The National Trust For Historic Preservation Weighs In

The intro of my article just done at Doug Dawgz Blog: SandRidge — The National Trust For Historic Preservation Weighs In (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2010/05/sandridge-national-trust-for-historic.html) appears below ...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/indiatemple/ntfhp_blogintro.jpg

... but the part you will find most engaging appears below ...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/indiatemple/ntfhp_2010_05_14_2_crop.jpg

The article describes a May 5 hour-long meeting at SandRidge in which the adversaries engaged in polite discussion but with no consequences. Tours of the affecting buildings were declined for safety reasons.

It should be a fun meeting tomorrow!

I think here is where Sandridge is about to screw the pooch. Instead of offering an urban redesign that would have been met with little resistance, they went for the suburban office park in the middle of the central business district. It is now possible they end up not being able to do anything - period. If these bulding get on some sort of historic preservation list they will really have problems trying to do anything with them. All most of are asking is that they be replaced with something other than a corporate plaza.

Sandridge should be able to put this plan in place...you guys are single-minded...be glad they are downtown doing some more positive development...what if they were to leave downtown over this pansy-fight...

SandRidge needs downtown more than downtown needs SandRidge.

I think here is where Sandridge is about to screw the pooch. Instead of offering an urban redesign that would have been met with little resistance, they went for the suburban office park in the middle of the central business district. It is now possible they end up not being able to do anything - period. If these bulding get on some sort of historic preservation list they will really have problems trying to do anything with them. All most of are asking is that they be replaced with something other than a corporate plaza.

Amen.

I thought Steve educated us on another thread about a different building that being on a Historic Register does virtually nothing as far as demolition goes. I wish that wasn't the case but that's how I understood it.

That's right Metro: being on the historic register does not legally bound owners from tearing it down. It does, however, make for a more complicated situation for the owner and city.

Also, for Steve's on-line article, see NewsOK (http://www.newsok.com/preservation-trust-asks-sandridge-to-reconsider-demolition/article/3462374?custom_click=headlines_widget)

Tomorrow 1:30pm City Hall.

Any predictions?

I will be there. I'm writing a speech for it tonight so that I don't sound like a blubbering idiot like I usually do at these meetings.

My initial premonition is pretty negative. But with the National Trust on our side, I'm feeling a lot more confident. Hopefully that lends us a lot of credibility. Don't forget to write letters to kathe.casula@okc.gov.

People are pretty cocky about thinking SR is not important for downtown. People are really bold and "visionary" when it comes to spending someone else's money. Take SR out and add Devon new building and OKC downtown and see what the vacancy rate is. Then see how excited anyone is about rennovating any of the buildings that are left.

People are pretty cocky about thinking SR is not important for downtown. People are really bold and "visionary" when it comes to spending someone else's money. Take SR out and add Devon new building and OKC downtown and see what the vacancy rate is. Then see how excited anyone is about rennovating any of the buildings that are left.

Not even coherent..

Wow, Mr. Polston hopes the Board will uphold the appeal. Mr. Polston represents a private non-profit entity of questionable power. Would someone tell me how Mr. Polston has enough clout to be considered a player in this saga. I would hope that a knowledgeable person can provide the answer instead of someone dipping from a shallow well.

be glad they are downtown doing some more positive development...what if they were to leave downtown over this pansy-fight...

Seriously, what good is it to have them downtown if they just want to tear it down? That makes no sense.

I think the only single minded position here is one that says "as long as they are downtown, I don't care what they tear down."

We still have a long way to go before the community values its own city enough to stop always taking the position that "we'll just take what we can get".

Really, if they want a campus, we already have swaths of vacant unused land all over the city they can use. We have plenty of wide open space for anyone and everyone wants it. Why would anyone want more of it in the only area of the city that has a chance of offering something different than what we already have tons of?


If SandRidge can grow by attracting the best and brightest to leave Dallas and Houston and move to OKC, then all the strict urbanists will get their wish of more highrises and more downtown residents. If they fail, then downtown fails.

Well, no doubt they will have a much easier go at convincing more of those people to leave those cities if Oklahoma City has a healthy urban environment that isn’t contracting. I don’t see how tearing down parts of downtown would be a selling point to any potential employee from those markets.

Wow, Mr. Polston hopes the Board will uphold the appeal. Mr. Polston represents a private non-profit entity of questionable power. Would someone tell me how Mr. Polston has enough clout to be considered a player in this saga. I would hope that a knowledgeable person can provide the answer instead of someone dipping from a shallow well.

The way I see it, Mr. Polston is not a player in this game unless he has a fat checkbook, which I doubt very seriously.

There are several ways this could turn out.

1) SR gets there way and all goes as planned for them.

2) SR doesnt get its way, in which case if I were them I would relocate that business to NW OKC, Memorial Rd. Gaillardia area. Keep the buildings and figure out another use for them.

3) SR doesnt get its way, and somehow compromises with these people and spends good money after bad trying to bring a 1900 building to 2010 standards. Good luck with that.

Its ought to be interesting to say the least.....

It's a lot easier "trying to bring a 1900 building to 2010 standards" than it is to make a small-minded person open up to diverse possibilities.


Wow, Mr. Polston hopes the Board will uphold the appeal. Mr. Polston represents a private non-profit entity of questionable power. Would someone tell me how Mr. Polston has enough clout to be considered a player in this saga. I would hope that a knowledgeable person can provide the answer instead of someone dipping from a shallow well.

What do you have against the National Trust for Historic Preservation? Have you had dealings with them before?

Ah, it is very easy for those without skin in the game to tell those with the risk and money what to do.

If we believe in economics, value in being downtown is created by businesses and the proximity to services and partners to those businesses with the corresponding ease and efficiency of doing business there. The more jobs they create, the more demand there is for living, selling, etc. downtown. The more demand the more valuable the land gets and the less undeveloped "green spaces" there are. Old decrepit buildings don't create value. Other than for historic purposes, there isn't a good economic case for the old dilapidated buildings. If they are for historic purposes, the city should buy and preserve them. But it is NOT SandRidge's responsibility. The city can take through eminent domain and do whatever they want. I would bet there aren't too many politicians in the city that want to really tackle that though.

I do not think Sandridge will give up so easily if the Board of Adjustment goes against them. I expect them to take it to the next level and file the lawsuit. My expectation however is that they will prevail by providing reports and testimony from experts concerning the viability of the buildings ever being useful. The question is: will the Board bow to the whiners or truly appraise the reality of the situation. It probably all depends on how emotional Spartan can be when he delivers his grand speech in a coherent way, that is if he knows what a coherent way might mean.

Ah, it is very easy for those without skin in the game to tell those with the risk and money what to do.

Do you have anything to point out other than the fact that I am not a developer with millions to invest in downtown?

What if I was a developer with millions to invest, would my opinion still matter even though I am not SandRidge? At what level of income does my opinion matter? Or do I have to be an energy corporation?

Preserve an "Urban Canyon" ? Why?? Is that our next thing in the pamphlet, "Come see our Urban Canyon"?? Oklahoma City will never have the density or "Canyon" that other older/bigger cities have, it can be developed, and nicely, using other approaches. I'm not for tearing stuff down to replace with nothing, but if there is a plan in place to use these areas, then go for it. Mistakes of the past doesn't mean we should keep buildings 'just because they're old'.

These buildings will come down for the same reasons many before them came down (no, I'm not talking about the 80's or 70's), they've outlived their viability.

I do not think Sandridge will give up so easily if the Board of Adjustment goes against them. I expect them to take it to the next level and file the lawsuit. My expectation however is that they will prevail by providing reports and testimony from experts concerning the viability of the buildings ever being useful. The question is: will the Board bow to the whiners or truly appraise the reality of the situation. It probably all depends on how emotional Spartan can be when he delivers his grand speech in a coherent way, that is if he knows what a coherent way might mean.
Popsy (and others similarly situated), I've always understood and I think most here acknowledge that there are at least two sides to every story. But I haven't called those who disagree with me names ... like you do with the term, "whiners." Not until now. Look in the mirror if you want to see what one of them looks like, face to face. Your view seems to be that you (and others similarly situated) simply cannot stand it if others disagree with you (and others similarly situated) and, even worse, have the audacity to say so.

You rag on Nick (Spartan) for planning to make a talk not exceeding 5 minutes (the max according to the Board of Adjustment rules). You express your doubts that he has the capability of being coherent, or possibly not even comprehending what that word might mean.

All I would ask you (and others similarly situated) is where and when did you pick up your talent for being rude to people you do not agree with? No need to answer ... that was a rhetorical question.

I'll be there tomorrow but I won't be talking. I've done some of my talking here but mainly in my blog, for whatever it's worth ... and I certainly understand that the worth may be very little or nothing at all. I doubt very much if citizen speeches will matter all that much to the Board of Adjustment tomorrow but, hey, who can guarantee that they won't? So why don't you (and others similarly situated) get on your high horses and trot yourselves down to the meeting tomorrow and actually participate in the process ... get there early so you can sign in for an opportunity to speak because my guess is there won't be enough time for everyone to talk who wants to.

Some don't like or value the notion of saving venerable old buildings, and that's their entitlement. Here's a great picture of the Baum building's columns I recently came across. When those columns and the building they supported was destroyed during the 400+ building-scorch policy of the Urban Renewal period, not a lot of thought was apparently then given to the value of preserving history. It was, perhaps, a time that you (and others similarly situated) might have been more comfortable.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/miscbuildings/baumpillars_800.jpg

I think several of you guys need to run for congress because you seem to have no problem making other people spend their money while you stockpile yours.

I think you would have a diffrent opinion if these buildings were your buildings and some outside group was forcing you to spend money on something that you did not want.

Then again that is the philsophy of the silver spoon crowd. "I am rich... I want it so you have to do it."

It's one thing when your talking about throwing away tax dollars or daddy's money. It's completely diffrent story when it is your own hard earned money or you have stock holders to answer to for your decisions.

Money-whipped.

This post is in reference to Doug's post above, #123.

Well Doug, it looks like I may have stepped on one of your nerves. Your chastisement for my bringing into question Spartan's coherent ways was my response to his reference to Rover's post by stating "Not even Coherent" (see his post above, #114) and his inference to Rover being a "small minded person" (post #118).

I do not believe I referred to you specifically as a "whiner" as I had no idea whether or not your voice would be heard tomorrow. The mirror remarks caused me to remember my grade school days, a pleasant experience, so thank you for adding it. To clear things up though, I have no problem with other's opinions and rarely become angry because mine differs from that of another. There are too many opinions out there to ever get angry over someone else's opinion as you would stay angry all of the time.

Please allow me this one time to have the audacity to say that it is not myself and others similarly situated, that cannot stand it when some disagrees with us, it is people such as yourself and others similarly situated that cannot stand it if someone disagrees with you. The band of merry men (urbanists and preservationists) have probably dominated this board since its inception, but now the forum has grown and there now are others on the opposite side of the fence that are starting to speak up. Is there something wrong with that?

Also, you mistook sarcasm for rudeness, but like Spartan said recently it is often hard to recognize sarcasm.

Without taking sides, let me point out that the Kermac Building has had plenty of suitors over the years and the lack of development, even according to former Kerr McGee CEO Luke Corbett, was due to the company's dismissal of such interest. At least three accomplished downtown developers have told me they courted SandRidge to turn the Kermac and Braniff buildings into housing and were turned away.

Now, that having been said, different people have different values. Because of my love of history people assume I'm an ardent building hugger. I'm not going to argue for or against these SandRidge buildings, though it's well known I've been asking questions and challenging conventional wisdom in this discussion to get people talking and ensure all issues are considered. I will admit to something right now that might shock friends of mine who are preservationists: I never saw the logic in the fight to save the old YMCA by the Murrah building after the bombing. I'm not convinced that EVERY old building must be saved.

Again, different people have different values. So Popsy, help folks understand you better. What do you value in your community?

This post is in reference to Doug's post above, #123.

Well Doug, it looks like I may have stepped on one of your nerves. Your chastisement for my bringing into question Spartan's coherent ways was my response to his reference to Rover's post by stating "Not even Coherent" (see his post above, #114) and his inference to Rover being a "small minded person" (post #118).

I do not believe I referred to you specifically as a "whiner" as I had no idea whether or not your voice would be heard tomorrow. The mirror remarks caused me to remember my grade school days, a pleasant experience, so thank you for adding it. To clear things up though, I have no problem with other's opinions and rarely become angry because mine differs from that of another. There are too many opinions out there to ever get angry over someone else's opinion as you would stay angry all of the time.

Please allow me this one time to have the audacity to say that it is not myself and others similarly situated, that cannot stand it when some disagrees with us, it is people such as yourself and others similarly situated that cannot stand it if someone disagrees with you. The band of merry men (urbanists and preservationists) have probably dominated this board since its inception, but now the forum has grown and there now are others on the opposite side of the fence that are starting to speak up. Is there something wrong with that?

Also, you mistook sarcasm for rudeness, but like Spartan said recently it is often hard to recognize sarcasm.

You have to know people, really. Doug is almost never sarcastic, and his posts are usually genuine and face value. Mine typically go sarcastic pretty quickly once I "encounter" people who are obviously not interested in what I have to say, and that's fine--despite sarcastic, I'm really a nice person lol.

I think when we see the word "whiners" time after time and imploring us to get off our ass, so to speak, and be the developers we're looking for--not only is it a misleading piece of rhetoric because for all you know there are developers and downtown property owners among us who are opposed to SandRidge's plans (which there are), and when you call us whiners and socialists, it's a low blow.

Feel free to insult me all you all want. I did suggest that Rover is small minded. His constant use of misleading rhetorical statements seems to suggest it. I think because we're talking about downtown, it really brings out the idiocy of some people--if we were talking about a Walmart behind a neighborhood, chances are most people would oppose that. Your argument is not superfluous--in every community in every part of OKC, there is a vested interest of the surrounding vicinity in each development. A community grows together, and SandRidge has absolutely batted us down and refused to listen to community input that would not just help the community benefit from their development, but also drastically improve SandRidge Commons for themselves..

Let's face it. Rogers Marvel "Architects," the out of state architecture firm that did this really did a sucky job. Worst proposal I've ever seen. Some people need their licenses taken away because they obviously do not understand efficient spatial planning.

The truth begins to surface...What happened did your proposal for the Sandridge job get rejected ???

Without taking sides, let me point out that the Kermac Building has had plenty of suitors over the years and the lack of development, even according to former Kerr McGee CEO Luke Corbett, was due to the company's dismissal of such interest. At least three accomplished downtown developers have told me they courted SandRidge to turn the Kermac and Braniff buildings into housing and were turned away.

Now, that having been said, different people have different values. Because of my love of history people assume I'm an ardent building hugger. I'm not going to argue for or against these SandRidge buildings, though it's well known I've been asking questions and challenging conventional wisdom in this discussion to get people talking and ensure all issues are considered. I will admit to something right now that might shock friends of mine who are preservationists: I never saw the logic in the fight to save the old YMCA by the Murrah building after the bombing. I'm not convinced that EVERY old building must be saved.

Again, different people have different values. So Popsy, help folks understand you better. What do you value in your community?


Steve. What I value in the community has expanded over the years. At one point years ago I would have settled for downtown and Bricktown to be clean. To use round up on the weeds growing in the sidewalks and alleys. To keep the dumpsters fenced in and out of sight. I embrace what is happening on the Oklahoma River and feel that completing that project as quickly as possible should be the priority, along with laying the tracks in conjuction with 180 and acquiring land for the park. The opportuinity to be internationally recognized immediately exists as long as we do not postpone it for a period of time and some other city sees us doing this and trys to beat is to the punch before we are completely established.

I am convinced that the reason the Mayor wants the park so bad is for the purpose of eliminating the ugliness that exists so close to downtown. I embrace the park for that reason, but question how much it will be used.

There are many areas in OKC that are extreme eyesores that I would like to see cleaned up because of the embarassment, therefore the other Maps III projects are not as important to me. Monies now could have been better spent. Overall however, I take pride in where OKC has come from and where it is now. Believe it or not I am a history buff also, but I am content to see the pictures and to read about the history. Unless the buildings are in decent shape I have no desire to save them as I see them as part of the ugliness.

I took the Sandridge side in this debate as I see them having the possibility of being another Devon. I realize they are a little shaky right now, but I would bet that Devon had the same problem at one time and they turned out to be a very positive force for OKC.

I would like to add that if there are those that do not like my opionions and wish to attack me in this forum I have no problem with it. I have fairly thick skin still, although I seem to be aging rapidly.

Excellent post, Popsy. You mention that unless buildings are in decent shape already do you want them saved--did you know that the KerMac really is in decent shape?

Popsy,
I appreciate our differences, but my twenty plus years in rehabilitating historic buildings informs me that the majority of these buildings are opportunities to keep the momentum alive downtown. These buildings have not been on the market for redevelopment in our lifetimes, and even if vacant for several more years due to our weak economy, can be home run developments that all of us could be proud of. If SandRidge doesn't want them, fine. Put them on the market.

Popsy, good response. Sometimes these debates end up deteriorating into name calling and cliches, and what you just did was to let people know you're not a troll, but someone who truly has a different point of view and a basis for that point of view.

Spartan, I have not seen any expert reports that state KerrMac is in decent shape. I will point out however, that I believe in what Sandridge can become and what they can be for downtown OKC. It could exceed by far any positive side to saving the KerrMac. I would much rather see living units built next to the park, where the auto salvage site is on the river and anything being built that would replace the cotton mill.

Good point Popsy!

I looked at their income statement from their 2009 Earnings report and they lost over $1 Billion in 2009.

That is something to worry about. I know a lot about this company and I can't say what I know, but they can't afford to do the plaza. They really need to sell those buildings. That would be the responsible thing to do for the stockholders.

Popsy,
I appreciate our differences, but my twenty plus years in rehabilitating historic buildings informs me that the majority of these buildings are opportunities to keep the momentum alive downtown. These buildings have not been on the market for redevelopment in our lifetimes, and even if vacant for several more years due to our weak economy, can be home run developments that all of us could be proud of. If SandRidge doesn't want them, fine. Put them on the market.

blwarch. I can respect what you are saying but that seems to be not what Sandridge wants. They would probably donate the buildings to you as they have no value to them, but you would have to move them as they covet the land.

Who knows, maybe this is a ploy by Sandridge to lessen the possiblity of a take over and you will get your chance later because if it is a ploy I do not look for them to raze the buildings.

Steve. Thanks. I do try not to call anyone names but sometimes it can happen in the group context, mainly due to my limited vocabulary.

Lasome. Would selling those buildings impact the Sandridge bottom line enough to make a difference? I have not reviewed their financial statements, therefore I have no idea.

Just because you have the money to buy a building downtown, doesn't give you the right to remove it. This zoning ordinance was in place when they bought the block for $25/square foot lock, stock, and barrel. Buyer beware!

Do any of you building huggers work downtown ???

Just because you have the money to buy a building downtown, doesn't give you the right to remove it. This zoning ordinance was in place when they bought the block for $25/square foot lock, stock, and barrel. Buyer beware!

My recollection is that the watch dog that oversees those zoning ordinances gave Sandridge a variance on those ordinances, then claimed they were rushed into the decision without completing due dilligence, which I find bogus. Any member of that group could have asked for more time to perform due dilligence or requested a delay on the vote.

Sandridge obviously got a good deal on the purchase, but what if they put it on the market but their asking price was $100 or more per foot. Would there be any buyers?

Wow, Mr. Polston hopes the Board will uphold the appeal. Mr. Polston represents a private non-profit entity of questionable power. Would someone tell me how Mr. Polston has enough clout to be considered a player in this saga. I would hope that a knowledgeable person can provide the answer instead of someone dipping from a shallow well.

You know Mr. Poston's job for the National Trust is to pursue the directives of the trustees of the Trust. You might be interested in knowing the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the National Trust for Historic Preservation Is Cliff Hudson, Mr. Hudson is Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Sonic Corp.:tiphat:

You know Mr. Polson's job for the National Trust is to pursue the directives of the trustees of the Trust. You might be interested in knowing the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the National Trust for Historic Preservation Is Cliff Hudson, Mr. Hudson is Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Sonic Corp.:tiphat:

So what ???

Do any of you building huggers work downtown ???

Do any of you building haters live downtown?

Do any of you building haters live downtown?
Don't live downtown but work downtown and I hate those buildings...blight !!!

So what ???

OK..now here's the golden question: Who are you? What is your name, occupation, etc.?

What is yours ?

Nick Roberts, architecture student, blog writer. And I have no reason to disrespect Cliff Hudson. Your turn.

You are not worth it...

as I expected..

Wow, I'm glad I asked that now...is Cliff Hudson "worth it?"

Do any of you building huggers work downtown ???

I do. In fact, I worked in the India Temple building from 2006 to 2007, when it was still owned by Kerr McGee.

You are not worth it...

You really are a breath of stale air.

You really are a breath of stale air.

Thank you, you are a breath of... well...who cares really..

Wow, I'm glad I asked that now...is Cliff Hudson "worth it?"

Cliff is a personal friend...

It's no wonder we sometimes seem to have problems taking these people seriously. Anyone who's going to be a fly in the ointment around here has to be this way. I feel sorry for anyone who has a contrary opinion who isn't a troll, but sometimes it's just one troll after the other on here..


Cliff is a personal friend...

LOL

It's no wonder we sometimes seem to have problems taking these people seriously. Anyone who's going to be a fly in the ointment around here has to be this way. I feel sorry for anyone who has a contrary opinion who isn't a troll, but sometimes it's just one troll after the other on here..



LOL

If you should be feeling sorry for anyone it should be yourself because like a lot people on this board you just cannot wrap your mind around the idea that other see the world a little differently.

My main argument in this whole thing is that private property owners should be allowed to do what they choose provided they do something that does not contribute to unsafe conditions and they finance it with their cash or credit.

I am sick and tired of the busy body movement putting their hands in everything. The busy bodies need to worry about their own problems and stop acting like some kind of super hero out to save the world from supposedly doing harm to their selves. Busy bodies do not have all the answers and in most cases they are the least educated of the group. They jump on to something based on hearsay or rumor and expect everyone to follow their lead. If more people spent more time minding their own business the world would be a better place.

The way I see it you can love my post or you can hate them. I am not going to lose any sleep over it. If we all agreed on everything the world would be a boring place.

I do. In fact, I worked in the India Temple building from 2006 to 2007, when it was still owned by Kerr McGee.
Hoya, can you pass along some recollections? That would be enlightening.

If you want to keep these eyesores, then buy them from Sandridge, put your money where your rants are. I'd wager most people in OKC couldn't even find these buildings.

Sure. There's not a whole lot to tell, though. I got hired during the Kerr McGee/Tronox split to do some legal work for them in early '06. Seems KM dumped a lot of environmental lawsuits in Tronox's lap when they divided. So a couple of us ended up moving over to the India Temple building to go through mountains and mountains of old environmental records, groundwater charts, etc. There was so much of it that there just wasn't room in the regular tower. Ended up staying there for about a year.

One interesting thing is that it's the building where the KM execs used to take their secretaries back in the day for some "lunchtime relaxation". I understand there's actually a bedframe still in that building somewhere, but I wasn't one of the ones who went snooping for it.

The building itself is connected to the Conncourse, and all the lighting and plumbing still function. The Elevators still work. The interior was redone a long time ago, so there's not really a lot of old fixtures or anything like that in there. It's all the 1980s office look inside. They were able to slap in high speed internet connections for us, though, so all the wiring is up to date. The ceilings are standard office drop ceilings. From what I remember, they've already yanked out all the asbestos, so no worry about that.

I don't really have any interesting stories to tell, though.

If you want to keep these eyesores, then buy them from Sandridge, put your money where your rants are. I'd wager most people in OKC couldn't even find these buildings.

People have offered to buy them. Sandridge doesn't want to sell. They want to tear them down so everyone can see their pretty tower.

My main argument in this whole thing is that private property owners should be allowed to do what they choose provided they do something that does not contribute to unsafe conditions and they finance it with their cash or credit.

I remember when a private property owner wanted to tear down the Skirvin. That is enough of a reason for me to disagree with the above statement.

Again, this is neither a black nor white issue. A city is more than people. A city is also its buildings. Some of them obviously aren't worth preserving. But I think, when anyone buys property downtown, they should accept the fact that they might not be able to do exactly what they want with that property. There are buildings that should be preserved, at all costs. Doug has heartbreaking examples of what we've already destroyed. I'm not saying the buildings Sandridge owns are necessarily in that category, but we need to think long and carefully before we tear buildings down to create open space.

However, it's also not fair to ask Sandridge to bear the financial burden of owning buildings we don't allow them to tear down, if they were purchased for that purpose. Perhaps we need to set a time frame and if buyers cannot be found, the city has the option to purchase them. If neither of those conditions are met, then Sandridge would be allowed to move forward.

Why do people have to resort to name calling and personal attacks when others disagree. There is obviously at least 2 or 3 views of this. It is regrettable that differing opinion is viewed as "small minded".

I still believe that the long term dense urbanization of downtown comes from creating value in being downtown. I believe that comes from creating jobs and recruiting the best and brightest to work there. I believe that it is important for relevant and significant history to be preserved for the public good, but from all the debate there only really seems to be one building in this discussion that seems to fit that description. However the discussion isn't about preserving the history or character of the BUILDING, but only of its exterior.

As for some of the incoherence I apparently was accused of....I apologize for sometimes posting from my bberry. Not the easiest thing to do. :beaten_fi