What if every downtown business demolished 5 buildings with their "investment"? Where would that leave us? In the suburbs with no sense of place. What do you mean by "nicer?" In the sense that pretty landscaping in an empty plaza is nicer? Let's follow our city ordinances which are designed to promote density and a more vibrant downtown experience.

I can't believe this is even a debate. Sandridge is going to make downtown nicer with their investment. No angel investor is going to come in a scoop up these buildings and renovate for a long time. Let's move on and move forward.

Totally agree...this debate is almost comical...

I can't believe this is even a debate. Sandridge is going to make downtown nicer with their investment. No angel investor is going to come in a scoop up these buildings and renovate for a long time. Let's move on and move forward.

I can't believe SandRidge has its own staff on here making commentary. Pathetic.

I can't believe SandRidge has its own staff on here making commentary. Pathetic.

If that were true why would that be pathetic, don't they have their right to an opinion just like anybody else ??

I can't believe this is even a debate. Sandridge is going to make downtown nicer with their investment. No angel investor is going to come in a scoop up these buildings and renovate for a long time. Let's move on and move forward.

Have any articles or links? Others have posted ones showing the opposite is the case. How long will it take to renovate the buildings if they aren't there? Once they are gone, any hope is gone as well.

How do you equate moving forward with destruction? Seems to be a disconnect there...

I can't believe this is even a debate. Sandridge is going to make downtown nicer with their investment. No angel investor is going to come in a scoop up these buildings and renovate for a long time. Let's move on and move forward.

Dear OKCPetro83,
Hey, moron! You're getting this form reply because you're a member of what I like to call the something for nothing crowd. Here are a list of facts you likely overlooked in your remark, prompting this auto response.

1. The buildings wouldn't sit empty, that's not part of the process, and nobody but you has suggested they sit empty. The radical idea on our part is..if SR doesn't want to restore the buildings they don't have to, they can entertain some of the offers they've denied from highly credible redevelopers that have been clamoring to rehab these exact buildings.

2. SandRidge is a bully. We have ordinances and laws directing downtown development that everyone else has to comply with. What makes SandRidge special? Even Devon has to comply, and trust me, the majority of downtown building projects pass with flying colors. Being a responsible corporate citizen, let alone mature adults, means that you follow the rules.

3. SandRidge has already let out all of the tower renovation, which is mostly finished at the moment. They would not leave that block when they've already finished what is obviously the most important part of the redevelopment. And if they did, awesome--we've got a completely renovated vacant tower downtown ready for some new company.

4. SandRidge would never leave this building in this economy because it would kill them. Let's say they go back to the NW Expressway or move to Tulsa or Houston and SandRidge Tower (or I should say Kerr McGee Tower) sits empty for years. Well, it's still owned by SandRidge. That's the great thing about being owner-occupied. Not only are they heavily invested in that tower, but it's their holding until they can find another seller. It would never even hit the vacancy roles even if SandRidge moved everything out, same reasoning that the India Temple is not currently on the vacancy roles.

I know that these "facts" may be disturbing and frustrating to you, but I also realize that you don't care, and will continue to insist that we're evil and you are right despite that your something for nothing cohorts can't provide a shred of factual evidence to support your bantering. I also realize you will probably go ahead and register another account after this account has been proven wrong and continue posting as if I had not corrected you already. I await your next attempt..

Sincerely,
The guy who's been all over this since last December or November.

Dear OKCPetro83,
Hey, moron! You're getting this form reply because you're a member of what I like to call the something for nothing crowd. Here are a list of facts you likely overlooked in your remark, prompting this auto response.

1. The buildings wouldn't sit empty, that's not part of the process, and nobody but you has suggested they sit empty. The radical idea on our part is..if SR doesn't want to restore the buildings they don't have to, they can entertain some of the offers they've denied from highly credible redevelopers that have been clamoring to rehab these exact buildings.

2. SandRidge is a bully. We have ordinances and laws directing downtown development that everyone else has to comply with. What makes SandRidge special? Even Devon has to comply, and trust me, the majority of downtown building projects pass with flying colors. Being a responsible corporate citizen, let alone mature adults, means that you follow the rules.

3. SandRidge has already let out all of the tower renovation, which is mostly finished at the moment. They would not leave that block when they've already finished what is obviously the most important part of the redevelopment. And if they did, awesome--we've got a completely renovated vacant tower downtown ready for some new company.

4. SandRidge would never leave this building in this economy because it would kill them. Let's say they go back to the NW Expressway or move to Tulsa or Houston and SandRidge Tower (or I should say Kerr McGee Tower) sits empty for years. Well, it's still owned by SandRidge. That's the great thing about being owner-occupied. Not only are they heavily invested in that tower, but it's their holding until they can find another seller. It would never even hit the vacancy roles even if SandRidge moved everything out, same reasoning that the India Temple is not currently on the vacancy roles.

I know that these "facts" may be disturbing and frustrating to you, but I also realize that you don't care, and will continue to insist that we're evil and you are right despite that your something for nothing cohorts can't provide a shred of factual evidence to support your bantering. I also realize you will probably go ahead and register another account after this account has been proven wrong and continue posting as if I had not corrected you already. I await your next attempt..

Sincerely,
The guy who's been all over this since last December or November.

Why the name calling ? you may make more feel the way you do if you would stop the childish behavior.

Why do all these discussions always turn into berating of those who happen to disagree with the a certain few posters?

Is this an open forum or only a forum for people who have a certain ideology and political and social bent? For people who want to consider themselves bastions of public interest it seems that the interest doesn't include healthy discussion and opposing views. It boils down to an argument of "be like me or I will try to bully you into leaving". Surely this isn't what the site owners/moderators intend.

Why do all these discussions always turn into berating of those who happen to disagree with the a certain few posters?

Is this an open forum or only a forum for people who have a certain ideology and political and social bent? For people who want to consider themselves bastions of public interest it seems that the interest doesn't include healthy discussion and opposing views. It boils down to an argument of "be like me or I will try to bully you into leaving". Surely this isn't what the site owners/moderators intend. Agreed...

Why do all these discussions always turn into berating of those who happen to disagree with the a certain few posters?

Is this an open forum or only a forum for people who have a certain ideology and political and social bent? For people who want to consider themselves bastions of public interest it seems that the interest doesn't include healthy discussion and opposing views. It boils down to an argument of "be like me or I will try to bully you into leaving". Surely this isn't what the site owners/moderators intend.We've lost the art of civility.

I read somewhere that civility rests on respect and respect of others rests on both self-respect and self-control. I was too young to understand that when I first read it but am gaining sufficient age to appreciate the idea now.

Name-calling = childish. Several people here have taken to denigrating others and need to learn to debate issues on their merits and understand their opinion is not necessarily "right". Realize that these issues are not black & white, right & wrong, but shades of gray. Both sides have advantages and disadvantages worthy of debate and respect. Really, people...engage your brains and use logic if you want to win others to your ideas, not your emotions.

Name-calling = childish. Several people here have taken to denigrating others and need to learn to debate issues on their merits and understand their opinion is not necessarily "right". Realize that these issues are not black & white, right & wrong, but shades of gray. Both sides have advantages and disadvantages worthy of debate and respect. Really, people...engage your brains and use logic if you want to win others to your ideas, not your emotions.

Exactly! The problem is that some people think that whatever is contrary to their opinion is not only wrong, but someone must be dumb to even think like that. Oh, and if a board of public officials votes against their opinion well then clearly they are bad people and are dumb because they do not know what they are doing.

So maybe these kinds of threads need closing when they get to a point where the presentation of facts, ideas and opinions die off and the only thing left is personal.

I can't believe this is even a debate. Sandridge is going to make downtown nicer with their investment. No angel investor is going to come in a scoop up these buildings and renovate for a long time. Let's move on and move forward.

Kerr McGee was going to do it.

Sandridge doesn't need it. They just want to do it because 1) they don't want an urban complex and 2) vanity.

It will not make downtown nicer. It will just make it smaller and less dense while adding plaza space when the space we have isn't used.

I can't believe that Sandridge is even willing to spend $100 million dollars on this. They don't want to make it better, they just want to tear it down. They can't even fill the tower and are a long way from doing so, so why do they want to do anything? It makes zero practical or operational sense and only serves to eliminate urban infrastructure from a city that has very very little urban infrastructure. It's silly.

People are called morons because they don't take the time to inform themselves before commenting and then spout things that are 100% false. If you form your opinion based on a lie, misinformation, or willful ignorance then you opinion is wrong. Calling them a moron is not an insult in this case, it is an accurate description. What reasonable person would continue to believe a lie after they know it is a lie?

Although Nick and I are pretty much on the same side of the issues here, I agree that it is uncalled for and unproductive, if not counterproductive, to do name-calling. Nick, you might want to take a second look at your form letter, IMO.

I think if you are going to be a regular so-called "expert", you might want to learn some civility. You wouldn't call someone a name in a conference room. If you want to be thought of as professional, act like one, and don't call people names.

I am done with this discussion and all other ones concerning SandRidge's plans. Until we stop the name calling, there really is no point. I am not on the popular side of the fence (on this website anyway), and I don't feel the need to argue my opinion and be called names because of it.

People are called morons because they don't take the time to inform themselves before commenting and then spout things that are 100% false. If you form your opinion based on a lie, misinformation, or willful ignorance then you opinion is wrong. Calling them a moron is not an insult in this case, it is an accurate description. What reasonable person would continue to believe a lie after they know it is a lie?

Opinions cannot be wrong, because they are just that ... opinions. Yes, calling someone a moron because you think their opinion is wrong is an insult. Is calling someone fat that is actually fat?? Yes, it is. Use a little logic

Echoing Kerry's point -- and Spartan's -- some of the posters here don't keep up with the known facts, i.e., the known city ordinances, and continue to stubbornly advance arguments that are based on falsehoods. That is not, as the poster above states, "opinion." That's moronic.

It's one thing, as some posters do, to believe that the city ordinances should be ignored to allow SandRidge to do what it wants. It's quite another to mindlessly argue that following city ordinances is an unneccessary inconvenience, or is in any way anything out of the ordinary. In fact, it's out of the ordinary for SandRidge to get exemptions to existing ordinances.

Similarly, it's dumb to continue to suggest, as some have here, that the people opposed to SandRidge's plans are forcing the company to renovate buildings, or to continue to suggest that known buyers of the buildings in question have not come forward with a clear intent to purchase.

Name calling aside, it's a waste of time for posters here to continue to advance debunked arguments for the sake of sophistry. We can hardly have a "civil discussion" if 20% of the most vocal posters here insist on repeating tired, disproven talking points.

Also, for all of the wounded victims whining about name calling, some if not most of them have participated in generalizing people who oppose that SandRidge proposal as brickhuggers, preservationists, etc. That may not be like calling someone a moron, but it it's in the same rhetorical, demeaning neighborhood with regard to its contextual usage.

Spartan was attempting to use a little humor here to make a very strong point (which I notice has not really been effectively argued against), which is that several posters on here continue to ignore known facts, and even worse, perhaps, try to suggest that said facts represent "opinion." That hardly passes for civil discussion.

I think I'll just quote myself from the other thread that died because of this one. Someone over there asked, "Do you really think that Tom Ward changed just because he started Sandridge?" To which I replied:



I think that is the point. McClendon and Chesapeake for all they have done for the city are not urban minded in their development. They chose to go with a suburban style campus and have torn down a lot to do it. However, they have chosen to do it in a suburban setting. Sandridge and Tom Ward have chosen to do it in an urban downtown setting, something of which we do not have much. They want to erase part of what little urban offering we have in order to create a more suburban environment. This is why maybe they aren't a good fit for downtown.

Aside from historic importance or sentimental feelings towards the city itself, the main problems with the Sandridge plan in my oinion are:

1) WHERE they are doing it

If they want a campus complex AND want to improve the city, then GREAT! There are SO many opportunities in the city to do that it's not even funny. Put it on the river next to Dell or somewhere else like that. I just don't see any justification in our real estate market for tearing down what little urban environment we have just to make an office complex more suburban and campus feeling. The opportunity cost in doing so is so overwhelming it's amazing that some can't see it. Sandridge knew they would have blood on their hands when they went forward with this. They knew they were going against the goals of downtown Oklahoma City. And they didn't care, even though they could have done this virtually anywhere else in the city at absolutely zero opportunity cost to the community.

2) WHY they are doing it.

It's complete vanity. They are not tearing down buildings to improve their coproprate infrastructure due to operations requirements. They don't even need the entire space of the Kerr McGee building. They are doing it for one reason only: they think it will be neat. Again, this is fine, but why do it at the expense of our tiny urban district when the city is full of wide open spaces? They could go a mile in any direction and create a campus with the largest most impressive parks and plazas at zero intrinsic cost to the community and probably at half the actual cost. In fact, it would not be hard for them to do it in a way that would be universally accepted as an improvement to the community. Instead, they have chosen a strategy that will greatly affect downtown's marketability as a viable urban option in central Oklahoma.

It just comes down to the fact that the costs, both real and opportunity costs, so far outweigh the gain in any value this move adds to the community or to the properties itself, it's crazy that anyone thinks it's a good idea. I can't even imagine that those that support what they are doing because they feel corporations should be able to do whatever they want to a community would argue that this is the right place, the best place, or especially the ONLY place Sandridge can achieve this campus like corporate environment they are trying to create by tearing these buildings down.

Echoing Kerry's point -- and Spartan's -- some of the posters here don't keep up with the known facts, i.e., the known city ordinances, and continue to stubbornly advance arguments that are based on falsehoods. That is not, as the poster above states, "opinion." That's moronic.

It's one thing, as some posters do, to believe that the city ordinances should be ignored to allow SandRidge to do what it wants. It's quite another to mindlessly argue that following city ordinances is an unneccessary inconvenience, or is in any way anything out of the ordinary. In fact, it's out of the ordinary for SandRidge to get exemptions to existing ordinances.

Similarly, it's dumb to continue to suggest, as some have here, that the people opposed to SandRidge's plans are forcing the company to renovate buildings, or to continue to suggest that known buyers of the buildings in question have not come forward with a clear intent to purchase.

Name calling aside, it's a waste of time for posters here to continue to advance debunked arguments for the sake of sophistry. We can hardly have a "civil discussion" if 20% of the most vocal posters here insist on repeating tired, disproven talking points.

Also, for all of the wounded victims whining about name calling, some if not most of them have participated in generalizing people who oppose that SandRidge proposal as brickhuggers, preservationists, etc. That may not be like calling someone a moron, but it it's in the same rhetorical, demeaning neighborhood with regard to its contextual usage.

Spartan was attempting to use a little humor here to make a very strong point (which I notice has not really been effectively argued against), which is that several posters on here continue to ignore known facts, and even worse, perhaps, try to suggest that said facts represent "opinion." That hardly passes for civil discussion.


What does "keeping up with the known city ordinances" mean? Just because you read an ordinance and think you understand what it means does not mean that is how it will always be interpreted. How much case law have you read where that ordinance is interpreted? My bet would be zero, but maybe I am wrong. My point is that you cannot just read an isolated ordinance and presume to know the meaning and how it is supposed to be imposed. Ordinances are fluid and not black and white. There is always room for interpretation, and exceptions to every rule. But a lot of the talk here is based on someone reading an ordinance and seeing the word shall and running with it. I am sure there will be a reply to this post with a portion of the ordinance regurgitated and the word "shall" or "must" will be bolded, which will further make my point.

What does "keeping up with the known city ordinances" mean? Just because you read an ordinance and think you understand what it means does not mean that is how it will always be interpreted. How much case law have you read where that ordinance is interpreted? My bet would be zero, but maybe I am wrong. My point is that you cannot just read an isolated ordinance and presume to know the meaning and how it is supposed to be imposed. Ordinances are fluid and not black and white. There is always room for interpretation, and exceptions to every rule. But a lot of the talk here is based on someone reading an ordinance and seeing the word shall and running with it. I am sure there will be a reply to this post with a portion of the ordinance regurgitated and the word "shall" or "must" will be bolded, which will further make my point.

Awesome. So now the written ordinances may or may not mean what they say... why pass any statutes at all when convenience, and not intent, is the guide to interpretation.

You can certainly tell which posters have learned the art of persuasion (usually from sitting through hundreds of hours of professional/management meetings).

It's ok to say someone is incorrect, or in error, then point out the error with a correction - and be able to cite your source if challenged. If you simply disagree, then say, "I disagree" and go on to explain your position.

The quickest way to lose credibility is to call people names. Name-calling always indicates poor reasoning skills...it shows the name-caller is unable to form and articulate logical thoughts and must revert to ape-like aggression in order to "win". I have seen numerous careers go down in flames because of this mistake.

Awesome. So now the written ordinances may or may not mean what they say... why pass any statutes at all when convenience, and not intent, is the guide to interpretation.

Ordinances are not static, but rather a work in constant progress. (A statute and an ordinance are two different things, but kind of similar). What works today may not work tomorrow, and what was meant by the passing of an ordinance may elicit a result that is unwanted. This is why ordinances are constantly changing and cannot be read as black and white.

You can certainly tell which posters have learned the art of persuasion (usually from sitting through hundreds of hours of professional/management meetings).

It's ok to say someone is incorrect, or in error, then point out the error with a correction - and be able to cite your source if challenged. If you simply disagree, then say, "I disagree" and go on to explain your position.

The quickest way to lose credibility is to call people names. Name-calling always indicates poor reasoning skills...it shows the name-caller is unable to form and articulate logical thoughts and must revert to ape-like aggression in order to "win". I have seen numerous careers go down in flames because of this mistake.

exactly.

A statute and an ordinance are two different things, but kind of similar

Right, but if we are to simply accept that ordinances are fluid for convenience, why should statutes be any different? The same is true that what statutes work today may not work tomorrow. In either case, intent should be the guide for interpretation. It should not be about parsing the document simply to find words that can be argued as ambiguous to establish latitude for interpretation just to support an argument of convenience.

Right, but if we are to simply accept that ordinances are fluid for convenience, why should statutes be any different? The same is true that what statutes work today may not work tomorrow. In either case, intent should be the guide for interpretation. It should not be about parsing the document simply to find words that can be argued as ambiguous to establish latitude for interpretation just to support an argument of convenience.

A statute has more guidance as to how it will be applied because you can look at the case law to see how the statute has been interpreted by Judges. Ordinances do not have that same type of review. Most of the time when a decision from a city board is appealed to District Court, the court is looking to see if the Board was arbitrary in their decision based on the facts presented. This is a tough standard to overcome short of an egregious decision by a board.

A statute has more guidance as to how it will be applied because you can look at the case law to see how the statute has been interpreted by Judges.

I understand the review process is completely different, but does that make ordinances inherently more ambiguous by design or are statutes simply enforced too rigidly? You suggested the standard was relevance and not processes, so both would then be held by the "what works today" standard, as we all know that some statutes do not work well today.

In either case, whether interpreting ordinances or statutes, even within the context of case review, the intent of the language is key and should not be trumped by situational convenience, as doing so pretty much renders the practice of written laws an exercise of vanity mo matter the jurisdiction or the processes used to review and enforce them.

In any event, my position is not really based on the city or its enforcement of its ordinances. I have lived here long enough to know that the city doesn't really have much respect for or identity attached to its structural assets. Really, I just think what Sandridge is doing is ridiculous to begin with and has no merit. i would much rather see them convinced that what they want to do is detrimental to the city's competitive opportunity to offer at least a small sliver of an urban community to prospective businesses and employees. And, sadly, I think there is a much better chance of convincing them that than there is of convincing the city that.

However, that realization may result in a move out of downtown. Personally, I don't think that would be bad, if they really don't want to add to the downtown community, then what's the big deal? Let them go and improve another part of the city where they can ADD to a community instead of detracting from it.

I have seen this city benefit more in the last 15 years through revitalization and better urbanization of the core than it ever did by tearing itself down. No single company has improved or can improve the city as much as the revitalization and addition to our core assets has. It is just so unfortunate that we still see some civic and business leaders in the city that think tearing down more of the city is the way to make it better. It just doesn't work and we have been THE example of that for 30 years. Now that we have begun to become an example of how reinvesting and improving the core is more economically beneficial to the community than tearing it down, I just don't see how anyone can argue that they SHOULD do this, even if they are found to have the right to.

So maybe these kinds of threads need closing when they get to a point where the presentation of facts, ideas and opinions die off and the only thing left is personal.If that were the case they'ed all be closed.

Awesome. So now the written ordinances may or may not mean what they say... why pass any statutes at all when convenience, and not intent, is the guide to interpretation.I agree with you. It is a sad state of affairs when the intent of an ordiance is tossed aside or given a twisted interpretation to further ones agenda. It is especially sad when the taxpayers voted to adopt the ordinance, not the Council, to then have City management trample over it's intent. City ordinance #19226 is a prime example. What sets 19226 apart from the ordinance being debated here is 3/4 of a cent in additional taxes you pay.

I agree. Nick, you are passionate and I appreciate it more than you can know. We need to have a cold one and comisserate sometime.

What does "keeping up with the known city ordinances" mean? Just because you read an ordinance and think you understand what it means does not mean that is how it will always be interpreted. How much case law have you read where that ordinance is interpreted? My bet would be zero, but maybe I am wrong. My point is that you cannot just read an isolated ordinance and presume to know the meaning and how it is supposed to be imposed. Ordinances are fluid and not black and white. There is always room for interpretation, and exceptions to every rule. But a lot of the talk here is based on someone reading an ordinance and seeing the word shall and running with it. I am sure there will be a reply to this post with a portion of the ordinance regurgitated and the word "shall" or "must" will be bolded, which will further make my point.

This is precisely the kind of sophistry I was talking about. Thank you.

You can certainly tell which posters have learned the art of persuasion (usually from sitting through hundreds of hours of professional/management meetings).

It's ok to say someone is incorrect, or in error, then point out the error with a correction - and be able to cite your source if challenged. If you simply disagree, then say, "I disagree" and go on to explain your position.

The quickest way to lose credibility is to call people names. Name-calling always indicates poor reasoning skills...it shows the name-caller is unable to form and articulate logical thoughts and must revert to ape-like aggression in order to "win". I have seen numerous careers go down in flames because of this mistake.

It's amazing how many words you used to say so little. Please tell us who is winning the war of persuasion. Surely not the posters who insist on repeating thoroughly debunked talking points, such as: "SandRidge is being forced into renovating buildings," and "if these buildings were worth anything, someone would have bought them," etc., etc.

It's clear who's winning the argument and who's losing based on the posts. The whiners who don't want to discuss facts but whine about name calling are clearly not winning.

I agree with you. It is a sad state of affairs when the intent of an ordiance is tossed aside or given a twisted interpretation to further ones agenda. It is especially sad when the taxpayers voted to adopt the ordinance, not the Council, to then have City management trample over it's intent. City ordinance #19226 is a prime example. What sets 19226 apart from the ordinance being debated here is 3/4 of a cent in additional taxes you pay.

:please:

People are called morons because they don't take the time to inform themselves before commenting and then spout things that are 100% false. If you form your opinion based on a lie, misinformation, or willful ignorance then you opinion is wrong. Calling them a moron is not an insult in this case, it is an accurate description. What reasonable person would continue to believe a lie after they know it is a lie?

:yourock: Excellent observation and have wondered myself about that with certain individuals about certain topics of discussion.

"I am going to believe what I am going to believe. Don't try to confuse me with the facts"

Opinions cannot be wrong, because they are just that ... opinions. Yes, calling someone a moron because you think their opinion is wrong is an insult. Is calling someone fat that is actually fat?? Yes, it is. Use a little logic

We are not in fifth grade anymore - here in the grown-up world, opinions can be wrong. If I said something stupid like it is my opinion the Earth is flat - that makes my opinion wrong (the Earth is not flat). If someone says downtown OKC would be nicer with a corporate plaza that is a value judgment and if that conclusion is based on fraudulent information and the person still believes it after being presented with evidence to the contrary, then that person fits the definition of a moron (and other adjectives). What type of person continues to believe something they now know to be wrong? Certainly not a smart person.

We are not in fifth grade anymore - here in the grown-up world, opinions can be wrong. If I said something stupid like it is my opinion the Earth is flat - that makes my opinion wrong (the Earth is not flat). If someone says downtown OKC would be nicer with a corporate plaza that is a value judgment and if that conclusion is based on fraudulent information and the person still believes it after being presented with evidence to the contrary, then that person fits the definition of a moron (and other adjectives). What type of person continues to believe something they now know to be wrong? Certainly not a smart person.

I think you get my point. Opinions on something like what they would consider nicer in downtown surely cannot be wrong. People have different preferences.

I am glad that the lost humor in my mockery of a form letter is now an excuse for the SandRidgers to stop rehashing their misguided talking points. I think that anyone being surprised by a lack of civility on this topic should take a look in the mirror. What do you expect? SandRidgers aren't going to admit they're wrong, apparently they actually believe in being wrong. Apparently we also believe in what we're saying. The only hope for a rational discussion is that each side state their case, and move on. Obviously that won't get you multiple 10+ page threads..

Nick, you have said the face of buildings (or the front, part, etc,) has to be within 10 feet of the street per ordinance. That is for construction right? We are not talking about construction of new buildings, rather the destruction. So since the building will not be there, the face will not be in existence and therefore cannot be judged by an ordinance that doesn't apply to it.

Also, I think you need to tone it down a little bit. The name calling is getting very old and is going nowhere to support your arguments.

Matt, there is also an anti-demolition ordinance. You are overlooking the fact that the city planning department gave a strong recommendation to deny.

My rhetoric is obviously in jest. The only thing offensive that's been said in this thread was where proudtBsooner accused me of being an "expert" in some roundabout way to indict me on my strong rhetoric.

I also don't hide the fact that there are posters on this site who I can not bring myself to respect. Those that I do respect, which include many who disagree with myself including you Skywest, I don't think I've insulted.

It's not like those who I can't respect are just full of respect for me, either. And that is the way the cookie crumbles, folks.

Matt, there is also an anti-demolition ordinance. You are overlooking the fact that the city planning department gave a strong recommendation to deny.

My rhetoric is obviously in jest. The only thing offensive that's been said in this thread was where proudtBsooner accused me of being an "expert" in some roundabout way to indict me on my strong rhetoric.

I also don't hide the fact that there are posters on this site who I can not bring myself to respect. Those that I do respect, which include many who disagree with myself including you Skywest, I don't think I've insulted.

It's not like those who I can't respect are just full of respect for me, either. And that is the way the cookie crumbles, folks.

The fact the the city planning staff rec denial is not the end all. There are things all the time that are approved when the staff recs denial.

Maybe we should just get rid of staff if we don't need 'em. They should just butt out of private bidness anyway.

DirtLaw, why don't you provide us examples of things in downtown that have been approved despite the rec.

Nick, I don't feel that you have insulted me. I just think that everyone can get along without the pushing. Whether that is the "Sandridgers" or the "urbanists". I think we can all get along with a civil discussion regardless of who's viewpoints are dead-on balls accurate and who's opinions are flawed.

Also, can you please point out the anti-demolition ordinance? I am not citing you, I just honestly don't know about it and would like to read more on it.

BTW, I also respect you. I don't agree with everything you say, but it takes a lot of guts to do what you have done, and I respect that a ton. If only more people would stand up for what they believed was right.

Maybe we should just get rid of staff if we don't need 'em. They should just butt out of private bidness anyway.

DirtLaw, why don't you provide us examples of things in downtown that have been approved despite the rec.

Does the new Chamber of Commerce building count. If I am not mistaken, the Staff said No but it was on its way to approval anyhow.

Does the new Chamber of Commerce building count. If I am not mistaken, the Staff said No but it was on its way to approval anyhow.

Exactly. We are all pretty familiar with that situation...

Exactly. We are all pretty familiar with that situation...

Maybe the C of C threatend to move out of downtown to get it approved. That is what sucks about blackmail. Once you give you in you have to keep giving in.

What if Sandridge builds the corporate plaza and in 5 years when the they don't want to cover the cost of maintenance they tell the city to take over or they will decide "downtown isn't for them".

Maybe the C of C threatend to move out of downtown to get it approved. That is what sucks about blackmail. Once you give you in you have to keep giving in.

What if Sandridge builds the corporate plaza and in 5 years when the they don't want to cover the cost of maintenance they tell the city to take over or they will decide "downtown isn't for them".

Companies do this all the time. It's a joke in Cincinnati, where P&G threatens to leave every few years to keep the city coughing up more and more incentives for them.

We've actually been fairly lucky in OKC to have companies who actually seem to care about the city and not just what they can get from the city.

Maybe we should just get rid of staff if we don't need 'em. They should just butt out of private bidness anyway.

DirtLaw, why don't you provide us examples of things in downtown that have been approved despite the rec.

You are missing the point. It is not that we do not need the city staff, quite the opposite actually. They are extremely valuable and helpful. The point is, that the staff makes recs and it is up to the boards to make the actual decisions. That is why they are appointed/ elected. As a person who deals with the city staff and the boards on a weekly basis, I can say that the system works extremely well.

I've posted http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2010/07/sandridge-restoration.html
with a video put together from 1951's Scrooge starring Alastair Sim mixed with other things. It contains several examples of restoration of downtrodden properties in the city, and ends with a plea to SandRidge, I guess, to have a Christmas Eve experience analogous to that of Ebenezer Scrooge.

Good stuff Doug

As a person who deals with the city staff and the boards on a weekly basis, I can say that the system works extremely well.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

P.S. I notice you're trying to get me to say something to the extent of "I wish the city boards would join my urban revolution for a change." Unfortunately I maintain that it's the ordinances and the collective wisdom that need to be reaffirmed, and this has nothing to do with what the status quo is or isn't.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

P.S. I notice you're trying to get me to say something to the extent of "I wish the city boards would join my urban revolution for a change." Unfortunately I maintain that it's the ordinances and the collective wisdom that need to be reaffirmed, and this has nothing to do with what the status quo is or isn't.

relax man, I am not trying to get you to say anything. I was simply giving my perspective and opinion of how the system works as someone who works in the system on a daily basis. I have worked with the staff and boards on the government as well as private side.

Some of us have been going to meetings for the last two-three years and are also very familiar with how the "system" works on a daily basis. Preservation Oklahoma is also very aware of how the system works.

What does this have to do with SandRidge Commons? Surely you are not trying to say that the "system" is not appropriate for fighting the SandRidge Commons proposal.

Some of us have been going to meetings for the last two-three years and are also very familiar with how the "system" works on a daily basis. Preservation Oklahoma is also very aware of how the system works.

What does this have to do with SandRidge Commons? Surely you are not trying to say that the "system" is not appropriate for fighting the SandRidge Commons proposal.

This was started because I made the comment that just because the staff recs denial and something is approved, does not mean that there was a breakdown in the system or that the system is flawed in any way. Bad staff reports happen all the time and things get approved, and the opposite happens where staff recs approval and a board denies an application. You then made the comment that was something to the effect of implying that I was suggesting we do not need staff. I think that the problem with this project is that people are too emotional about it and not able to have a rationale discussion because they view anything that could remotely be considered anti their point as an attack.

I am sure you are very familiar with the system, I was simply stating that working in that environment is what I do for a living and I was simply trying to state my opinion on the system and how I thought it works.

The system is absolutely appropriate for fighting this application, and any application that come up for that matter. My point is simply that just because you see a result that you do not agree with or like, it is not right to start screaming that the system is flawed or that people are lying, etc (note, I am not saying you did any of this I am speaking in general terms).

There was a lot of discussion about the ordinances, and I was stating that ordinances are not always followed. That is just how it is. That does not mean we need to get rid of them, or that they are flawed, it is just that sometimes there are other circumstances that warrant not following an ordinance. That is a huge part of what the board of adjustment does, they grant variances to ordinances (i.e. allow someone to not meet the requirement of the code).

There was a lot of discussion about the ordinances, and I was stating that ordinances are not always followed. That is just how it is.

What do you say to the fact that one of the DDR commissioners was overheard boasting that he had never read the ordinances and did not need to.

Does the system work in this situation. Not all but many of the appointees act like they are divinely gifted and anything of their own opinion, no matter how contrary should be just.

DirtLaw, I'd love to know who you are if only because if you're a downtown attorney and you're at these meetings every week, we probably know each other already. I'm just having trouble believing you're Dennis Box (language pattern doesn't fit) and that's the name I'd think of first with such a description....

DirtLaw, I'd love to know who you are if only because if you're a downtown attorney and you're at these meetings every week, we probably know each other already. I'm just having trouble believing you're Dennis Box (language pattern doesn't fit) and that's the name I'd think of first with such a description....

How many anonymous "experts" have we had come on here and rattle their saber and tell us "you don't know who I am." Probably the same guy over and over who is a clerk for one of these lawyers who benefits from their clients out there pushing their bad projects.

I should probably come up with a facetious form letter for the "you don't know who I am" crowd as well..

I'm not doubting his honesty Spartan - he seems to be familiar with the system. Just curious as to who he is.

Well, Nick, for a heck of a long time, you were anonymous as well. Lighten up ... stop being so petulant.






:sofa: