LOL.

1. Karchmer apparently owns 1/3rd to the City controlled 2/3rds.

2. The rail was discussed at length in the 2nd meeting and I think its placement on their list is arbitrary. They certainly made a big deal out of it in the 2nd meeting.

3. A private discussion is a private discussion. Shocked at the carrot dangling Steve.

I doubt that karchmer has 1/3 of the land. This is a 2300 space garage. That would make it quite a bit bigger than Santa Fe. Likely it would use the entire city lot all the way to walnut


Can he go forward with only using his land. Well not with this idea. Could he build something else. Sure and even though it would be "in the way". Many would not have a problem with it. But that is very different that the city letting something be built on their land that disrupts the cities future plan

Do you honestly expect Steve to answer a question like that? Did he make a statement about fighting dogs?

No, he said he wasn't one of the fighting dogs, but he doesn't name who they are. His title is journalist, and he often mentions that he has insider information, so it would be a quality act of journalism to let people know who is behind the development, who is pushing it, who else is befitting from it, etc.

You know, the kind of stuff journalists do.

The citizens of Central Oklahoma stand to lose an important piece of rail infrastructure so these unnamed interests can make money. Who are they?

Instead of reporting that, Steve goes on a message board and starts a spat. Not very professional. And not quality journalism.

Steve does some great things but he seems to have a heavy grudge against Urban Professional -- and by extension, many transit advocates. it's unbecoming.

No reason to give him a free pass on that just because he does good work elsewhere.

The sad thing is, if I were Steve I would consider not returning to this board. In that case this board only loses its value another source gone.
We all know the phrase " there are three sides to every story, our side the other side and the truth". Our tendency is to believe that our side can be the only truth.
And why is it on this board in particular, people cannot have an opinion. Having opinions is what makes us all individuals. I believe there are many on this board it would be extremely upset if the city made decisions without getting the public opinion first. some on this board, when object ing to an opinion, resort to name calling and making things personal.We always return to our fundamental assumptions in the absence of some insight. Journalists like to think they live outside of that constraint. But the question does not form itself from nothing and the asking immediately causes more ripples.

I really have not noticed an absence of opinions or any reluctance to share them on this forum.

I'm with Flinty. Steve knows the undeniable value of this massive public resource that Pete has built, and many key figures whom are in unfathomably high places in the community lurk here. Steve's job, as a news brand, is to be a participant in that conservation and synthesize all of the relevant discussion that is ongoing.

He wouldn't be here if he wasn't proactively accepting and enjoying how news media has been fundamentally revolutionized, and any seasoned journalist is going to have very thick skin. Journalists get caught in the crossfire and take their own heat when people aren't happy with only their side being reported.

I also think Steve is in the unique position of having gone advocacy at times (over obvious things that offended his moral judgment, like corporations picking on UnFrSkn for example). For developments he holds himself to a higher standard than advocacy, even choosing not to report on a LOT of uncooked projects. That said, a lot of people I see make the mistake of being offended when they expect Steve to go advocacy for them and he doesn't.

Since it was brought up that everyone should be entitled to express their opinion, here is mine: Urban should resign from the committee immediately.

Since it was brought up that everyone should be entitled to express their opinion, here is mine: Urban should resign from the committee immediately.

Since you've never been known for your grasp on reality or your desire to improve OKC, I guess thanks for your opinion lol

Come on prissy boy. You know damn well you are junior space cadet of the whole forum. If that is your best shot you still have a long way to go to achieve the maturity you will need when you reach adult status. How long will it be before you are terminated from your Cleveland job and back here living off your dad again.

Ok, fine. You should resign immediately.

There's my best shot &

This thread is intense. Too intense.

There needs be a virtual group hug session.

Steve does some great things but he seems to have a heavy grudge against Urban Professional.

What is that?

Steve obviously has some information from UP that would bolster his argument and has repeatedly ask for permission to share it. Steve wouldn't ask for permission if the information would compromise UP, so I would like to know why UP won't let the rest of us know in on something that may really clear things up.

I think all the innuendo here is confusing people. And I'm not sure any of it is healthy.

Since it was brought up that everyone should be entitled to express their opinion, here is mine: Urban should resign from the committee immediately.

Its my opinion...thats pretty freakin funny! You too Sparty! LOL, witty

alright... let's cool off and stop it with the personal attacks. -M

Steve obviously has some information from UP that would bolster his argument and has repeatedly ask for permission to share it. Steve wouldn't ask for permission if the information would compromise UP, so I would like to know why UP won't let the rest of us know in on something that may really clear things up.

Which just goes to show Steve's hipocracy. The game of I have a secert but can't share it goes against the very idea of off the record conversations. If Steve can't/won't share whatever it is he knows. Then he shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. I can't think of something much more unprofessional then asking is that permission on a message bord over and over like a 5th grader.

No, he said he wasn't one of the fighting dogs, but he doesn't name who they are. His title is journalist, and he often mentions that he has insider information, so it would be a quality act of journalism to let people know who is behind the development, who is pushing it, who else is befitting from it, etc.

You know, the kind of stuff journalists do.

So you think Steve should go into a public forum and divulge everything he knows? LOL
That's hardly the kind of stuff journalists do.

Which just goes to show Steve's hipocracy. The game of I have a secert but can't share it goes against the very idea of off the record conversations. If Steve can't/won't share whatever it is he knows. Then he shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. I can't think of something much more unprofessional then asking is that permission on a message bord over and over like a 5th grader.


Since you have no idea what was meant by what he said, you are in no position to claim something was unprofessional. And the 5th grader comment goes directly against mmm's request.

So you think Steve should go into a public forum and divulge everything he knows? LOL
That's hardly the kind of stuff journalists do.

No, that's not what I said. I was very specific. Read closer if you care (I don't think you do).

I'm not trying to argue with you. I suggested that he could provide information that would be in the public interest of this story, specifically: who are the interests involved in this development and what do they stand to gain? Also, what does the public stand to lose? This is pretty basic stuff. It's what award-winning journalists in major markets do.

I did not suggest he "divulge everything he knows" on a public forum. In fact, I would just as soon Steve report in the Oklahoman, and if you read my comments, my major critique was that instead of providing this information -- which is of high value to the public -- he chose instead to visit this forum and engage in a personal spat.

I guess you didn't read very closely.

There is no personal spat. I provided information that conflicted w what he said and that was greeted with hostility. I have done the same to spartan without such name calling as you have engaged in sooner. You can continue with the insults. I am done with this thread.

No, that's not what I said. I was very specific. Read closer if you care (I don't think you do).

I'm not trying to argue with you. I suggested that he could provide information that would be in the public interest of this story, specifically: who are the interests involved in this development and what do they stand to gain? Also, what does the public stand to lose? This is pretty basic stuff. It's what award-winning journalists in major markets do.

I did not suggest he "divulge everything he knows" on a public forum. In fact, I would just as soon Steve report in the Oklahoman, and if you read my comments, my major critique was that instead of providing this information -- which is of high value to the public -- he chose instead to visit this forum and engage in a personal spat.

I guess you didn't read very closely.

No, I read exactly what you said. And award winning journalists in major markets do not go onto public forums to give the kind of information you are talking about. He isn't here to provide investigative background and speculate on motives. I would be shocked if any good journalist did something like that. He was providing facts and that's all.

No, that's not what I said. I was very specific. Read closer if you care (I don't think you do).

I'm not trying to argue with you. I suggested that he could provide information that would be in the public interest of this story, specifically: who are the interests involved in this development and what do they stand to gain? Also, what does the public stand to lose? This is pretty basic stuff. It's what award-winning journalists in major markets do.

I did not suggest he "divulge everything he knows" on a public forum. In fact, I would just as soon Steve report in the Oklahoman, and if you read my comments, my major critique was that instead of providing this information -- which is of high value to the public -- he chose instead to visit this forum and engage in a personal spat.

I guess you didn't read very closely.

No, I read exactly what you said. And award winning journalists in major markets to not go onto public forums to give the kind of information you are talking about. He isn't here to provide investigative background and speculative on motives. He was providing facts and that's all. You were not specific at all about where you thought he should post the muckraking information you want. Steve does not shy away from controversy but he deals in facts instead of speculation.

Since you weren't involved in the "spat", as you call it, maybe you should defer to the parties involved as to what it was.

No, I read exactly what you said. And award winning journalists in major markets do not go onto public forums to give the kind of information you are talking about. He isn't here to provide investigative background and speculate on motives. I would be shocked if any good journalist did something like that. He was providing facts and that's all.

Again, you must be skimming, not reading. I said, and I'll quote for you what I said: "I would just as soon Steve report in the Oklahoman..." and "I did not suggest he "divulge everything he knows" on a public forum."

If you don't understand what I'm saying here, let me say it another way: I DO NOT BELIEVE STEVE SHOULD COME ON OKC TALK AND DIVULGE ALL OF HIS INSIDE INFORMATION. I THINK HE SHOULD REPORT IN THE OKLAHOMAN WHO STANDS TO GAIN FROM THE PROPOSAL AND WHAT THE PUBLIC STANDS TO LOSE.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult to comprehend.

Again, you must be skimming, not reading. I said, and I'll quote for you what I said: "I would just as soon Steve report in the Oklahoman..." and "I did not suggest he "divulge everything he knows" on a public forum."

If you don't understand what I'm saying here, let me say it another way: I DO NOT BELIEVE STEVE SHOULD COME ON OKC TALK AND DIVULGE ALL OF HIS INSIDE INFORMATION. I THINK HE SHOULD REPORT IN THE OKLAHOMAN WHO STANDS TO GAIN FROM THE PROPOSAL AND WHAT THE PUBLIC STANDS TO LOSE.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult to comprehend.

LOL, that's not what you said when you first mentioned it. It's easy to go back and say "but this is what I really meant". Even then, he deals in facts and not speculation, no matter where it's posted.

LOL, that's not what you said when you first mentioned it. It's easy to go back and say "but this is what I really meant". Even then, he deals in facts and not speculation, no matter where it's posted.

I didn't change what I said. This is what I said: "Instead of reporting that, Steve goes on a message board and starts a spat."

I made it clear I would just as soon Steve conduct journalism about the story in the paper than having him come on OKCTalk and engage in a spat. My comments were consistent.

Perhaps you think journalists should only report what's in the public record, providing no background on stories, but that's not how the big leaguers do it. And Steve would be the first to admit that he often offers his opinions -- nothing wrong with that -- but your suggestion that he only reports facts without opinions doesn't hold water, nor just about anything else you argue.

There is no personal spat. I provided information that conflicted w what he said and that was greeted with hostility. I have done the same to spartan without such name calling as you have engaged in sooner. You can continue with the insults. I am done with this thread.

Name calling? Provide one example. You can't, because I didn't. Perhaps you're confusing my post with others. What name did I call you? I referred to you as a journalist, nothing more. I find this comment bizarre, and confusing.

What name did I call you? Please help me here.

I didn't change what I said. This is what I said: "Instead of reporting that, Steve goes on a message board and starts a spat."

I made it clear I would just as soon Steve conduct journalism about the story in the paper than having him come on OKCTalk and engage in a spat. My comments were consistent.

Perhaps you think journalists should only report what's in the public record, providing no background on stories, but that's not how the big leaguers do it. And Steve would be the first to admit that he often offers his opinions -- nothing wrong with that -- but your suggestion that he only reports facts without opinions doesn't hold water, nor just about anything else you argue.


Please go back and read your post number 3685. You made no mention of having a story in the newspaper. You only added that bit of information later. I would suggest that little you argue holds any water either. You seem to desire salacious information and seem to think that if that isn't provided someone isn't doing their job. It just might be possible that there isn't anything salacious to report in spite of your desires.

And your comment about a spat, again, should be left to those involved to decide if it is a spat.

Please go back and read your post number 3685. You made no mention of having a story in the newspaper. You only added that bit of information later. I would suggest that little you argue holds any water either. You seem to desire salacious information and seem to think that if that isn't provided someone isn't doing their job. It just might be possible that there isn't anything salacious to report in spite of your desires.

And your comment about a spat, again, should be left to those involved to decide if it is a spat.

Knowing who the players involved in a public-private development are is "salacious information?" How?

Knowing who the players involved in a public-private development are is "salacious information?" How?

Are the people involved unknown? Honestly, all you want is dirt (who will benefit?, LOL). Obviously, the people proposing this project would benefit or they wouldn't be making the proposal. I see nothing at all sinister in this whether it's a good project or not. I hope it can be worked out in a way that benefits everyone but some people just want to see monsters behind every corner.

Are the people involved unknown? Honestly, all you want is dirt (who will benefit?, LOL). I see nothing at all sinister in this whether it's a good project or not. I hope it can be worked out in a way that benefits everyone but some people just want to see monsters behind every corner.

Actually I have no clue. I doubt they are monsters. I'm not a conspiracy nut. But there are usually more interests than the person on the application for the development. Because this involves public land (at least in part), that makes this somewhat unique. It is entirely reasonable to 1) question who is involved, and 2) how the project may affect critical public infrastructure.

As for your other point, I share your optimism that something can be worked out.

Actually I have no clue. I doubt they are monsters. I'm not a conspiracy nut. But there are usually more interests than the person on the application for the development. Because this involves public land (at least in part), that makes this somewhat unique. It is entirely reasonable to 1) question who is involved, and 2) how the project may affect critical public infrastructure.

As for your last point, I share your optimism that something can be worked out.

OK, I agree that those are reasonable questions to ask.

Quote Originally Posted by Just the facts View Post

Three things: 1) Make sure there is room for future rail service along the existing corridor, 2) The space fronting Main should contain space for something other than parking, and 3) ditch the underground connection (there is nothing wrong with using the sidewalk and in fact, the sidewalk is the preferred route). Separating people on 2 plains should be discouraged at all costs.

I agree with 1 and 2, but on 3, wouldn't it just connect under the railroad and another parking garage? It wouldn't really bypass any retail, restaurant or other enterprise would it? In theory I agree with you, but this seems like a no-harm situation. Everyone using it for the BT side would exit street level anyway.

If all they did was go under the railroad track and a street it wouldn't be such a big deal but most likely these people will stay in the underground all the way to the final destination thus robbing the sidewalks of pedestrians and street-level customers all over downtown.

If all they did was go under the railroad track and a street it wouldn't be such a big deal but most likely these people will stay in the underground all the way to the final destination thus robbing the sidewalks of pedestrians and street-level customers all over downtown.

I understand and agree with the general concept. However, I think the biggest thing to get people to street level interaction is the design and content of the street level itself. I think we should be about ATTRACTING customers, NOT FORCING people to do things against their desires and nature. If the street level is truly more livable, people will WANT to take that route, even on marginal weather days. Upon exiting their car, if the ONLY desirable destination is their job, then people want to get there as directly, safely and comfortably as possible.

Keep in mind, the first step is getting more people downtown. More people working downtown and coming downtown for entertainment, etc. means more people are exposed to the lifestyle on a repeated basis. If the environment is then attractive, a percentage will choose to permanently relocate to downtown. A certain percentage will choose to quit commuting. Etc., etc. At 6:30 in the morning people are not window shopping, they are on their way to work. At lunch, they aren't going back to their cars in the parking lot. And, after work they MAY want to stay to shop if there are things there they want. They will stay to eat with clients, or with their family IF their family also comes downtown.

I agree with about 90 percent of the hard core urbanist ideas on this forum, but I do not agree with the idea that you must FORCE people to adopt the lifestyle. Instead, I believe that you make it a PREFERENCE and a CHOICE.

I understand and agree with the general concept. However, I think the biggest thing to get people to street level interaction is the design and content of the street level itself. I think we should be about ATTRACTING customers, NOT FORCING people to do things against their desires and nature. If the street level is truly more livable, people will WANT to take that route, even on marginal weather days. Upon exiting their car, if the ONLY desirable destination is their job, then people want to get there as directly, safely and comfortably as possible.

Keep in mind, the first step is getting more people downtown. More people working downtown and coming downtown for entertainment, etc. means more people are exposed to the lifestyle on a repeated basis. If the environment is then attractive, a percentage will choose to permanently relocate to downtown. A certain percentage will choose to quit commuting. Etc., etc. At 6:30 in the morning people are not window shopping, they are on their way to work. At lunch, they aren't going back to their cars in the parking lot. And, after work they MAY want to stay to shop if there are things there they want. They will stay to eat with clients, or with their family IF their family also comes downtown.

I agree with about 90 percent of the hard core urbanist ideas on this forum, but I do not agree with the idea that you must FORCE people to adopt the lifestyle. Instead, I believe that you make it a PREFERENCE and a CHOICE.

People do shop at 6:30AM - in bakeries and places that serve breakfast. But these people will also go to their cars at lunch and between 3PM and 6PM - plus a fair number of these spaces will be reserved for the public (about 500 if I recall correctly) and I assume they will see a fair amount of turnover throughout the day. There will also be a fair number of people who live on site 24/7/365. Finally, I am not sure if 'forcing' people to walk on the surface of the earth is a viable argument. My guess is that the developer is going to ask for public funds to do some of this work and the City should require the removal of the underground portion as a condition.

Also, without going back a reading 3 or 4 pages of arguing let me ask the following questions.
Fact 1) The City has a lease with Karchmer for 25 years to operate parking.

Question 1) When does this 25 years end?
Question 2A) What happens if he builds this project and then the City doesn't renew the lease?
Question 2B) What happens if the City extends his lease and then he doesn't build the project? (the old tried and true bait and switch).
Question 3) Why the fixation on the City not having approved any money to buy the land necessary to implement the NE and Tinker lines? C2S plans existed for years before any money was available and construction on I-40 started before funds to finish it were even appropriated.
Question 4) What is the timetable for implementing the NE and Tinker lines?
Question 5) Finally, can't the City just wait for the 25 year lease to expire, not renew it, and then enter negotiations to buy whatever is needed to make the turn?

I understand and agree with the general concept. However, I think the biggest thing to get people to street level interaction is the design and content of the street level itself. I think we should be about ATTRACTING customers, NOT FORCING people to do things against their desires and nature. If the street level is truly more livable, people will WANT to take that route, even on marginal weather days. Upon exiting their car, if the ONLY desirable destination is their job, then people want to get there as directly, safely and comfortably as possible.

Keep in mind, the first step is getting more people downtown. More people working downtown and coming downtown for entertainment, etc. means more people are exposed to the lifestyle on a repeated basis. If the environment is then attractive, a percentage will choose to permanently relocate to downtown. A certain percentage will choose to quit commuting. Etc., etc. At 6:30 in the morning people are not window shopping, they are on their way to work. At lunch, they aren't going back to their cars in the parking lot. And, after work they MAY want to stay to shop if there are things there they want. They will stay to eat with clients, or with their family IF their family also comes downtown.

I agree with about 90 percent of the hard core urbanist ideas on this forum, but I do not agree with the idea that you must FORCE people to adopt the lifestyle. Instead, I believe that you make it a PREFERENCE and a CHOICE.

Theoretically I would say that not building an underground connection isn't the same as "forcing" people into a particular type of behavior, at least not in this instance. While it's true that it prevents them from using a particular option, that option exists only as a preliminary idea at this point. They aren't taking away an already existing choice. It's like if I think "I'm going to open a pizza place", and then I change my mind, I'm not forcing people in the area to not eat pizza.

If they build more underground connections it will slow development of the city into a place where people want to go. I'm sure it would be convenient on cold or rainy days, but it will also take people off the streets even on nice days.

If they build more underground connections it will slow development of the city into a place where people want to go. I'm sure it would be convenient on cold or rainy days, but it will also take people off the streets even on nice days.

Not just that but businesses need customers whether it is cold and rainy or not. We were at Epcot on Saturday when major downpours hit. Guess where all the people fled to. That's right, into all the retail stores. That is why Disney doesn't provide a lot of outside shelter (unless of course it has a retail kiosk under it). I am sure sales go through the roof during these afternoon thunderstorms.

I love those who think having less options is the way to compete and build world class anything.

Things like Kitchen 324 does WAY more to get people to the street than the underground does to kill it. Get to work on putting in a better businesses. Quit being about eliminating choice and be about offering BETTER choices. For years I have heard locals complain that people won't support quality local endeavors... an idea mostly perpetuated by those that wanted to offer substandard product for premium prices and then blame the consumer when it was rejected. If, all the self proclaimed urban saviors actually believe what they espouse, they can build an environment that creates the kind of city of their utopian dreams without trying to make it the only alternative. If it is better, people will support it. Or, is everyone afraid that the only way is to build in barriers to other choices?

What I would say on this issue is that if it is a private endeavor and desired, then the cost of doing it should be the responsibility of the business itself, and not subsidized. If the developer believes it brings value to their enterprise, let them put up or shut up. And if the local street level building owners think they have a better way to attract paying business, let them put up or shut up.

One of the reasons I LOVE the Better Block activities is that they actually take the positive approach of SHOWING people their vision and selling local businesses on the idea that a good investment yields profits. THAT creates the kind of development you want. That is not obstructionists, it is value adding.

Since this project has a retail component it will be interesting to see how he reconciles a bypass under his own retail space with his potential tenants. That seems totally counter-productive to me. It kind of makes me wonder how serious he is about the retail (or other non-parking uses for that matter).

The tunnel may be a "throw in"...something which would be given up readily to get another concession. You never really know.

Since this project has a retail component it will be interesting to see how he reconciles a bypass under his own retail space with his potential tenants. That seems totally counter-productive to me. It kind of makes me wonder how serious he is about the retail (or other non-parking uses for that matter).

ugh... i hate it when i agree with Just the Facts... but i was thinking the same thing. Sadly this seems to keep happening more and more here lately.

anyways. I do really have to figure out which is the part of this that he isn't serious about... the underground, or the retail. because i do find that having both would be counter productive. unless of course the retail is going to be build multi level so that it will have space both on the street and on the underground. Now if this were the case, i find it quite interesting and would concede to Rovers statements about more options. My biggest issue with the underground that it is a walkway that doesn't spur development and retail (other than the ocasional lunch location.

I love those who think having less options is the way to compete and build world class anything.

Things like Kitchen 324 does WAY more to get people to the street than the underground does to kill it. Get to work on putting in a better businesses. Quit being about eliminating choice and be about offering BETTER choices. For years I have heard locals complain that people won't support quality local endeavors... an idea mostly perpetuated by those that wanted to offer substandard product for premium prices and then blame the consumer when it was rejected. If, all the self proclaimed urban saviors actually believe what they espouse, they can build an environment that creates the kind of city of their utopian dreams without trying to make it the only alternative. If it is better, people will support it. Or, is everyone afraid that the only way is to build in barriers to other choices?

What I would say on this issue is that if it is a private endeavor and desired, then the cost of doing it should be the responsibility of the business itself, and not subsidized. If the developer believes it brings value to their enterprise, let them put up or shut up. And if the local street level building owners think they have a better way to attract paying business, let them put up or shut up.

One of the reasons I LOVE the Better Block activities is that they actually take the positive approach of SHOWING people their vision and selling local businesses on the idea that a good investment yields profits. THAT creates the kind of development you want. That is not obstructionists, it is value adding.+1

anyways. I do really have to figure out which is the part of this that he isn't serious about... the underground, or the retail. because i do find that having both would be counter productive.

When I watch a sporting event and it gets down to the end I look and see what has to happen for the team behind to pull out a win. Usually it is like 5 or 6 things that HAVE to happen to make victory possible. Anyone of them not happening will lead to defeat. I look at downtown development with the same eye. What has to happen if the 'developer' really wanted to just end up with a renewed lease for surface parking lots. So when I see contradictory items in a plan I have to ask myself, "How did those get in there?" Couple that with building on a planned rail line and the red flags start going off. I live 1000 miles away and have no financial stake in Bricktown and even I know where the choo choo is planned to go. There is no way, I repeat NO WAY, he doesn't know - so I ask myself again, "How did this get in the plan (or left out of the plan as the case may be)?" Which leads me back to the question - when does his 25 year lease expire?

Per Council just now:


This has no chance of getting approved as currently conceived.

New garage, underground pedestrian tunnel extension planned for Bricktown | News OK (http://newsok.com/new-garage-underground-pedestrian-tunnel-extension-planned-for-bricktown/article/3808161?custom_click=pod_headline_financial-news)

Per Council just now:

shocking

Per Council just now:

from Ed Shadid at Council .. 1 hour and 50 min into council http://okc.gov/AgendaPub/meet.aspx

they did not contact Jacobs (who is doing the NE line study and did the hub study) also mentioned the regional AA study ..

he spoke about the reason this spur is needed is because we don't have to cross the BNSF mainline for regional rail to MWC/NE line

also spoke that ADG did the design .. and that they are the MAPS 3 lead consultant that hires Jacob's for the NE line study questions that it might be a conflict of interest ... and wonders why they didn't talk to Jacobs about the garage they designed how did this get so far without talking to council ..

he suggested maybe a land swap to get both a parking garage and keep our spur chances

from the Mayor this plan is DOA in the current form (he talked to the city mgr and he agrees)

this was floated from the developer not in any way final .. per Jim Couch

Pettis (his ward) a little upset he was not informed .. and bothered that this would impact the NE line .. he is not in favor of this design

Meg Salyer says the newspaper article was early and jumped the gun .. and that we need to protect the options that we already have considered ..

Pete white troubled by the lack of coordination agrees with mayor that blocking the spur is a non starter "can't let short term decisions effect long term
needs"


sounds like steve wrote an article to "promote" a possible development from a friend and/or he didn't do his home work and reported on something that has no chance of happening in its current form

BS. Karchmer isn't my friend. I do not "promote" development. And Meg is wrong - unless you want to be kept in the dark about such projects. COTPA was planning to put a garage here and put out an RFP for it before, as I reported, that Karchmer looked at doing the deal himself.
This forum is quickly losing its credibility with me with such garbage and angry reactions when I try to correct bad information.

Karchmer is an interesting guy. He's proposed many things but generally only done surface parking for the past 8 years that I've known about him. It's hardly surprising that he proposed this without talking to people. To state that Steve did this to help promote it for Don is quite hilarious really.

To state that Steve did this to help promote it for Don is quite hilarious really.

I agree. I don't think anything about Steve's article suggests that he is promoting anything. He is simply reporting on potential development. I don't understand why he got so much harassment.

Personally, I don't care if Steve promoted it or not. I want to know what is brewing out there. If it doesn't jive with current/future city plans then so be it - those issues can be dealt with.

Karchmer is an interesting guy. He's proposed many things but generally only done surface parking for the past 8 years that I've known about him. It's hardly surprising that he proposed this without talking to people. To state that Steve did this to help promote it for Don is quite hilarious really.

Either way Steve didn't do his home work because it is clear from council that what was in the paper has no chance to go forward

BS. Karchmer isn't my friend. I do not "promote" development. And Meg is wrong - unless you want to be kept in the dark about such projects. COTPA was planning to put a garage here and put out an RFP for it before, as I reported, that Karchmer looked at doing the deal himself.
This forum is quickly losing its credibility with me with such garbage and angry reactions when I try to correct bad information.

Copta was putting a garage in the way of the rail spur? Interesting

Copta was putting a garage in the way of the rail spur? Interesting

I think that is what we need some in depth journalism hunting on. The fact that a public entity was promoting development in direct contradiction of a different public entity.Surely COTPA knows about the fact this city is trying to develop rail?? I mean they will likely be operating the streetcar?

Either way Steve didn't do his home work because it is clear from council that what was in the paper has no chance to go forward

The amount of personal attacks on this board in the past few weeks have really been out of control. Seriously, unless you have proof of your allegations, please just drop the internet tough guy act. Its getting old.

The amount of personal attacks on this board in the past few weeks have really been out of control. Seriously, unless you have proof of your allegations, please just drop the internet tough guy act. Its getting old.

I agree the forum needs to be toned down. Steve can help with this too. He's not always 100% right about everything.

I think that is what we need some in depth journalism hunting on. The fact that a public entity was promoting development in direct contradiction of a different public entity.Surely COTPA knows about the fact this city is trying to develop rail?? I mean they will likely be operating the streetcar?

Which public entities are you talking about? I understand COTPA's RFP was for the area towards the east, i.e., away from any impact on the southern spur.

Which public entities are you talking about? I understand COTPA's RFP was for the area towards the east, i.e., away from any impact on the southern spur.

I'm referring to where Steve said COTPA was planning on and put out an RFP on this location for a garage. Why would COTPA put out an RFP for development, when they (should) know about the city's future rail plans -- being in the transportation wing themselves.


COTPA was planning to put a garage here and put out an RFP for it before, as I reported, that Karchmer looked at doing the deal himself.

sounds like steve wrote an article to "promote" a possible development from a friend and/or he didn't do his home work and reported on something that has no chance of happening in its current form

He reported on something that was proposed... i don't see that Steve did anything wrong. Your personal attacks on an active contributor to this site, who has consistently given us a reason to keep coming to this site to discuss items, has caused my opinions of you to change. You used to be a contributor on here whom i always respected and looked forward to hearing their opinions on developments, even if i disagreed with them. but after this thread and the comments made, i have lost the respect that i once had for several posters.

Steve, please keep up the work of reporting potential developments, even if those developments are not going to be approved. Because even those developments that are not going to be approved still deserve to be discussed and thought about, in a place where people can freely express their opinions without the threat of personal attacks, name calling and harassment. Do i always agree with what Steve does, or everything he writes about or posts on here? no, of course not. but that doesn't mean that i think any less of him as a contributor

I'm referring to where Steve said COTPA was planning on and put out an RFP on this location for a garage. Why would COTPA put out an RFP for development, when they (should) know about the city's future rail plans -- being in the transportation wing themselves.

Interesting. This introduces several questions. Hmmm. So Is Steve suggesting that COTPA had already issued RFPs exactly where this ill-fated development was proposed?

Can someone please explain to me in a nutshell, what is going here! I really haven't been reading the post in depth and have just skimmed through, like I usually do just looking for updates on where the new streetcar is. I really don't want to look back through two pages of, "all of this".

Lotta people with their panties in a wad around here.

Can someone please explain to me in a nutshell, what is going here! I really haven't been reading the post in depth and have just skimmed through, like I usually do just looking for updates on where the new streetcar is. I really don't want to look back through two pages of, "all of this".

Steve reported on a new garage mixed use development That consits of 20% or less priviate land and 80%+ city owned land (currently leased to tr same guy for parking)


Several on here pointed out that it won't happens because it interfere with a rail spur for the future hub and line to mwcand the ne side.

Steve strongly disagreed.


Today at council 5 of the 9 said the plan has no chance as reported in the paper