Anyone see any truth to this or are they bluffing?


Bluffing. It's sometimes hard to see the line between the truth and vigorous advocacy for ones client. It seems counsel for Sandridge has merely suggested that if he doesn't get his way, they might pick up their toys and go home.

There's a big difference between "might" and "will" and when millions of dollars are on the line, "might" typically translates directly into "never in a million years."

What perplexes me is that Tom Ward seems like he is not open to "flexibility" or to "compromise" in any way. I am calling his bluff on his threat to rethink his stance on reconsidering DT for his HQ building. He bought the KM building and has already spent $$$$ on doing interior renovations to the building and has already uprooted employees to the DT building. He does have to answer to his shareholders and every financial move is being scrutinized by the shareholders. Mr. Ward seems like he is levelheaded so why would he compromise his integrity or his employees? It seems his philosophy on this matter is "my way or the highway". Tom Ward should at least "explore" the possibility that some of these buildings are not only salvageable but can be successfully rehabilited. I think he owes the citizens of OKC to at least open his mind to the alternatives from a PR perspective and as being a "good corporate citizen" for OKC!

They have. And he doesn't "owe" the citizens of OKC anything other than to run a lawful business.

They have. And he doesn't "owe" the citizens of OKC anything other than to run a lawful business.

Nevermind city ordinances..

THERE IS NO ONE WAITING IN THE WINGS TO BUY THAT BUILDING. NO ONE.

...

Even with SR, Devon, the other businesses downtown it's completely DEAD after 6pm.

...

But those of you saying "let'em leave then!" need a CAT scan. Be careful what you wish for....
There may not be someone waiting in the wings to buy the building but I do believe the site could be redeveloped into other options. That's because I believe in the value of the place itself.

Regarding your 2nd point the only way in my mind to get life downtown after 6 pm is to provide residential opportunities and to create an environment that fosters people being out on the town. Part (and only part) of the Sandridge vision for the site is counterproductive to that vision.

That's not to say that the Sandridge vision is wrong or bad or anything else or even that those who propose it are bad or any other negative adjective.

It is just that this vision is at odds with another one and that's why the hearing is required in the first place.

Regarding your last point I don't want to see them leave Oklahoma City or Oklahoma but I do think it is necessary to be willing to walk away from a deal, even a very big deal, in order to stay true to a vision.

There may not be someone waiting in the wings to buy the building but I do believe the site could be redeveloped into other options. That's because I believe in the value of the place itself.

Regarding your 2nd point the only way in my mind to get life downtown after 6 pm is to provide residential opportunities and to create an environment that fosters people being out on the town. Part (and only part) of the Sandridge vision for the site is counterproductive to that vision.

That's not to say that the Sandridge vision is wrong or bad or anything else or even that those who propose it are bad or any other negative adjective.

It is just that this vision is at odds with another one and that's why the hearing is required in the first place.

Regarding your last point I don't want to see them leave Oklahoma City or Oklahoma but I do think it is necessary to be willing to walk away from a deal, even a very big deal, in order to stay true to a vision.

I'm sorry, but that's cutting of your nose to spite your face. This isn't a movie where the good guy that sticks to his guns wins a moral victory. We're in the middle of a renaissance of growth and economic development in downtown OKC right. And telling a major corporation and great corporate citizen to piss up a rope is ridiculous.

Also, this can't be said any clearer: if you take away a large employer downtown, fewer people will be downtown, and all the mixed-use development in the world won't save downtown or provide density.

You guys that would burn down your homes to roast a pig kill me.

OMFG, if you take away one of the biggest employers downtown, people won't be downtown at all anyway and they sure as hell won't live downtown! That's pretty simple. Keeping buildings (that are in no way shape or form ready for anything and will take millions upon millions to rehabilitate) and thereby LOSING SandRidge would take downtown backward many, many years.

Are you serious in saying that an oil and gas corporation should be forced to build MIXED USE developments!? What the hell are they going to do with mixed use buildings? Start a property ownership subsidiary? A rental company? Pul-leeze.
Not exactly sure what you are saying, Mallen, but if you are saying that SandRidge should get carte blanch status and permission to do whatever it chooses to do ... I will add these things:

SandRidge is a relative newcomer. It does no harm to remember that SandRidge hasn't built a thing downtown, nor, aside from what it tells us (the city) what will be good for us, it hasn't done anything particular to contribute to the city's development other than buy the buildings that it now owns, which is good, but that fact doesn't give the company some kind of status that was long-term and enduring well before this project ever saw the light of day. Before it acquired the former Kerr-McGee properties downtown, it wasn't even a player downtown.

Oklahoma City did not go belly-up when Anadarko Petroleum acquired the Kerr-McGee properties. It will not go belly-up if Frank Hill's statement actually does represent the position of SandRidge.

EVEN IF SandRidge's proposal is affirmed in all respects, the city has absolutely no assurance that it will actually complete the plan that it proposes. Requests by Downtown Design Review Committee Chair to insure that happening (with a bond) fell on deaf ears.

On the one hand, the city is told, "trust me." With the other, we are told, "SandRidge Energy might have to reconsider whether downtown is appropriate for its headquarters.”

Heavy.

... he doesn't "owe" the citizens of OKC anything other than to run a lawful business.

True, but one can reasonably opine that operating a lawful business would include remaining in compliance with any lawfully enacted local ordinance.

Isn't this whole current process about whether what SR desires takes it outside a lawfully enacted ordinance (or even more than one?)

But hey, if they should decide to leave, there are some nice campus complex friendly spots a wee bit on south of Indian Hills Road.
:sofa:

They have. And he doesn't "owe" the citizens of OKC anything other than to run a lawful business.

OKCMallen believes OKC's laws don't apply to big companies, apparently.

I'm sorry, but that's cutting of your nose to spite your face. This isn't a movie where the good guy that sticks to his guns wins a moral victory. We're in the middle of a renaissance of growth and economic development in downtown OKC right. And telling a major corporation and great corporate citizen to piss up a rope is ridiculous.

Also, this can't be said any clearer: if you take away a large employer downtown, fewer people will be downtown, and all the mixed-use development in the world won't save downtown or provide density.

You guys that would burn down your homes to roast a pig kill me.Honestly this same thing happens all the time in development deals. Big Name Tenant comes to Little Old Developer and dictates a bunch of terms to buy a parcel or lease a space. The terms are terrible and entirely in favor of the Big Name Tenant. Often among the terms is building a noticeably cheaper structure with dramatically different design criteria.

Little Old Developer owes about a billion dollars on this development so far and would really like to have this Big Name Tenant. And Little Old Developer's banker, partners, suppliers, family, and associates all would like him to have the tenant, too. And the worse the times are the more the pressure is to accept whatever the Big Name Tenant dictates.

But Little Old Developer is stubborn and has a certain image in his mind of what he wants his development to be. So he defies everyone else and tells Big Name Tenant that the terms have to be modified.

Big Name Tenant is just aghast that anyone, let alone Little Old Developer, would have the audacity to do anything other than roll over for a good tummy rub. And Big Name Tenant threatens to walk off from the deal.

Little Old Developer leaves the meeting feeling that he has let down himself, his banker, his family, his neighbors, his community and just about everyone else he has ever known.

Sometimes though if the place is a really good place then compromise occurs and the deal moves forward. Sometimes it doesn't and Little Old Developer waits a while and a better tenant comes along.

Sometimes it doesn't end well period though. But that's development.

I am not going to get all worried, as much as I am pro business, I am ultimately pro OKC for the long haul, and we have to set the precedence that the commitiees appointed are valid and will do their assigned job and not buckle under immense corporate pressure or veiled threats.

Ultimately, I would like Sandridge to succeed, be a good corporate citizen and realize that through compromize they will in effect flip the opposition to boosters and then they can get down to business and take advantage of the reason they decided to be in the urban core of our city. Rightfully they can then claim that they are a contributing force towards the revitalization and momentum taking place here.

It is not like those who support the upholding of city ordinaces and care for the historic preservation of a couple of buildings that hold potential for other uses, are asking that the entire plan be replaced. It isn't a one or the other equation. It is one where through compromise and recognition that there is merit and value to the city, that the vast remainder of the plan can be implemented very successfully and will garner more public support and psychological capital with the many citizens of the city.

So it comes down to this if the true motive is as has been expressed by Sandridge to be a supporter and contributor to the success of Oklahoma City then why would you do something that would hinder its growth and be willing to spite the very city you wish to support over something that is in the scheme of things relatively small potatoes compared with the expense incurred in the acquisition of the building and its ongoing interior renovations? No sir...it doesn't add up.

I will of course be dissappointed it Sandridge was so shortsighted as to actually relocate from its intended location. But if that is how they roll then I am not sure they are as desirable an employer vested in the longterm success of the city as they purport to be.

Either way in the next meeting because of the attorneys tantrum there will be an 800 pound gorilla in the room from the outset of the next meeting and I think that it will need to be addressed so that we don't have to waste the committee members time if they are indeed just going pack the moving truck. If they are going to remain a committed corporate citizen and it was just an attempt at a power play by a rogue attorney then Sandridge can clear that up and restate their commitment to OKC and work toward a compromise and a solution that will bring them into compliance with the city ordinaces in question.

If they do not wish to bear the burden of finacially rehabin the india temple or kermac fine no one is asking them to. Just sell off those buildings to a developer who is willing to do it and see where it goes. It would no longer be their problem.

I'm not saying that this issue shouldn't be fully discussed and re-discussed.

However, saying that SandRidge (and KM, before) should sell the buildings at whatever cost is about as dumb as it comes. Sorry to put such a fine point on it. These guys are highly sophisticated corporations: do you really think they're turning down lucrative offers for these buildings for the fun of it? Think it through. THINK.
No one mentioned anything about Sandridge "giving them away" to anyone but if they are such the financial menace that you claim they are then why wouldn't they sell them and GENERATE income from the sale and "stop the bleeding" that these evidently are to them. There is a whole lot more to this than most of us (pro-demolition or not) are aware of. It would seem the sale of the properties would be a bonus to the shareholders and save them the cost of demolition/construction and the property taxes that follow any improvement.

I know of a lucrative, above market offer, that would have been made to K-M about 12 years ago involving one of the buildings slated for demolition if only they would have listened. The developer could not get anything more than a "NOT FOR SALE" out of them and a hang up and in person they wouldn't even look at a prospectus. I am sure there are others interested in the properties if only they would at least listen to offers but it appears that has never been up for discussion.

Having done work with "sophisticated corporations" that could swallow up a company like Sandridge like an M&M (plain) candy I can attest there are idiots and incompetence at all levels, I have seen it and had to deal with it. The bigger corporations get the dumber they seem to get and decisions more idiotic at times.


You guys are being AWFULLY cavalier and play AWFULLY fast and loose with someone else's money. Don't you get it? THERE IS NO ONE ELSE THAT WILL MOVE DOWNTOWN. We're lucky SR decided to in the first place! We need to promote these things, not be all smartassed about it and just tell them to take a hike to the suburbs or outer reaches of OKC. You guys are usually the same ones screaming for density.
Let'em build or tear down whatever the hell they want....after all they spend money here...
now THAT is a stupid statement but that is how your post comes across but that has been the prevailing OKC mentality forever.

As far as it being "their property to do with what they want", that is a complete falsehood. None of us really "own" property, the gov't does, don't pay your property taxes and find out how quickly it becomes theirs officially. We are granted rights of development/use/habitation in exchange for taxes and other fees but that development always comes under the control of governmental and legal entities and development must to compliant with those guidelines and codes. Just because OKC has traditionally allowed large developers and corporations to do whatever they want doesn't mean they are in the right. Even if they built a campus out on Memorial Road it would still have to go through legal hoops and city/county/state approvals and fees assessed before they could build and I can guarantee you they couldn't build "whatever they wanted", the city will make them make changes, it is almost always the case.

As far as the Frank Hill comment, as Doug stated we don't really know if that are his personal feelings or if that is a Sandridge feeling but it seems to be in rather poor judgment to say something like that in a "hearing" of that type.

That's not what I said at all bluedog. You're going to win all the arguments on all the internets if you just say something made-up then refute it deftly.

I'm saying we don't just tell them to leave downtown willy-nilly. Also, you bet your ass they could do anything they wanted if they were to build out in Jones. Get some perspective.

After the whole "let us tear em down or we're moving" tantrum, the question must be asked. How does having a corportation as capricious as Sandwhatever add to downtown? I mean, as wishy-washy as Sandwhatever is, they might decide to move out of downtown next week for some unrelated reason. Call their bluff. If they decide to move because they don't get a grassy lawn out front, LET THEM MOVE.

This is a no brainer.

Well put. Theres too many morons who think they know everything about everything. Of course the people who complain the most never have and most likely never will develop anything and contribute to the "density" of the city.

THANK YOU! This needed to be said.

For what it's worth, one of those involved in the Preservation Oklahoma protest is Marva Ellard, who has been a longtime preservationist and also renovated one of the most damaged old buildings in the urban core - the Sieber Hotel

For what it's worth, one of those involved in the Preservation Oklahoma protest is Marva Ellard, who has been a longtime preservationist and also renovated one of the most damaged old buildings in the urban core - the Sieber Hotel

Steve,

Thank you for providing this item. Somehow I doubt our resident SandRidge apologists will take note as it does not fit their narrative that only deadbeat bloggers care about preserving downtown structures.

Steve - Holding up Marva Ellard will come back to haunt you. Just wait for the responses here as an example, if anyone wants to freely express.

That's not what I said at all bluedog. You're going to win all the arguments on all the internets if you just say something made-up then refute it deftly.

I'm saying we don't just tell them to leave downtown willy-nilly. Also, you bet your ass they could do anything they wanted if they were to build out in Jones. Get some perspective.

No, this is what you said

However, saying that SandRidge (and KM, before) should sell the buildings at whatever cost is about as dumb as it comes. Sorry to put such a fine point on it. These guys are highly sophisticated corporations: do you really think they're turning down lucrative offers for these buildings for the fun of it? Think it through. THINK.
That seems to me you are saying that some of us stated they should sell those buildings at "whatever cost" which is not the case, they could easily get market value out of the buildings that are in question (India Temple and Kermac) and make a profit on them since they were pretty much thrown into the deal for Kerr-McGee. The others already slated for demolition would probably be much a harder sell and may not be worth renovating and no one seems to be wanting to save them if the value isn't there. I worked on that proposal 12 years ago, I know that it was real and I know the stone wall response was real. About 90% of my work down here is for developers (they drive the Texas markets) and I have learned a great deal about the development world in my 22 years of working in architecture and planning. I know there were people who thought Dr. McKean was nuts for putting the amount of money that he did into the JDM Place renovation, years before many thought most of the Bricktown buildings weren't worth saving at one time.

Even if they were to move to Jones they couldn't build anything without some oversight and compliance with building, development and environmental codes without exposing themselves to litigation. Yes, they wouldn't have as many obstacles, that is why I was saying they might be better suited for the burbs if they desire a suburban style campus instead of treating a block of downtown like it is Memorial Road.

The thing that I can't help thinking about is what the real motivation is, it can't really be the plaza and that's all. If they have plans to develop the locations (sometime in the future) where the existing buildings will be demolished as their company grows, then that would be a good marketing/PR tool to use. I think they just massively underestimated public interest in their proposal and expected it to be rubber stamped. I just think there is much more to this than they are letting on.

Steve - Holding up Marva Ellard will come back to haunt you. Just wait for the responses here as an example, if anyone wants to freely express.

Um, OK. Actually, I'm rarely haunted by OKC Talk. Only Effie at the Skirvin.

I am haunted by OKC Talk, though..


Steve - Holding up Marva Ellard will come back to haunt you. Just wait for the responses here as an example, if anyone wants to freely express.

Do you know something about Marva that we don't? Sounds like we know something you don't about her..such as who she is, what she does, the buildings she's saved, projects she has been involved in, the projects she's been denied from doing, and so forth..lol

Um, OK. Actually, I'm rarely haunted by OKC Talk. Only Effie at the Skirvin.

I didn't know you were a Knicks player.

Why the horrendous double standard between Devon and Sandridge ??? Sandridge is being dealt a raw hand and we need them in downtown...we should be providing incentives for Sandridge to locate downtown...some of you people are trying to hurt OKC's downtown growth without even knowing it...pretty pathetic and lazy...

Why the horrendous double standard between Devon and Sandridge ??? Sandridge is being dealt a raw hand and we need them in downtown...we should be providing incentives for Sandridge to locate downtown...some of you people are trying to hurt OKC's downtown growth without even knowing it...pretty pathetic and lazy...

What do you think is the double standard?

Devon took what was essentially a surface parking structure and replacing it with a several building corporate complex (and adding to an existing parking garage making the net parking spaces a wash).

Sandridge is taking a parking structure and replacing it with a building (no problem there). Otherwise they are taking buildings and replacing them with grass.

Why the horrendous double standard between Devon and Sandridge ??? Sandridge is being dealt a raw hand and we need them in downtown...we should be providing incentives for Sandridge to locate downtown...some of you people are trying to hurt OKC's downtown growth without even knowing it...pretty pathetic and lazy...

How was SandRidge dealt a raw hand? There is nothing raw about that site. What SR doesn't realize is that the built environment is something we need, it's not something we can throw away..even if they studied the India Temple and found out it is not conducive to assembly spaces and reception areas, which I have no doubt they did. I don't want downtown turned into nothing but reception areas. I think people are received well enough..

I vote to tear it down. I mean, geez, how many of you people that are fighting for these "historic" buildings spend every single day of the week downtown admiring these structures??? Seriously, do you think some kid growing up is going to have a longing to mourn for a building he/she never knew?! This fight is stupid. We need Sandridge more than you know it or even care to realize. Cities change...

Why the horrendous double standard between Devon and Sandridge ??? Sandridge is being dealt a raw hand and we need them in downtown...we should be providing incentives for Sandridge to locate downtown...some of you people are trying to hurt OKC's downtown growth without even knowing it...pretty pathetic and lazy...

How can you compare the two? Devon worked to build consensus among its neighbors before construction. It is paying to enhance the urban landscape around it. It is building a world-class high rise. Devon is perhaps the greatest friend downtown has had in decades.

SandRidge? It doesn't seek nor want "buy in" from neighbors. It doesn't care about the community around it. It is doing very little to appreciably improve downtown. In fact, its plans will instead further the "urban renewal" atrocities of the Sixties and Seventies.

Apples and oranges.

Really? Really? You're going to accuse me of running a press release on this one? GM, you may or may not be right in terms of what the motive is for the Hill comment. But you are DEAD WRONG about my reporting on this meeting and on the SandRidge story all together.

Ok.
Cowboy,
If you "wrote" it, then you deserved the criticism.
But I'm almost sure you KNEW how CB would want you to write on any story.
And it must be to KISS up the CEO's, and complain like a gossiping tattle telling child.
The Oklahoman is NOTHING more then copy and paste press releases.
As for who actually"wrote" the piece I couldnt care less, I didnt read the "credits".
Now you can simmer down, and get your under garments out of the wad.
You and your "Paper" is obsolete.
Start considering your options.

How can you compare the two? Devon worked to build consensus among its neighbors before construction. It is paying to enhance the urban landscape around it. It is building a world-class high rise. Devon is perhaps the greatest friend downtown has had in decades.

SandRidge? It doesn't seek nor want "buy in" from neighbors. It doesn't care about the community around it. It is doing very little to appreciably improve downtown. In fact, its plans will instead further the "urban renewal" atrocities of the Sixties and Seventies.

Apples and oranges.

This is why TW and SandRidge WILL always be dead last as a corporate citizen.
I havent heard any negative comments about Devon or LR and management.

Seriously GMwise? First of all, Clay Bennett, the man abhorred by Seattlites and OKC anti-corporatists (I made that word up, but it designates, to me, the people who are sure someone else is getting money they shouldn't, at the expense of all of us, no matter if we all want what they're getting money for), does not own the DOK. His wife doesn't even own it. I'm quite sure he has almost zero input into what is in the paper.

And, I'm offended that you insult Steve, who clearly is allowed to speak his mind in the paper and elsewhere. Also, even if the hard copy newspaper may someday be obsolete, I would be shocked if between it and the website, they're not getting a lot of traffic. There's hardly a newspaper in the world that doesn't have a point of view, be it left right or somewhere in between, and so we shouldn't be surprised if there's a slant to the paper as a whole (compare the mighty New York Times and Wall Street Journal if you don't believe me). But, that doesn't mean that every article, every piece of news should be viewed as biased in one direction. You are as biased as the newspaper you criticize, as are most of us. People living in glass houses......

Not sure that what Frank Hill said is necessarily representative of what SandRidge would say, sans attorney
It would be so very good if Steve could get an interview with Tom Ward {that would involved being a reporter/journalist something I doubt any of the Oklahoman resident copy and paste clericals, remembers}so that it could be determined whether Frank's comment was representative of his perspective, as well.

Lots of bullets flying around here with no certain targets. Maybe a cease fire is a good idea, until the above is determined?

Idiots tend to hire idiots.
FH is shown to be one and thus Tom Ward.

I think we're all blowing this out of proportion. Yes, Sandridge wants to tear down a bunch of buildings. And yes, a not so veiled threat was made by Sandridge's lawyer. But, none of us know the mind of the CEO, nor what ultimately will happen. He chose to move his company downtown, so I think he was trying to be a very good corporate citizen and a good member of the community. It's just that his vision for what will make his company and downtown attractive differs from ours. That doesn't make Tom Ward a bad person. If he was the mouth behind the threat, and he's not at all willing to listen to and consider compromise, which we still do not know, then he probably deserves some criticism. But until we know that for sure, we're badmouthing someone who actually moved downtown to help fill buildings, to help keep the downtown flourishing. Even though I want to save a couple of the buildings he wants to tear down, I'm willing to reserve judgement until this whole thing sorts itself out.

I'm willing to reserve [judgment] until this whole thing sorts itself out

By that time it would be too late if you WAIT to judge it.
As for the "attack" on Steve if he just does copy and paste he deserves it,and judging from past articles, he "writes his articles" based on copy and paste not "investigative journalism".
Now if he cant handle criticism, if he relies on others to justified a lackluster career.
OH WELL!
Adapt and get better at it,...this is why the newspapers are dying off.

I vote to tear it down. I mean, geez, how many of you people that are fighting for these "historic" buildings spend every single day of the week downtown admiring these structures??? Seriously, do you think some kid growing up is going to have a longing to mourn for a building he/she never knew?! This fight is stupid. We need Sandridge more than you know it or even care to realize. Cities change...

We realize that cities change, we're just trying to make ours change for the better and not the worse. I think we need these buildings a lot more than you realize. The India Temple can be rehabbed and it can become an amazing boutique hotel--something we desperately need more of in this city, and you can't just put a boutique hotel in any building. More and more we are lacking the building stock to make boutique hotels possible, and SandRidge is going to make that a bigger problem. The KerMac and Braniff should be restored to downtown lofts with retail on the street level. The people who live in those lofts truly will admire their setting every day.

The good far outweighs the negative of SandRidge throwing a huge fit. The zoning ordinances are written to discourage demolition and urban renewal, now we are putting up a fight to uphold the ordinances. They are not written to exclusively consider SandRidge's corporate needs..notice in their rationale for tearing the buildings down they cite that they are not conducive to reception areas. Wow. The rule of our ordinances must be upheld if we are going to make progress in this city. I think historic buildings are worth fighting for, because of the character they have. I also believe that corporate plazas are worth fighting against. So that's +2 in my book. I want downtown to be urban, vibrant, bustling, and exciting. SandRidge is against all of those. Not even Devon, who has 3,500 workers, has a full block, SandRidge is taking an entire full two blocks and they employ 300 people downtown and are either going to go bankrupt due to all their debt or move away eventually anyway--not a well ran company. We are all for SandRidge and want the best headquarters for them, but they're going to have to accept the city around them. They can just wipe out the citified portions in their way.

By that time it would be too late if you WAIT to judge it.
As for the "attack" on Steve if he just does copy and paste he deserves it,and judging from past articles, he "writes his articles" based on copy and paste not "investigative journalism".
Now if he cant handle criticism, if he relies on others to justified a lackluster career.
OH WELL!
Adapt and get better at it,...this is why the newspapers are dying off.

That's your opinion, but it doesn't come close to reflecting the Steve I know.

I do not have a clue whether the notion of departure from downtown was a misstatement by the lawyer, or whether it was an accurate sentiment deliberately channeled through the lawyer.

The silence regarding the statement is itself interesting in this day of near instant communication.

I think we're all blowing this out of proportion. Yes, Sandridge wants to tear down a bunch of buildings. And yes, a not so veiled threat was made by Sandridge's lawyer. But, none of us know the mind of the CEO, nor what ultimately will happen. He chose to move his company downtown, so I think he was trying to be a very good corporate citizen and a good member of the community. It's just that his vision for what will make his company and downtown attractive differs from ours. That doesn't make Tom Ward a bad person. If he was the mouth behind the threat, and he's not at all willing to listen to and consider compromise, which we still do not know, then he probably deserves some criticism. But until we know that for sure, we're badmouthing someone who actually moved downtown to help fill buildings, to help keep the downtown flourishing. Even though I want to save a couple of the buildings he wants to tear down, I'm willing to reserve judgement until this whole thing sorts itself out.

Do you find circumvention of city ordinances to be behavior consistent with the moniker of "good corporate citizen?" I don't.

I do not have a clue whether the notion of departure from downtown was a misstatement by the lawyer, or whether it was an accurate sentiment deliberately channeled through the lawyer.

The silence regarding the statement is itself interesting in this day of near instant communication.

Good point. By his silence we can assume that Tom Ward wants to keep the threat hanging in the air, as he has said nothing to clarify or modify the comments.

I don't think this day of near instant communication applies to corporations like SandRidge who have enormous PR budgets but suck so bad at it. These guys are probably in rooms doing push polling or having group think sessions on whether they should stand by that comment or take it back. I don't think they expected it to blow up in the media like it did, in fact I know that. Now I think they will address it sometime next week, once they figure out how to.

If it weren't for Mayor Mick's statement that he issued showing his unequivocal support for SandRidge, I think SR would have no choice but to take that statement back and find a new lawyer. I think Mayor Mick's statement gives them leverage as well as options, and that's bad. If they want, they really could try and pull some weight with that statement. I don't think Rod Baker and Jim Allen are going to be intimidated by them, but it will be interesting to watch.

Now is the time to put pressure on Mayor Mick for his unequivocal support of SandRidge and other non-urban things. I hope by the end of this next week we can look back and say, "What we have here is a failure to communicate," but if not this just got a lot more contentious and Mayor Mick idiotically threw himself in the debate. We will need to throw this mayor under the bus at some point, because he is not for an urban downtown--too bad he won't just get it over with and run for Congress already. What we need is to get Jim Tolbert in.

Whoa, GMwise. I've just reviewed the past couple of pages in this thread and you have much more than beyond seriously stretched your credibility and dropped off of some corner of the earth when it was still thought to be a 1-dimensional rectangle or a 3-dimensional cube. You think, I guess, that this is a simple matter. You think, I guess, that cheap shots at Steve are fair game, even if your own reading/research has been slovenly about the reading the totality of what he has written. About his Oklahoman report, you say that it represents an "alarmist press release hoping to get support for something that may or may not have merit," i.e., your implication is that Steve is nothing other than a lackey for Clay Bennett (who you said owns but who does not own the Oklahoman, btw) via Tom ward, Bennett's partner in the Thunder, via the Oklahoman and finally sifted down to a a lowly reporter, in this instance, Steve Lackmeyer, and that what Steve wrote is nothing more than an indirect veiled attempt to garner support for SandRidge's position.

GMwise, if that is what you are saying, that is one of the dumbest and most idiotic propositions that anyone on this planet has ever suggested, including but not limited to this little forum about OKC stuff. Steve has been the forefront of providing critical analysis of SandRidge's proposal, which I presume that you know.

I'll repeat it here, for whatever it is worth, what I said in Steve's OkcCentral blog article (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2010/06/18/the-latest-story-on-sandridge-energy/), which, when you made your remark, I presume that you had taken the trouble to read (as well as the several other posts he made which relate to the SandRidge proposal):

JR, you said, “I remember a story in the Gazette about 10 years ago in which Bob Funk, the owner of the hockey team, privately told council members he would leave OK if he didn’t get a 7-year lease to play in the arena. If any corporate assholes want to leave, let them. (The Oke really got scooped badly on that, even though they had the story. They wouldn’t run it.)”

Totally agree with you, JR. The Oklahoman in the past couple of years (when I began noticing) has demonstrated a propensity to censor its paid journalists both as to WHAT they can report about and HOW they are to report it, if at all.

In that context, it’s interesting to me that Steve has apparently been given a free hand (as far as I know) to report on the SandRidge proposal story and developments.

That fact makes me wonder, given the Oklahoman’s established willingness to censor what gets reported and how … what’s up with the Oklahoman? Does Oklahoman ownership concur that SandRidge has gone beyond the pale? Or is it merely freeing up what its journalists have the liberty to report and say?

Pretty interesting stuff, it is.
GMwise, if you have any interest in learning more that what you think you presently know, it's all out there for you to read. It is not my job to save you research time and give you links so that you will become better informed. That's your job.

Do it, or not, as you chose.

And once again Lacklusters' apologists defend their own little world opinions,reinforced by a unremarkable and obsolete career.

No need for cheap shots. Steve's prolific career speaks for itself.

One based on copy and paste of press releases.

One based on copy and paste of press releases.

Jerky comment.

I don't think Steve is the world's most crusading journalist, but he does actively seek out news stories and sources, etc.

There are other "reporting by news release" types in this market, but Steve's certainly not one of them.

And don't confuse me with an apologist: I've certainly provided critiques of Steve's work when I felt it was warranted, as he would attest.

I will only say this: at a meeting earlier this week, I was accused by a SandRidge employee of being AGAINST the SandRidge Commons project. And this wasn't the first time this has been expressed. SandRidge officials have declined to speak to me for the past month. I am on neither side - rather, I just want to make sure all questions are asked.
I am politely asking that this thread return to the topic - SandRidge. If you do a search I'm sure you can find other threads attacking me that I can proudly point to as having hundreds of views.
Thanks for reading GM.

One based on copy and paste of press releases.

Come on GM, very cheap shot.

My contention isnt based on if he is for or against an issue.
Mine was directed at his Employer.
But he decided to make it a personal attack on him.

No, in your perfectly safe anonymity, gmwise, you did that.

let's go back to the thread topic please.

No, in your perfectly safe anonymity, gmwise, you did that.

Dougie,

I have my name for all to see.
There's no anonymity here.

No, I'm not ready.

Steve sucks. Doug sucks. I suck. There, I said it (it needs to be said in every thread I suppose). NOW we can move on..

If SandRidge leaves downtown, or the county, or the city or the state, who cares? I am not saying we don't need a viable downtown, but what or who killed it before?

If SandRidge leaves downtown, or the county, or the city or the state, who cares? I am not saying we don't need a viable downtown, but what or who killed it before?

Relying on just one sector and its spin offs (vendors).

Steve sucks. Doug sucks. I suck. There, I said it (it needs to be said in every thread I suppose). NOW we can move on..

Their employers or maybe their opinions, but I never said the word "suck".
Unlike others who like to meddle in others' sex lives.
I do not care if you do, just dont try to sell a "fair and balance" load to me, when it is not.

GM, I WROTE THE STORY YOU READ. I REPORTED IT. IT PRINTED AS I WROTE AND REPORTED IT. YOU ACCUSED ME OF PRINTING A PRESS RELEASE ON BEHALF OF SANDRIDGE.

Now I suggest that you go to my blog, OKC Central - Information about Oklahoma City, Bricktown and beyond (http://www.okccentral.com), and look at my coverage on SandRidge going back to last fall. If you think I'm following orders from SandRidge after reading all of it, then fine.
If you have issues with the paper, then so be it. It's not a perfect publication. But the idea that I'm following orders from SandRidge on this story is beyond ridiculous and I'm going to stand up and say so.
So now you know how I feel. I know how you feel. Let's move on.

Relying on just one sector and its spin offs (vendors).

People. Yeah, downtown is suffering. Trust me, the fix is not more corporations. The problem is more corporations. The solution is more mixed-uses.

gmwise, i think you need to tone it down. i don't care if you disagree with others but you will do so in a civil manner. your absurd attacks are crossing the line.

back to topic. -M

gmwise, i think you need to tone it down. I don't care if you disagree with others but you will do so in a civil manner. Your absurd attacks are crossing the line.

Back to topic. -m



go and dye your nose braids....


PLEASE TERMINATE THE ACCOUNT....IT WILL NOT BE A BIG LOSS....


THIS IS WHY YOU WILL NEVER SELL ADVERTISING ON THIS SITE...

Wow.