaving them without homes. It will bankrupt my company and me personally."Brad Swearer, CFO of GWR Management LLC, which owns four properties in the program, said his company arranged $73.8 million in financing for the workforce housing agreements and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Housing Authority."A decision with the CCHA to void the contracts would be catastrophic," Swearer stated. "A repeal of the tax exemption would cause an incurable default of the requirements of the loan. The properties would not be able to make debt service payments without the tax savings, and ultimately, may be foreclosed upon."In a brief supporting the temporary restraining order, attorneys for the property owners argue that the Housing Authority cannot unilaterally terminate binding contracts simply because it now regrets entering into them."TOMA is not a 'get out of jail free' card for government entities to use to break their contractual commitments," the brief states.The property owners contend that: They deeded valuable land to the Housing Authority, paid millions in fees, and took out large loans in reliance on the agreements The contracts contain no provisions allowing the Housing Authority to unilaterally void them The Housing Authority's resolution contradicts representations it made to lenders Monetary damages cannot compensate for the cascading harms of foreclosure, credit damage, loss of reputation, and business disruption"Intervenors are caught in the cross-fire of a skirmish between local governments," the brief states. "There has never once been a suggestion, by the Housing Authority or anyone else, that Intervenors did not contractually do what they were supposed to do."Background: A Months-Long ControversyThe workforce housing initiative has been at the center of controversy since a KRIS 6 News investigation in 2025 revealed potential violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act.Between July 2024 and March 2025, the Housing Authority acquired land under 13 apartment complexes with a combined appraised value of approximately $350 million. Under the agreements, the Housing Authority would own the land and lease it back to property owners, creating a tax exemption structure. In exchange, properties committed to reserving 50% of units for residents earning 80% or less of area median income, with rents capped at 30-35% of household income.The deals drew unified opposition from the Corpus Christi City Council, Del Mar College, and Nueces County, which warned the properties could remove approximately $7.4 million annually from local tax rolls.A KRIS 6 News investigation found that meeting agendas for the property acquisitions provided only vague descriptions such as "Consider Resolution for MOU" with an apartment name, with no mention of tax breaks or land purchases.Key Timeline: May 2025: Mayor Paulette Guajardo appointed three new board members June 2025: City Council unanimously declared the deals "apparently illegal" July 2025: Nueces County Appraisal District denied tax exemption requests September 2025: Nueces County Commissioners authorized legal action; board terminated CEO Gary Allsup October 2025: Nueces County filed lawsuit seeking to void agreements November 2025: Companies intervened to defend the deals January 6, 2026: Board voted unanimously to void agreements January 7, 2026: Property owners filed emergency motion for temporary restraining orderOn Tuesday, board president Cathy Mehne read a statement declaring that from July 31, 2024, to March 25, 2025, the board did not comply with the Open Meetings Act regarding the workforce housing agreements."I appreciate the comments of members of the community and tenants and in making this motion, I am mindful of the reported benefits of the arrangements under these inappropriately executed agreements, but we cannot responsibly ignore the prior board's failure to comply with the open meetings law or the former CEO's actions taken without board approval and the legally required public notice and scrutiny," Mehne said.The resolution authorized the Housing Authority to return all properties to the private companies that conveyed them, withdraw as a member from related business entities, and return all fees and rent received.The temporary restraining order request is pending. If granted, it would prevent the Housing Authority from taking any action to implement its January 6 resolution while the case proceeds. ...read more read less