Those points (this is just lawyer bluster) were made when Hill first blurted this rhetoric at one of the commission meetings.

Since that time, no one from SR has said anything to the contrary. And now, with plenty of time to contemplate and consult with the client, it's all restated in an interview.


SandRidge is handling this all through their attorney and even when done with tact and graciousness -- let alone threats and ultimatum -- that is never a way to build bridges.

All this detracts from the impression they truly want what's best for the community, even though that is exactly what they expect us to believe.

Of course SR hasn't said anything to the contrary. You don't bluff then show your hand, no matter how empty the bluff is. If SR contradicted their lawyer, they'd all look like fools, especially at this point.

My bottom line is this--SR's financials aren't rock solid to begin with. Further, they're a pretty small fish. There's a damned good chance they'll be gobbled up within 10-20 years. Downtown was fine with the KM building empty. It can continue to sit empty until someone who wants to work with the community comes along, or it can be housing or whatever. The demand is there.

SR can't afford to get out of it anyhow. I suppose they have enough collateral to finance a move to Memorial road or Houston, but that'd make no business sense. Who would spend the millions of dollars that'd be necessary over a temper tantrum about sight lines and plazas?

CHK's financials aren't really in any better shape yet they seem to do fine and avoid takeovers.

The whole "SR will be gone soon" is a huge presupposition. Not that we shouldn't plan for the future. But SR is here. Now. And we should try to move everyone forward together. Now. I agree we want to avoid irreparable damage, but to basically plan for them gone NOW seems a little silly.

CHK has some scary litigation against it and it has way overpaid for a lot of its leases.

It's still very cash rich though.

I don't think SR is in that sort of condition at all.

CHK is highly, highly leveraged. Last year they cut basically all third party brokers, didn't they? They were primed for takeover, but weren't. Aubrey himself once said something to the effect of: I've never seen a company be taken over that didn't want to be taken over or was in decent financial shape.

At any rate, neither of us can speak to the likelihood of SR being taken over soon. And by whom? BP was the entity in position to make a major move, but they had the oil well disaster.

My point is this: while we need to be reasonable with our decisions looking toward the future, to ignore SR now because you guess they won't be here in 2 decades isn't the only platform from which to discuss.

I've said this many times and still believe it to be true: All SR has to do is replace/remodel the building on Robinson and I think everyone would view that as a fair compromise.

They still will probably get their way without this step, but I think their reputation in OKC will largely be tarnished as a result, especially due to the manner in which this has all been handled.

If the top brass at SR aren't astute enough to understand that, I AM worried about their future. Business -- above all things -- is about building relationships.

SR may or may not be bluffing. However, it is fully within their right to leave if the want. They may have miscalculated how things are done or controlled regarding their rights as property owners downtown. It is the city's right to allow or deny what they ask, and it is their right to stay or go. Betting they won't go is probably a mistake, but rolling over is too. This is now a high stakes poker game and oil companies like SR are experts at risk analysis.

If they leave, I hope the city is prepared to deal with a vacant tower for some time. In case everyone hasn't noticed, OKC is not drawing alot of growing companies to its core and they aren't lined up yet for downtown.

That's not entirely truthful though, because we can name local companies that are well-known to be interested in moving downtown. American Fidelity Insurance is one of them. And Kerry has been very outspoken in mentioning that there are interested parties in downtown OKC--very different from saying there are done deals waiting to happen out there, but to say there aren't people lined up is untrue.

Look, I'm not saying that I want SandRidge to leave downtown, because I don't. I want what is best for them, and if they decide they need to move to Memorial Road, then I am convinced it may be for the best, but I still hope they remain and I would rather have them working WITH people rather than AGAINST people. When I mention that there ARE people out there interested in downtown my point is to reiterate that we are not nearly desperate enough to be in this situation of bending over for the oil corporations to get away with anything.

If we were in an economic situation similar to Detroit or Gary, I'd be understanding of this and I would probably agree that getting jobs downtown are more important than the city ordinances--but as it is, the only way we're going to lose SR's jobs is when they're bought up and moved to Houston, which may be tomorrow, may be in ten years. But we are not in those kind of dire straits that other cities are that we need to be abused by these corporations and their threats, and we did not get into this predicament that way either.

My point is this: while we need to be reasonable with our decisions looking toward the future, to ignore SR now because you guess they won't be here in 2 decades isn't the only platform from which to discuss.

How do you say we're ignoring them, though? Since when did it become an insult to the righteousness of these corporations to hold them accountable to the public?

I wasn't talking to you at all Spartan. You misunderstood my post and I am not going to confuse this thread by responding to your response.

Well, I am following this thread, reading every post--correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you mean "to belittle SandRidge" rather than "to ignore SandRidge." Would that be more appropriate to say? For clarity's sake, so we are all on the same page here.

(I don't think we're belittling them either, but at least with that I could understand where you're coming from.)

I concur with what Pete said above about what SandRidge's positioning demonstrates and how that might bode for the future success of the company. It seems to me that SandRidge's stance is based upon ...


A fundamental assumption/presumption that it should get what it wants just because it wants it. In this, the difference between SandRidge and Devon is like night and day. I attended the hearing on Devon's plan ... there was no arrogance, no assumptions presented. Its presentation was designed to show how its proposal meshed with the downtown we know and the downtown its proposal involved and demonstrated humility and a keen appreciation for Oklahoma City and its downtown needs and historic circumstances, even to the point of recognizing the importance of the Colcord to the city, as well as the Colcord's architectural significance. Devon even went so far as to purchase the Colcord, so different from its new tower in time, space, and appearance and integrate it in its proposal as a preserved jewel from Oklahoma City's past. SandRidge's approach is so, so, remarkably, different.

Vanity. Whether the SandRidge Commons proposal is adopted in whole, in part, or not at all, in no way relates to corporate profits. SandRidge's financial success, failure, or assimilation by some larger company will not be related to the matter pending before the Board of Adjustment. In other words, a denial of SandRidge's proposal will not harm the corporation, even as an approval would not benefit its financial coffers. This is not about SandRidge being profitable and succeeding as a corporation. It is just about SandRidge's vanity.

My Way or the Highway. In some of the stuff I've said here and on my blog, I've made an attempt to appeal to the better side of SandRidge and its leadership, namely Tom Ward. I'm not alone in seeing that compromise is how things get worked out in an agreeable way so that diverse interests are satisfied, even if neither are completely satisfied but each interest gets part of what it wants. That's pretty much how life works, isn't it? However, SandRidge's stance is altogether uncompromising. It is based upon the bully principle, all or nothing. One cannot compromise with a bully.

My thoughts and hopes for compromise appear to have been based on nothing but wishful thinking. Compromise involves a willingness of both parties involved in a dispute to find common ground. SandRidge's position is so tight that it won't even allow the other side to perform historic analyses, the full cost of which would be borne by its opponents.

Personally, my one-time fondness for and appreciation of SandRidge is seriously on the wane and I have come to perceive SandRidge less than fondly.

Presently, given its position over the past few months, I'd actually prefer that it left downtown. A time will come when a better corporate citizen, and owner of the Kerr-Mcgee legacy, comes along which will do the right thing.

Glad to hear that American Fidelity is moving downtown. Can't wait for the announcement.

Isn't American Fidelity the company that bulldozed up the street (18th or 19th wasn't it) overnight without a permit and in defiance of the city to start building their buildings years ago?

Rover, whether anything in your above post is true or not, what has that got to do with this discussion? I can give you some historical background about what you said, but that's really not relevant to this discussion, is it?

Yes, and I am told after being taken to court they have to fund OKC Beautiful for the rest of their natural life.

Rover, whether anything in your above post is true or not, what has that got to do with this discussion? I can give you some historical background about what you said, but that's really not relevant to this discussion, is it?

I just thought it ironic that AF was being referred to as a good alternative to SR when they themselves seemed to be center of some similar controversy years ago. SR has been lambasted here as a bad corporate citizen and it seems like many don't care whether they leave or not....in fact didn't you express that you wished they would? AF is now a wonderful company to work for, by most accounts. And maybe they are a great cororate citiizen. But in the past I have heard negative comments and some of the same adjectives used to describe them. All I am saying is that maybe the rhetoric surrounding SR is getting a little much. SR is defending their opinions and wants their way...big deal. We are pushing back. That is the way it works. That doesn't make them bad or us absolutely right.

Let me say straight out...I am NOT in favor of them tearing down buildings of any significance or any that will adversely affect the ambiance and livability of the core city. I love urban cores, spend much time in them around the country and around the world, earn my living in them and love the lifestyle. But we will never be New York City, Chicago,Toronto or Vancouver.

CHK has some scary litigation against it and it has way overpaid for a lot of its leases.

It's still very cash rich though.

I don't think SR is in that sort of condition at all. Didn't SR Energy just buyout Arena Resources out of Tulsa? I do not remember the exact $$$$ amt but it certainly was no chump change. I would think if the banks/lenders thought SR financial figures did not look good then they would not have been able to get the financial backing to acquire the company?

You know, you do need some "meaningless buildings" in order to have a city.. just so you realize that. Unless we all go back to tents.



Bad analogy. Downtown has a homeowner's association..you could say.

Damn people here are nit picky huh? So I guess that solves the issue of Sandridge not painting their building pink.

Very true. Freedom is also a beautiful thing when people can do what they want? I have not read the entire Sandridge wrong doings? Are they really violating anything?

Is it stated in the ordinance that tearing down buildings is constituted as not development or redevelopment? Happens all the time, does it not?

Tearing down a building that is insufficient and not being used is going to affect what? Historic would be the Skirvin. Are these buildings even worth saving? I don't see the necessity here.

SandRidge's line of sight to their tower is their WANT, true. Where does it state they would be violating?

No need to get angry over someone's opinions.

Is it stated in the ordinance that tearing down buildings is constituted as not development or redevelopment? Happens all the time, does it not?

it is because we have torn down buildings in the past and not replaced them with anything that the ordinance exists. Trying to learn from the mistakes of history.


Tearing down a building that is insufficient and not being used is going to affect what? Historic would be the Skirvin. Are these buildings even worth saving? I don't see the necessity here.

Insufficient according to whom? As far as not being used, that is a deliberate decision by the various building owners to keep them that way. They could easily put them on the market. It is well documented that there is more than just a passing interest in redeveloping those buildings. Do you not consider that the India Temple to be historic? It is the oldest standing building left downtown and served as the home for the State Legislature for a couple of years.

Glad to hear that American Fidelity is moving downtown. Can't wait for the announcement.

Isn't American Fidelity the company that bulldozed up the street (18th or 19th wasn't it) overnight without a permit and in defiance of the city to start building their buildings years ago?

Trying to compare a company that constructed new buildings to one that wants to put in a plaza, in the middle of this debate is laughable.

Trying to compare a company that constructed new buildings to one that wants to put in a plaza, in the middle of this debate is laughable.

Laughable to you because you disagree. Arrogance is assuming that ones own personal opinion is the ONLY correct opinion. These positions are as arrogant as the way SR is handling it. The way I see it is that laws are followed or laws are broken. Following the law, even if other people disagree is still the right of the individual or corporation. The people through the government have the right to set and enforce the law. If SR is breaking the law, stop them. If they aren't, then opine away, but it is still their right. Then go work to change the laws.

Laughable to you because you disagree.

It is laughable because at the center of this debate is the desire to keep, and further develope, an urban core. To most people this isn't about historic preservation, it is just one of the tools of last resort. The case you cited actually resulted in higher density. If you don't understand how flawed your example was then you have totally missed the subject of this entire debate. As has been stated by many people on the 'urbanist' side of the debate, we would help Sandridge with the demo work if they were building something back other than open space.

I'll say it again, downtown OKC is not a prairie reclamation site.

It wasn't laughable because his point was that both companies had bad public image for these types of moves.

It wasn't laughable because his point was that both companies had bad public image for these types of moves.

That would be great if this was a thread about "public image", but it isn't - hince my wording "in the middle of this debate".

But the point in this discussion had gotten to the fact that if SR didn't agree with the legalistic point of view of some preservationists then they weren't a good corporate citizen. I beg to differ. They are within their rights as long as they stay within the law. I happen to desire a denser core as much as you do. But the bashing of SR is unwarranted. The title of this thread had to do with their implied ultimatum and some on here try to Demonize SR and their designers for what they are proposing. Because they disagree with some here doesn't mean they are bad citizens. Because they defend their perceived rights here doesn't make them bad citizens.

I would also argue that building density is only possible if you have people density. To have a vibrant core you have to have more than old buildings built to the sidewalk and no vegetation.

I just thought it ironic that AF was being referred to as a good alternative to SR when they themselves seemed to be center of some similar controversy years ago. SR has been lambasted here as a bad corporate citizen and it seems like many don't care whether they leave or not....in fact didn't you express that you wished they would? * * *
Yes, in context, that was/is the wish that I expressed. In my own comments, I've not mentioned American Fidelity as a potential downtown-mover since I see that possibility as not relevant and beside the point. So, if and whether AF becomes involved with downtown is yet another possible chapter, although, should that occur, the experience involved here will perhaps provide some teaching points.

To be sure that the intent of my remarks in saying that I wish that SandRidge would presently move from downtown is clear, in addition to what I already said above at http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=22237&p=346950#post346950, I'll simplify it as follows:

SandRidge, although given plenty of opportunities to act differently and be willing to consider ANY compromise at all, presents itself to this day as follows:

(1) SandRidge perceives that it should get what it wants just because it wants it, and I doubt that you or most others would disagree that that is not a viable basis for allowing SandRidge to proceed with its proposal "as is;"

(2) SandRidge's perception is solely based upon vanity since whether or not its plan for the SandRidge Commons comes to exist, in whole, partially, or not at all, has nothing to do with SandRidge profits/losses ... and, again, I doubt that you or most others would argue the point differently;

(3) SandRidge presents itself as a bully, my way or the highway, and, still again, I doubt that you or many others would credit SandRidge as being a good corporate citizen on that account.

All the above is quite aside from various secondary issues ... WILL SandRidge have the will to complete what it says that it wants to start and what guarantees exist that it will do so ... WILL SandRidge prove to be a long-term corporate citizen of the city even though its roots in the city are fairly brief, and that the remarks of its attorney indicate a willingness to abandon its downtown campus even before the final decision is made?

So, sure, at this moment and as everything stands "as is," yep, I'd vote that SandRidge sell its campus and move elsewhere. Sooner or later, someone else will seize the opportunity and present a better plan than SandRidge has, based upon the then-existing precedent that SandRidge was denied what it wanted.

IF, however, SandRidge experiences a "Christmas Carol" epiphany and suddenly evidences a willingness to compromise before the Monday hearing, sure, I'd be thrilled with that change of position and would say that all is forgiven, and would welcome SandRidge with open arms.

I'll never say "never," but the chances of the last paragraph happening seem, at the moment, to be pie in the sky.

I would also argue that building density is only possible if you have people density. To have a vibrant core you have to have more than old buildings built to the sidewalk and no vegetation.

I have to scratch my head with statements like this. If we start clearing out buildings and replacing them plazas where are the people going to live? OKC already tried the long-term approach of clearing old buildings in the hopes that some future development would take place. It didn't work. As for the 'no vegetation' comment, I live a thousand miles from OKC and even I know downtown OKC has vegetation, even more than is necssary. Log onto Google Earth zoom in on downtown OKC and tell me how many blocks are more than 50% grass.

Again, people WANT to live downtown and clearing out a plaza for Sr won't change that. We need affordable living options for those that do. But that's been discussed ad nauseum in other threads.

Now, here's a titillating piece of tease from Steve ... http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2010/07/22/gotta-love-politics/ ... which may or may not relate to this thread.

I have to scratch my head with statements like this. If we start clearing out buildings and replacing them plazas where are the people going to live? OKC already tried the long-term approach of clearing old buildings in the hopes that some future development would take place. It didn't work. As for the 'no vegetation' comment, I live a thousand miles from OKC and even I know downtown OKC has vegetation, even more than is necssary. Log onto Google Earth zoom in on downtown OKC and tell me how many blocks are more than 50% grass.

LOL. I didn't mean we had to have people standing around on plazas all day. That is a little too literal. Just meant that if there is demand downtown we will get all the construction and density we need. Vacant buildings don't create desirable density.

I will repeat...I am not for a suburban downtown. I just think a compromise will settle this issue and I think we will get one.

Now, here's a titillating piece of tease from Steve ... http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2010/07/22/gotta-love-politics/ ... which may or may not relate to this thread.

SR couldn't be that dumb, can they? If so, I take back any defense I have had of them.

Reading the piece in the Daily Oklahoman this morning caused me to think the threats probably came from the mayor to the oversight committee about the OG&E substation and $30 million.

Reading the piece in the Daily Oklahoman this morning caused me to think the threats probably came from the mayor to the oversight committee about the OG&E substation and $30 million.

That isn't it. All the Mayor said was that the choice really came down to two locations. If they go with the one south of the Ford Center $30 million will be spent to acquire and removed the OG&E substation. That isn't a threat. We already know Sandridge has stong-armed some of their "supporters" into supporting them. How much os a supporter can you be if you only do so becasue of a threat. It is kind of like Sandridge is running their own litle version of Gitmo. Maybe Steve will let us know if waterboarding has been used.

Let's make sure it is SR that is the guilty party before trashing them. We know many on here are SR haters, but so far we don't know this is what Steve was referring to. Either disclosure is needed or to start pointed rumors is irresponsible. If SR is the party and guilty, throw the book at them.

Steve?

Let's make sure it is SR that is the guilty party before trashing them. We know many on here are SR haters, but so far we don't know this is what Steve was referring to. Either disclosure is needed or to start pointed rumors is irresponsible. If SR is the party and guilty, throw the book at them.

Steve?

Rover, it has already become public knowledge that several people that came out in support of Sandridge Commons did so under threats of some kind from Sandridge, but the people involved wouldn't speak out publicly or on the record. It would be interesting to know who those people are and the nature of the threat or coercion.

On a related note. Sandridge says the buildings are in state of disrepair that is beyond saving, but when presented with the opportunity to prove that - at no cost them, they refused. Doesn’t that make you curious about their claim?


Finally, I am not a Sandridge hater - I am a Sandridge Commons hater. I didn't like John Blake either but I was still an OU football fan.

Rover, it has already become public knowledge that several people that came out in support of Sandridge Commons did so under threats of some kind from Sandridge, but the people involved wouldn't speak out publicly or on the record.

That's not public knowledge. That's called a "rumor." Just sayin'. I look forward to Steve breaking this one open.

That's not public knowledge. That's called a "rumor." Just sayin'. I look forward to Steve breaking this one open.

Rumor is too lite a of word. I prefer unsubstantiated fact.:wink:

If it turns out to be true would you follow Rover's lead and withdraw support for Sandridge Commons? BTW - why does it matter how Sandridge Commons gets approval and support? If it is good plan for downtown then it should be supported on that basis alone and if it is bad plan for downtown then it should be opposed on that basis. Is doing the 'right thing' for the wrong reason still not doing the 'right thing'?

Kerry

I think you have transformed yourself into a Spartan Clone and in my opinion that is one of the worst things that could happen. Peace be with you, Amigo.

Kerry

I think you have transformed yourself into a Spartan Clone and in my opinion that is one of the worst things that could happen. Peace be with you, Amigo.

I've been called worse. Over on the politics page I am a racist and homophobe.

That's not public knowledge. That's called a "rumor." Just sayin'. I look forward to Steve breaking this one open.

Beyond the rumor stage. Steve made it public knowledge in his blog or in the Oklahoman. Will try to dig it up and post.

Rumor is too lite a of word. I prefer unsubstantiated fact.:wink:

If it turns out to be true would you follow Rover's lead and withdraw support for Sandridge Commons? BTW - why does it matter how Sandridge Commons gets approval and support? If it is good plan for downtown then it should be supported on that basis alone and if it is bad plan for downtown then it should be opposed on that basis. Is doing the 'right thing' for the wrong reason still not doing the 'right thing'?

I won't withdraw support for SR. I do waver on this issue. But there are lots of ways that deals get done in the business world, and it's not always with kid gloves.

Now, here's a titillating piece of tease from Steve ... http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2010/07/22/gotta-love-politics/ ... which may or may not relate to this thread.

Remember that page? Click on it now (1st time, the 2nd it will not show up ... the traces are even gone) and you get this (click on image for full screen detail):

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/sandridge/gone1s.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/sandridge/gone1.jpg)

In another post at Steve's blog, http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2010/07/23/sandridge-commons-news-late-breaking-developments/, I was writing a comment ... but I interrupted that comment upon noticing the ... my computer actually began to shake ... disturbing astrological disturbances ... I began writing, though, before noticing the tremors ...



That sounds wrong.

(1) There were several line items in SandRidge’s proposal before the DDR on April 8. The DDR didn’t completely treat the matter as all or nothing … one item was approved conditionally … the motion there was that, “Tanenbaum/Ainsworth [moved, seconded] to approve items 1-4 and approve item 5 contingent with the applicant returning in 90 days with additional information and more complete plans for the new construction of the proposed structure at 120 Robert S Kerr Avenue.” That the motion broke the items into parcels seems to me to have some significance. [Note: I cannot presently locate the April 8, 2010, Minutes of the DDR at the city's website, but I saved a copy which you can read here.]

I note, too, that the items were broken into parcels on the DDR’s agenda … hence the above motion combined items on the DDR’s agenda. See the Staff Report which also treated the items separately. The point is, the various items were not included as a “package deal” in the first place but were instead presented as several line items in the DDR’s 4/8/2010 agenda.

Secondly, according to the BOA’s handout at its initial session, “After the case has been fully presented, the Board will vote to approve, approve conditionally, or deny the request. A concurring vote of three members is required to approve, defer or deny AN item. “An item” doesn’t lend support to an all or nothing approach.

… BUT WAIT …


… NEWS FLASH … this comment is being interrupted by a report from a NYC radio station which reports that an alien spaceship bearing earth-threatening devices hovering over Oklahoma City has just been reported ala Mercury Theatre on the Air, performed on October 30, 1938 …

… AT LEAST A PAIR OF POSTS IN THIS BLOG HAVE SUDDENLY AND MYSTERIOUSLY DISAPPEARED. IT IS NOT YET KNOWN WHETHER THESE MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES ARE THE RESULT OF TURBULENT SUN SPOTS (which are known to have an adverse affect upon earth-bound internet communications) OR SOME OTHER UNIVERSAL SINISTER CAUSE … OR JUST SOMETHING MORE LOCAL TO THE CITY BUT EQUALLY SINISTER …

… Stay tuned … my understanding is that Orson Wells or his surrogate will be reporting on this occurrence in all probability, as the invasion proceeds before the night is through …
Now, I don't know what happened ... I just know that something did. Stay tuned ... and in the meantime, I'm looking for a audio file which contains lots of yodeling ...

... Over on the politics page I am a racist and homophobe.

Oh, don't be so modest. If memory serves, those terms have been slapped on you in a few other places as well.

8^)

Kerry

I think you have transformed yourself into a Spartan Clone and in my opinion that is one of the worst things that could happen. Peace be with you, Amigo.

Ouch. That's harsh.

Seems like there are lots of innuendos and rumors but apparently no one with guts to name names and cite particulars on the record. It is easier to start and spread rumors and blame others for decisions made. If someone is being forthright, they need to also have courage. If you can't back up a claim then you shouldn't make it is how I look at it. If someone was illegally coerced then they need to step up or they are as guilty as the one applying illegal pressure. If they just have buyer's remorse though, it is cowardly to blame someone else. If you can't live up to a little pressure than you shouldn't have a position of responsibility. When you are dealing with tens of millions of dollars and CEOs with egos and politicians all in the same process you should expect substantial pressure. If there are bribes, threats, etc. and illegal activity that is altogether different and needs exposed as quickly and under as much light of day as possible.

And I love Steve, but if there is substance he shouldn't throw out implications and let everyone draw their own conclusions. He isn't a cheap talk show host, but is a serious journalist.

The post has been pulled.

Seems like there are lots of innuendos and rumors but apparently no one with guts to name names and cite particulars on the record. It is easier to start and spread rumors and blame others for decisions made. If someone is being forthright, they need to also have courage. If you can't back up a claim then you shouldn't make it is how I look at it. If someone was illegally coerced then they need to step up or they are as guilty as the one applying illegal pressure. If they just have buyer's remorse though, it is cowardly to blame someone else. If you can't live up to a little pressure than you shouldn't have a position of responsibility. When you are dealing with tens of millions of dollars and CEOs with egos and politicians all in the same process you should expect substantial pressure. If there are bribes, threats, etc. and illegal activity that is altogether different and needs exposed as quickly and under as much light of day as possible.

And I love Steve, but if there is substance he shouldn't throw out implications and let everyone draw their own conclusions. He isn't a cheap talk show host, but is a serious journalist.

Watergate wouldn't have happened if journalists were required to get sources on the record all the time. Seems like if I was being threatened by SR and was trying to let someone know, I would make sure SR didn't find out I was ratting on them.

In 30 years when someone writes about the history of downtown OKC, I wonder what they will write about in this chapter.

In 30 years when someone writes about the history of downtown OKC, I wonder what they will write about in this chapter.

I wonder about that too. This really is an incredibly corrupt period in history.

Watergate wouldn't have happened if journalists were required to get sources on the record all the time. Seems like if I was being threatened by SR and was trying to let someone know, I would make sure SR didn't find out I was ratting on them.

First, this isn't Watergate. This is a difference of opinion about a local zoning law. Secondly, the journalists writing abut Watergate actually did name names and give specifics. This isn't about "sources", this is about finding the truth and not implying things. Either there is a story, or their isn't. If there is corruption then expose it. If it is about being bitter if a ruling doesn't go this way or that, then get over it.

FTLOG, leave Sandridge alone and let them continue to improve Downtown OKC...

FTLOG, leave Sandridge alone and let them continue to improve Downtown OKC...

That is the point. SOME of what they have proposed doesn't IMPROVE downtown but is detrimental.

Don't think you will find anyone seriously opposing the parts of their proposal that actually IMPROVE things.

That is where you are wrong, all of it does improve downtown !!!

That is where you are wrong, all of it does improve downtown !!!

In my opinion, it would improve the quality of college football if OU won the national championship every year. A few people do disagree with me though.

In my opinion, it would improve the quality of college football if OU won the national championship every year. A few people do disagree with me though.

Not I.

I do.

That is where you are wrong, all of it does improve downtown !!!

How does the destruction of historical buildings (and not replacing them with buildings) improve downtown?

Cuz "decrepit" buildings stink.

How does the destruction of historical buildings (and not replacing them with buildings) improve downtown?

How do buildings in disrepair or are too costly to renovate, left vacant for years and years, improve downtown.

How do buildings in disrepair or are too costly to renovate, left vacant for years and years, improve downtown.

The buldings are already there so improvement isn't the issue. You would have a point if we were talking about taking occupied buildings and turning them into disrepaired buildings.