Not trying to be nit picky here but isn't this $100 million Sandridge's money? If I had a million dollars to spend, I would never ask the public what they think I should spend it on. This city should be greatful they have a business within city limits that is willing to invest in itself. If I'm not mistaken hasn't Sandridge contributed money to this community? This is the return the city gives back?

Got thought, Otis?

Ah, Kerry, but things aren't always that black and white. Like killing someone isn't murder if it is in self defense. I am not sure your smell test applies here. Neither does the argument that anyone should do whatever they want if they pay for it. If the SR issue was clear-cut then we wouldn't be vigorously discussing it here.

If I had a million dollars to spend, I would never ask the public what they think I should spend it on. This city should be greatful they have a business within city limits that is willing to invest in itself. If I'm not mistaken hasn't Sandridge contributed money to this community? This is the return the city gives back?

Where do you live? I have been scouting locations for a new strip club concept and I think your neighborhood might be great location, especially if your neighbors will let me do whatever I want with my money as well (so many neighborhoods have been opposed to this, even though I have the money and am a good local citizen). In fact, I think I can use my money to pay your neighbor whatever they want and build it next door to you.

Thankfully, it will have less of an impact on the city doing it there than if I tore down some buildings downtown to do it...

Ah, Kerry, but things aren't always that black and white. Like killing someone isn't murder if it is in self defense. I am not sure your smell test applies here. Neither does the argument that anyone should do whatever they want if they pay for it. If the SR issue was clear-cut then we wouldn't be vigorously discussing it here.

It is clear cut. It couldn't be any clearer. There is a reason why they have to go through the Board of Adjustment. They're trying to do something that isn't allowed under city ordinances.

It is clear cut. It couldn't be any clearer. There is a reason why they have to go through the Board of Adjustment. They're trying to do something that isn't allowed under city ordinances.

I do not know that the last portion is entirely accurate. They are at the Board of Adjustment via an appeal from the preservation group, not because they are seeking a variance, correct? I thought they were seeking a CA?

Cities make special allowances all the time. Extenuating circumstances, incentives, etc. They went through processes and now some are questioning the processes. This kind of wrangling goes on all the time.

That is correct, DirtLaw. The point is that the DDRC ignored the ordinances and did not vote their consciences, with members who voted yes opining that they have blood on their hands. They just approved it so they wouldn't have to deal with the controversy and because they thought SR would get their plaza however they had to do it.

This is an interesting situation though, and this might have been what Kerry was trying to get at. Because typically how this goes is that the DDRC is supposed to strictly apply the ordinance and not grant variances. Variances are granted at the BoA in appeals. But we all know this is against the strict language of the ordinance, hence the planning recommendation, and in order to go forward it SHOULD get a variance. So, I think that there are some interesting questions that we might have overlooked.

1. The fact that the process was messed up, whether you support the plaza or not, you then support SR getting a VARIANCE. Does that mean that the BoA should have to side with PO? Even in order to get the plaza, it seems like they should send it back to DDRC for DDRC to do their job and declare it incompatible with city ordinance and then for SR to request an appeal and get a variance..that's how the plaza should be done in order to comply with not complying with city code. As it is this process has not even complied with not complying with city code.
2. Why are we having debates and powerpoint presentations? This should be clear cut and the only person allowed a say in this matter should be the city planning staff and the two sides should get to answer questions, but that's it.
3. We've been reminded several times, especially during the hearings, that the decision is not to way anything other than the ordinance. So then why did Jim Allen and Rod Baker talk about which building they like and which building they don't like when they rendered their decisions? David Wanzer was the only one who strictly kept his comments on the level of the ordinance...
4. If city staff finds that the development, once underway, is against city code and that SR does NOT have a variance--what then happens? Is SR required to get a variance if DDRC passes it anyway? I think that's the question..because clearly, despite getting passed by the DDRC they did NOT get a variance because they refuse to acknowledge......basically the entire public process.

That is correct, DirtLaw. The point is that the DDRC ignored the ordinances and did not vote their consciences, with members who voted yes opining that they have blood on their hands. They just approved it so they wouldn't have to deal with the controversy and because they thought SR would get their plaza however they had to do it.

This is an interesting situation though, and this might have been what Kerry was trying to get at. Because typically how this goes is that the DDRC is supposed to strictly apply the ordinance and not grant variances. Variances are granted at the BoA in appeals. But we all know this is against the strict language of the ordinance, hence the planning recommendation, and in order to go forward it SHOULD get a variance. So, I think that there are some interesting questions that we might have overlooked.

1. The fact that the process was messed up, whether you support the plaza or not, you then support SR getting a VARIANCE. Does that mean that the BoA should have to side with PO? Even in order to get the plaza, it seems like they should send it back to DDRC for DDRC to do their job and declare it incompatible with city ordinance and then for SR to request an appeal and get a variance..that's how the plaza should be done in order to comply with not complying with city code. As it is this process has not even complied with not complying with city code.
2. Why are we having debates and powerpoint presentations? This should be clear cut and the only person allowed a say in this matter should be the city planning staff and the two sides should get to answer questions, but that's it.
3. We've been reminded several times, especially during the hearings, that the decision is not to way anything other than the ordinance. So then why did Jim Allen and Rod Baker talk about which building they like and which building they don't like when they rendered their decisions? David Wanzer was the only one who strictly kept his comments on the level of the ordinance...
4. If city staff finds that the development, once underway, is against city code and that SR does NOT have a variance--what then happens? Is SR required to get a variance if DDRC passes it anyway? I think that's the question..because clearly, despite getting passed by the DDRC they did NOT get a variance because they refuse to acknowledge......basically the entire public process.

I do not think they have to get a variance to demo a building. I believe that the ordinance says that demo permit on a building over 20,000 sq feet is issued by the DDC, which they did and they pres people appealed that decision?

Well there is a separate ordinance discouraging demolition as well. I would think that the plaza would require a variance for the setback as well, since the plaza would be considered a development. I agree that demolition and development are separate in these terms, but plaza is not..it's just filed under bad development.

It's interesting how on one side, you can just assume that it doesn't matter because it seems to be going forward anyway and nobody else has questioned it. But with some of the shenanigans I've seen lately, every minute detail seems to be asking for scrutiny. So I don't know if I'm splitting hairs by questioning this or not.

I don't actually claim to be an expert on OKC city code and I don't know of many people who are, although with the really good, pertinent facts I've seen brought up by PO I would assume those folks are as good as anyone. So my point is that I don't know, that's why I'm phrasing these points as questions because I don't know 100% how this should work because we haven't seen a case like this in OKC in quite a while.

Well there is a separate ordinance discouraging demolition as well. I would think that the plaza would require a variance for the setback as well, since the plaza would be considered a development. I agree that demolition and development are separate in these terms, but plaza is not..it's just filed under bad development.

It's interesting how on one side, you can just assume that it doesn't matter because it seems to be going forward anyway and nobody else has questioned it. But with some of the shenanigans I've seen lately, every minute detail seems to be asking for scrutiny. So I don't know if I'm splitting hairs by questioning this or not.

I don't actually claim to be an expert on OKC city code and I don't know of many people who are, although with the really good, pertinent facts I've seen brought up by PO I would assume those folks are as good as anyone. So my point is that I don't know, that's why I'm phrasing these points as questions because I don't know 100% how this should work because we haven't seen a case like this in OKC in quite a while.

The plaza may well require a variance, but that is not an issue for the vote on whether or not to demo the buildings. I believe the app was for demo of the buildings, and not for the actual construction of the plaza. Obviously they would have to come back and get permits when construction of the plaza actually begins and that would trigger the need for variances, etc. It is not that we have not seen a case like this in a while, it is that we have not seen a case like this that has become so publicized in a while.

It is not that we have not seen a case like this in a while, it is that we have not seen a case like this that has become so publicized in a while.

Maybe the cases before should have gotten more public scrutiny and we wouldn't be in this position. This is not a test case. The applicant did not feel the city ordinances pertained to them. That mind set has to change.

This is not a test case.

This is a historic precedent case in my opinion.

Being a good neighbor doesn't mean you are free to paint your house pink.

My house was pink before I bought it.

This is a historic precedent case in my opinion.

There is not precedent per se when it come to city boards. Each case stands on the facts of each particular case.

There is not precedent per se when it come to city boards. Each case stands on the facts of each particular case.

So you're saying that if the urbanists make one final stand and give this everything we've got, and fail to affirm the pro-urban city ordinance and everyone understands that--you're telling us that the impact of this case would not effect anything.

So if I'm Burger King and I want to build a location in Deep Deuce with a drive through and a massive setback and completely EIFS facade, you don't think I'm going to play the, "well you let SandRidge and all these companies (ignore the city code), now I want to (ignore the city code)." And keep in mind that this was EXACTLY the argument pulled by McDonald's, when they were unhappy about being forced to redesign their project to comply with Bricktown building codes.

1. The fact that the process was messed up, whether you support the plaza or not, you then support SR getting a VARIANCE. Does that mean that the BoA should have to side with PO? Even in order to get the plaza, it seems like they should send it back to DDRC for DDRC to do their job and declare it incompatible with city ordinance and then for SR to request an appeal and get a variance..that's how the plaza should be done in order to comply with not complying with city code. As it is this process has not even complied with not complying with city code.


Spartan - you are exactly correct. This process got messed up when the DDRC over stepped their bounds by giving Sandridge a defacto variance. They shoud have rejected the Sandridge plan as being incompatible with downtown design requirments and then let Sandridge file for a variance. Now it is ass backwards.

So you're saying that if the urbanists make one final stand and give this everything we've got, and fail to affirm the pro-urban city ordinance and everyone understands that--you're telling us that the impact of this case would not effect anything.

So if I'm Burger King and I want to build a location in Deep Deuce with a drive through and a massive setback and completely EIFS facade, you don't think I'm going to play the, "well you let SandRidge and all these companies (ignore the city code), now I want to (ignore the city code)." And keep in mind that this was EXACTLY the argument pulled by McDonald's, when they were unhappy about being forced to redesign their project to comply with Bricktown building codes.

Yes, I am saying that no matter the result in this case there will not be a board in the future that makes a decision based upon the result in this case. That is not how this system works. Each case stands on its own facts. There is no precedent at the Board of Adjustment like there is in the legal system.

Wait, are you saying that legal precedent does not matter in the legal system?

Uhhh....... you have legal background, you say?

Wait, are you saying that legal precedent does not matter in the legal system?

Uhhh....... you have legal background, you say?

wow, you really do not get it do you?? The Board of Adjustment is NOT the legal system. By statute the Board of Adjustment is quasi judicial, but it is still not in the judicial system. I do not understand why that is hard to grasp. It is a simple point, the Board of Adjustment does not look at precedent when deciding a case. Each case stands on its own facts, and there is not some volume of past decisions where they can look at to see how similar cases have been decided in the past like there is in the legal system.

Out of curiosity, what is your background?

I'm pretty darned ignorant when it comes to municipal law so I don't have an opinion one way or another about the precedential effect of a decision by one of the city's boards/commissions, that is, whether its interpretation under one set of circumstances is binding or merely persuasive (if that) as to a similar set of circumstances presented later.

I did notice a few days ago while watching a Channel 20 replay of a meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission (historic preservation neighborhoods ... whether a replacement roof could be "harter green" and such things) that more than one member did bring up whether the particular matter before the commission had previously been previously decided and/or whether making a particular decision might be regarded as setting precedent.

So, while I really don't know how the concept of precedent is regarded in the strict sense by city boards/commissions, it is nonetheless clear from watching that more than gripping drama which involved roof colors, the addition of a backyard patio, and other hugely important items that I've already forgotten, that the members of that commission did have at least some sense about the concept.

Now, whether the commission members who brought the concept up did so for legal purposes or simply thought that it would be the right thing to do, I have no idea.

FWIW.

I'm pretty darned ignorant when it comes to municipal law so I don't have an opinion one way or another about the precedential effect of a decision by one of the city's boards/commissions, that is, whether its interpretation under one set of circumstances is binding or merely persuasive (if that) as to a similar set of circumstances presented later.

I did notice a few days ago while watching a Channel 20 replay of a meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission (historic preservation neighborhoods ... whether a replacement roof could be "harter green" and such things) that more than one member did bring up whether the particular matter before the commission had previously been previously decided and/or whether making a particular decision might be regarded as setting precedent.

So, while I really don't know how the concept of precedent is regarded in the strict sense by city boards/commissions, it is nonetheless clear from watching that more than gripping drama which involved roof colors, the addition of a backyard patio, and other hugely important items that I've already forgotten, that the members of that commission did have at least some sense about the concept.

Now, whether the commission members who brought the concept up did so for legal purposes or simply thought that it would be the right thing to do, I have no idea.

FWIW.

You will see that from time to time, but it is a slightly different situation when dealing with things like roof color, etc that are before the HP commission and what we have here. The reason I say there is no precedent per se is that there is nothing like the legal system has where there are volumes of former cases that decided a particular issue where the judge, or board as it may be can look back to to see the reasoning and the decisions that have come before them.

There may be some people on a particular board that will make a decision based on what they remember happened in past cases that were similar, but because of the lack of a real precent like in the legal system, once the board members change that knowledge of what they did last time for the most part is gone.

wow, you really do not get it do you?? The Board of Adjustment is NOT the legal system. By statute the Board of Adjustment is quasi judicial, but it is still not in the judicial system. I do not understand why that is hard to grasp. It is a simple point, the Board of Adjustment does not look at precedent when deciding a case. Each case stands on its own facts, and there is not some volume of past decisions where they can look at to see how similar cases have been decided in the past like there is in the legal system.

Out of curiosity, what is your background?

Frank, you're going in circles here. I am just responding to your claims as you post them. First I suggested that precedent matters on city boards, and I am flabbergasted that you are attempting to tell us it doesn't. You're telling us that if we have an ordinance that we have never really enforced, especially in big high-profile cases, that it won't have any bearing and that future cases will have the ordinance applied as if we never went here in the first place. Fat chance on that.

Then you told me that precedent is not heavily weighed in the legal system. What you said was that there isn't any precedent in the BoA just as there isn't in the legal system.

I just have to ask now, what law school did you attend? I am no law student nor law expert, but I can tell you that precedent isn't just very important, it is one of the KEY determining factors in legal cases. Why else are lawyers constantly referencing historic legal decisions, other than to prove that precedent is on their side? There is even the concept known as BINDING precedent where lower courts must honor what higher courts have previously ruled. There are many different types of legal precedent because it is regarded as a vital concept of the legal system that has been studied (you know, in law schools) extensively.

Preservation Oklahoma has done a VERY good job of not just proving that the ordinance is relevant, but that it was not applied, and that precedent in the legal system has upheld these ordinances in the past. Now you said that there is no such thing as precedent in the legal system. Because you have been unable to show that precedent is on your side in the case of upholding civic ordinances, you are raising this red herring argument where you're attempting to claim there is no such thing as legal precedent for a nice little side show to distract from what a load of hooey this whole thing is.

And yes, I get it that the BoA is not the legal system. I don't know if that was a trap that you baited me into, but as I said, I was responding to your erroneous claim that there is no such thing as precedent in the legal system. Then you try and blind side me with this crap about the BoA being a quasi judicial entity as opposed to the legal system and blah blah blah. I don't even know where that came from..

edit: Now I see that you edited that post after I originally responded to it, changing it to "like there is in the legal system." Nice last-minute change :)

Frank, you're going in circles here. I am just responding to your claims as you post them. First I suggested that precedent matters on city boards, and I am flabbergasted that you are attempting to tell us it doesn't. You're telling us that if we have an ordinance that we have never really enforced, especially in big high-profile cases, that it won't have any bearing and that future cases will have the ordinance applied as if we never went here in the first place. Fat chance on that.

Then you told me that precedent is not heavily weighed in the legal system. You're exact quote was:



I just have to ask now, what law school did you attend? I am no law student nor law expert, but I can tell you that precedent isn't just very important, it is one of the KEY determining factors in legal cases. Why else are lawyers constantly referencing historic legal decisions, other than to prove that precedent is on their side? There is even the concept known as BINDING precedent where lower courts must honor what higher courts have previously ruled. There are many different types of legal precedent because it is regarded as a vital concept of the legal system that has been studied (you know, in law schools) extensively.

Preservation Oklahoma has done a VERY good job of not just proving that the ordinance is relevant, but that it was not applied, and that precedent in the legal system has upheld these ordinances in the past. Now you said that there is no such thing as precedent in the legal system. Because you have been unable to show that precedent is on your side in the case of upholding civic ordinances, you are raising this red herring argument where you're attempting to claim there is no such thing as legal precedent for a nice little side show to distract from what a load of hooey this whole thing is.

And yes, I get it that the BoA is not the legal system. I don't know if that was a trap that you baited me into, but as I said, I was responding to your erroneous claim that there is no such thing as precedent in the legal system. Then you try and blind side me with this crap about the BoA being a quasi judicial entity as opposed to the legal system and blah blah blah. I don't even know where that came from..

My quote is that there is no precedent at the BOA, like there is in the legal system ... i.e. meaning the legal system uses precedent where the BOA and city boards do not. I never once said that there was no precedent in the legal system. Everything has been the opposite. Like the part where I said the BOA does not have volumes of old cases to look at like judges do in the legal system.

It gets really old with your slight jabs at people like the "where did you go to law school" ... you say you are in the legal profession or whatever you said in an earlier post. Why do you lack the ability to have an argument without taking some sort of personal jab at the person you are disagreeing with. I am not sure why it matters, but I went to OCU law school. What exactly is your background? I am guessing that you are in your early 20's??

Spartan, here is what I typed in the post right before your last post:


You will see that from time to time, but it is a slightly different situation when dealing with things like roof color, etc that are before the HP commission and what we have here. The reason I say there is no precedent per se is that there is nothing like the legal system has where there are volumes of former cases that decided a particular issue where the judge, or board as it may be can look back to to see the reasoning and the decisions that have come before them.

So I am not sure where you are seeing that I claimed the legal system has no precedent. You like to run with things that are not true and go off. I was reading the thread where you go into an argument about OCU being the better and higher rated law school over OU and once all the facts were on the table and it was clear that you were completely wrong you were nowhere to be found, I failed to see you admitting that you were wrong. Do you not think it is possible that you may be wrong about something that you do not have a whole lot of personal experience in?

Spartan, here is what I typed in the post right before your last post:


You will see that from time to time, but it is a slightly different situation when dealing with things like roof color, etc that are before the HP commission and what we have here. The reason I say there is no precedent per se is that there is nothing like the legal system has where there are volumes of former cases that decided a particular issue where the judge, or board as it may be can look back to to see the reasoning and the decisions that have come before them.

So I am not sure where you are seeing that I claimed the legal system has no precedent. You like to run with things that are not true and go off. I was reading the thread where you go into an argument about OCU being the better and higher rated law school over OU and once all the facts were on the table and it was clear that you were completely wrong you were nowhere to be found, I failed to see you admitting that you were wrong. Do you not think it is possible that you may be wrong about something that you do not have a whole lot of personal experience in?

Sidenote- did he/she really say that? What a laugh.

Sidenote- did he/she really say that? What a laugh.

really say what? The law school thing ... yes

Frank, I am sorry to insult you. Like I mentioned, I am just still flabbergasted by your claim that precedent does not exist. I will get over it and eventually be able to move on, and back up the simple fact that precedent is relevant. Never thought I'd be backing up such an obvious fact..

By the way, the sky is blue.

Frank, I am sorry to insult you. Like I mentioned, I am just still flabbergasted by your claim that precedent does not exist. I will get over it and eventually be able to move on, and back up the simple fact that precedent is relevant. Never thought I'd be backing up such an obvious fact..

By the way, the sky is blue.

You clearly lack the the desire to have an a reasonable discussion where there is information that you do not agree with. I think you may have a different understanding about precedent than I do.

Please tell me where to find all of this precedent that exists concerning decisions and rulings of city boards in the past. I have never seen a staff report that mentioned anything about precedent, could you also please provide me with that? If precedent exists like you claim it does on these city boards, then surely there are volumes of books (like we have in the legal system) maintaining the decisions so that the boards and staff can go back when a similar case comes before them and see how the matter was previously decided and rule appropriately.

It is cute that you keep calling me Frank though ... trying to funny when you lack to ability to argue a point serves you well.

Why do you lack the ability to admit that there may be some people on certain matters that know what they are talking about? Like I said before, I am guessing you are in your early 20's and think you know it all, and when presented with something that flies in the face of what you think you know you disregard it and assume the other person is just a moron. Please correct me if I am wrong.

One thing that always seems to hurt the preservationists is that too many are just arrogant in thinking there is only one correct course of thought and it is theirs. Repeatedly insulting other posters is a tactic that may work well amongst their friends but just comes off looking arrogant. Intelligent discussion is one thing, but the preponderance of barbs and (not so) slyly placed innuendos are very telling about certain posters.

There are EXPERTS on here with years of experience and real world pragmatism. This is lost on those who assume they already know it all. They don't want discussion, just capitulation.

I think you guys are talking past each other. During my short time as a City Planner I constantly heard business owners complain to me when I reject a sign request that the city "let the guy next to me do it". Upon checking the record, they were usually right. The city would let someone else do something that wasn't allowed.

I always told these people that just because past sign ordinance administrators approved something they shoudn't have, didn't mean I was going to do it. This usually rsulted with them asking to speak to our planning director. This in turn usually resulted in me issuing a permit for something I just denided. If the issue made it as far as city board they were never under obligation to make the same mistake twice (precedent), but they usually did (precedent). It is the reason I got out of planning as fast as I got in. I am a rules oriented person, if you don't like the rules change them, don't pretend they don't exist or that they say something they don't.

In my experience in arch school and being connected to architects and planners, having brief summer internships in the design field, and following this city's development closer than anyone not named Steve Lackmeyer, I can say that our ordinances here do not get enforced, and that there is a pretty big consensus out there that special interests are in control of all levels of govt, with city planning boards not being exempt from that commonly held belief.

In my experience in arch school and being connected to architects and planners, having brief summer internships in the design field, and following this city's development closer than anyone not named Steve Lackmeyer, I can say that our ordinances here do not get enforced, and that there is a pretty big consensus out there that special interests are in control of all levels of govt, with city planning boards not being exempt from that commonly held belief.

So is this a quick way to dodge the question as to where to find all of this precedent that is out there?

Also, how is it that you feel you follow the development of the city closer than anyone (other than Steve)? Because you post the most about it on a message board?? There are plenty of people that I would be willing to bet follow it closer than you do. People who have a real stake in the development (i.e. those who own developments in downtown and around the city) are constantly monitoring development patterns and trends to see how it affects their development but also to see what new development potential exists. To assume that you follow it closer than anyone (other than steve as you said) is just arrogant. Just because you have been going to meetings and following things for the past 3 or maybe even 4 years does not make you more a bigger follower than others. It is just funny that with your limited involvement and experience with the city, you feel that you know exactly what is going on.

It is just funny that with your limited involvement and experience with the city, you feel that you know exactly what is going on.

No, this is arrogant.....

I saw the Sandridge merger with Arena has been approved by shareholders. Very good acquisition by Sandridge. Arena wasn't the biggest company but was fast growing and has a nice portfolio in the Permian Basin increasing Sandridge's oil interests. I'm sure some of the Arena execs from the Tulsa office will be moving to OKC.

I saw the Sandridge merger with Arena has been approved by shareholders. Very good acquisition by Sandridge. Arena wasn't the biggest company but was fast growing and has a nice portfolio in the Permian Basin increasing Sandridge's oil interests. I'm sure some of the Arena execs from the Tulsa office will be moving to OKC.

I saw this as well. How many does Arena employ? How many can we expect to assume jobs at SandRidge OKC?

Arena employs like 50. SR currently has like 400 employees.

Devon will have 3,500...

Well, gotta start somewhere. Hopefully one day they will be the next Devon or Chesapeake. That's why I don't like the idea of trying to run them out of town based on a plaza. I don't like the plaza, but I do note the effort. I'm a person who believes it's the thought that counts. Hopefully they will change their decision on it, and hopefully they will remain in state, preferably in city as they grow. If a plaza is what gives them encouragement to grow, so be it I guess. That land is obviously more valuable to them as flat land than a building. But obviously selling that land would also not be good for future growth. It's a cost cutting procedure me thinks. The cost of maintaining the buildings outweigh the cost of building and maintaining a plaza, which could then be demolished and rebuilt vertical as the company grows. In 15 years I doubt the plaza would even be there, to be honest.

Arena has 40 in the corporate office in Tulsa, including executives and other personnel who may or may not be moving to OKC if there are duplicate positions already at Sandridge. I don't know what, if any, role the two founders Tim Rochford and Stan McCabe will have with Sandridge. They are definitely a lot richer now. Arena also has 100 or so employees working in the oilfields of Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico.

This in turn usually resulted in me issuing a permit for something I just denided.

And this is why our city looks the way it does.


In 15 years I doubt the plaza would even be there, to be honest.

That's what I would have said 15 years ago. But now it seems we want more plaza space. 15 years from now... i expect even more.... based on precedent, that is.


If a plaza is what gives them encouragement to grow, so be it I guess.

Yeah, but it's just a vanity project. It has nothing to do with their growth. If they were tearing things down as an operational necessity, it would be a loss, but at least one that was justified.

It's just so ironic that a company with over 3000 employees maintained offices spread out all over downtown for years, because they were considerate of the the community and their neighborhood's economy. Then we have a company that's 1/7 that size, can't even fill its current space, and they want to tear down almost a whole block just because they don't like they way some of it looks. Then they act like they are surprised anyone cares about it (which I know for a fact isn't true) and threaten to leave.

If they did NOTHING it would have zero effect whatsoever on their operations. On the other hand, Devon sacrificed their own efficiencies for years to help support downtown and is now part of a billion dollar improvement to downtown. I certainly don't expect all companies that want to be downtown and support it to go to the extent Devon has. But I also don't expect any company that wants to be downtown and see it grow to want to tear it down for no functional reason. Sandridge simply doesn't want to be there in the first place, which is why it is so easy for them to be so callus towards the neighborhood and its supporters.

Yes, SR is just 400 or so now, but I also did work with Devon 25-30 years ago and they were smaller than that. You never know.

Most employment growth comes from local companies starting and growing, not from large companies re-locating.

Well, gotta start somewhere. Hopefully one day they will be the next Devon or Chesapeake. That's why I don't like the idea of trying to run them out of town based on a plaza.

Sandridge isn't going anywhere, plaza or no plaza. They only made the threat to get their proposal passed. They just finshed spending millions to renovate the inside, plus if they move, then they have to sell the building.

Most employment growth comes from local companies starting and growing, not from large companies re-locating.

That might be true on a city-wide scale, but not in downtown. Downtown OKC will add a relocated company with 1,000 jobs before existing downtown companies hire a 1,000.

I hope you are right and that they both happen. However, I think history is also on my side. Devon is a perfect example. The reason you may be correct is due to the fact Devon is committed to doing all they can to sell their current tower to an out of town company and fill it with new.

In 20 years I will buy you a cup of coffee and we can settle this bet. :tiphat:

I haven't posted in this thread in any significant way lately since it all seems to have become a big spinning wheel ... anyone remember the Hot Nuts tune (very vulgar) in the early 1960s? ... so I won't say much now, except to wonder, as I've done before ...

Why isn't SandRidge open to some sort of compromise which would match its own purposes and at least some of those having the preservationist/urbanist stance, all at the same time? Is such a thing an impossibility, or, from SandRidge's perspective, does it simply boil down to, "It's my way or the highway."

If that is the case, that speaks poorly of SandRidge as a corporate citizen, in my opinion, and, in that event, I'd opt for door #2, the highway. SandRidge doesn't make or break Oklahoma City. As a corporation, it is, relatively speaking, just an infant ... it doesn't begin to resemble the legacy that Kerr-McGee and its principals, particularly Dean McGee, had upon the city ... and, perhaps, it is just having a bit of a tantrum as infants are prone to do. A good shot of "grow up" serum, if it exits, would be a welcome thing.

That's why I don't like the idea of trying to run them out of town based on a plaza.

Matt, nobody is running SR out of town. Nobody wants SR to leave. We're pretty sure that not even SR wants to leave, so I can't even say SR is trying to run themselves out of town.

At what point do we stop enforcing ANY city ordinances if we equate that with running companies out of town?


I don't like the plaza, but I do note the effort. I'm a person who believes it's the thought that counts.

OK, that makes up for getting crappy Christmas socks as a present, but it doesn't make up for loosing buildings that we will never get back, and loosing incredible urban opportunities that we will not be able to replicate, ever. We are talking about a city and a downtown here, one that has already had immense damage done to it--not opening holiday gifts. Downtown and its buildings should be taken very seriously.


If a plaza is what gives them encouragement to grow, so be it I guess.

How do you suppose that?


That land is obviously more valuable to them as flat land than a building.

I think your analysis on this one is spot-on, so I just don't know how you can support what they're doing though.


But obviously selling that land would also not be good for future growth. It's a cost cutting procedure me thinks. The cost of maintaining the buildings outweigh the cost of building and maintaining a plaza, which could then be demolished and rebuilt vertical as the company grows. In 15 years I doubt the plaza would even be there, to be honest.

This is a faulty assumption that we've all gotten screwed over by at one point in life..assuming that a company will grow. I am still licking my losses from some Apple stock I regret buying now..or at least now going to have to hold on to longer than I thought I would. The state has gotten screwed countless times by making the assumption that, "well they're incorporated now, that means they gonna be big-time soon." Great Plains Airlines, Rocketplane, and countless others. I was once a huge proponent of corporate incentives, but I learned my lesson on that. The reality is that most companies that are propped up by public assistance do not make it. I equate finding vacant lots to give to companies to "expand" to be the same as corporate welfare. It's a special privilege, to be considered above the city ordinances. I believe that the economic well-being of our state is reliant on everyone being equal and the needs of the community being placed before the needs of a single corporation. Downtown OKC is not a corporate playground, and it is not somewhere that corporations can squat on land until they're ready to to develop it. Especially when in order to do so they usurp our city ordinances and beat our historic preservation groups and urban advocates.

________________________________________
THIS is the bottom line: I recognize the need for economic development, and doing what we can to help our companies. I'm a believer in Reaganomics and I believe that what's good for business is good for people. So tell me what I can actually do to help business grow. Trust me, it's got squat to do with having a plaza. That will gives us a net loss of potential jobs and prosperity, because it cancels out the UNIQUE opportunities that those buildings presented. Tell me who I need to write a letter to for lower taxes, etc.

But there is a huge difference between standing in the way of business and getting bullied around by business. Here in OKC, which is so extremely, fervently pro-business politically (despite what a far cry the reality is), they expect people to be so afraid to be cast as anti-business by upholding CITY PLANNING ordinances. The pro-SR crowd is trying to bully others around when they suggest buildings conform to urban planning guidelines and city code, by playing the anti-business card. This is not a matter of being for or against business, it's a matter of standing up or being played, plain and simple.

When is the next meeting or step? I thought it was supposed to by July 1st. I couldn't make it to the meeting and haven't seen anything else about.

Steve or Spartan can you help?

whoops. double post.

When is the next meeting or step? I thought it was supposed to by July 1st. I couldn't make it to the meeting and haven't seen anything else about.

Steve or Spartan can you help?
It is set for a special meeting of the BOA on Monday, July 26, 2010 at 1:30 pm in the Oklahoma City Council Chambers. The last scheduled meeting was agreeably continued until that time.

Artist rendering in the paper looks fine...So few quality employers in the metro I am one that is fine with letting them have their way as long as it is reasonable...and this seems to be

There is still hope that Uncle Tom (Ward) will do the right thing ...

<object width="510" height="400"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kbTmwOVn3mQ&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kbTmwOVn3mQ&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="510" height="400"></embed></object>

Artist rendering in the paper looks fine...So few quality employers in the metro I am one that is fine with letting them have their way as long as it is reasonable...and this seems to be

So few quality employers in the metro??? What?????

SR is not even one of Fortune's 100 best companies to work for, several of which we have in the metro. Devon, Chesapeake, and American Fidelity have all been listed before, all have well over 1,000 employees, too (SR has 300ish). Secondly, if you ranked the top employers in Central Oklahoma, SR would barely BARELY rank in the Top 50.

So they deserve the same respect that we would give to any company, basically. They do not call for special treatment. Have the same people just been begging to sell out to something for years or something? I would rather hold out and sell out to a bigger company if we have to play the "so few quality employers in the metro" card.

I guess you are right...Since we have numerous quality employers waiting in line for a piece of OKC no need to accomodate this one

I guess you are right...Since we have numerous quality employers waiting in line for a piece of OKC no need to accomodate this one

Apparently we are not accommodating SR by not giving into every one of their demands...

What about urbanists? OKC needs them, badly. Look at all the studies indicating that the cities that develop an urban, sustainable quality of life will be those that draw the "creative class" -- people will not move where jobs are, they will move where the quality of life is, in the future (every city has jobs if you're qualified). Why aren't we thinking of our future and growing our downtown into a vibrant, mixed-use environment that will attract more people and more companies? If we have the choice between a downtown OR SandRidge, why would we choose a small corporation that is only influential because of their owner?

Oh wait, I know. We could compromise, and find the best solution for both goals.....or is that crazy talk? That's what this is about. SandRidge is refusing to even acknowledge that city ordinances apply to them, not to mention refusing to compromise, refusing to talk to urbanists (though Rob Rogers isn't), and refusing to let anyone from the city or community have a seat at the table for this project despite its huge community impact.

NOBODY that is advocating for the India Temple and KerMac and Braniff towers to be made available to redevelopers is anti-SandRidge in anyway.

Is that right? Is that the way to be a good corporate citizen?

Have to admit I haven't looked into this much so I do agree that we should not just let them have their way...Now since they are a quality employer I am fine with them winning 60/40 or 70/30

Saving 2 of 6 bldgs target for demolition .. that's a margin of 33/66 in favor of SR, which sounds good to me. :)

I found it interesting that the editorial in the Sunday Oklahoman described the buildings in question as "decrepit". Are they about to fall down?

No, the buildings are structurally sound. The most potentially damaged, the India Temple Bldg (oldest currently standing downtown) was used by KMG's temp lawyers who I'm guessing were shredding everything. That was 2-3 years ago.

What editorial? And that's hilarious about the Oklahoman calling something decrepit.

No, the buildings are structurally sound. The most potentially damaged, the India Temple Bldg (oldest currently standing downtown) was used by KMG's temp lawyers who I'm guessing were shredding everything. That was 2-3 years ago.

What editorial? And that's hilarious about the Oklahoman calling something decrepit.

http://www.newsok.com/downtown-rebuild-continues-with-office-retail-developments/article/3476842?custom_click=pod_headline_opinion-oklahoman-editorials

Wow. So apparently old buildings are decrepit. Jokelahoman sure nailed that one..

Wow. So apparently old buildings are decrepit. Jokelahoman sure nailed that one..

I'm sure they review the wording in their editorials closely so that couldn't have been a loosely worded statement. They obviously had a point they wanted to make.