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

You are wrong in your assessment that they are too costly to renovate.

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

FWIW, I asked Him and He confirmed I'm loved whether I ultimately favor or do not favor SR's plaza plan.
But hey, thanks for being concerned. It was a true day brightener.
8^)

You are wrong in your assessment that they are too costly to renovate.

Is this always the case? I am no expert by any means but have seen numerous older buildings destroyed and replaced, because it was cheaper.

Of course it is cheaper to clear a site than to renovate a building. And of course there's a lot less to gain, as well.

Is this always the case? I am no expert by any means but have seen numerous older buildings destroyed and replaced, because it was cheaper.

Replaced with what?

How do buildings in disrepair...
Who let the buildings fall into a state of disrepair?


...or are too costly to renovate, ...
Go back and read the various threads, there is ample evidence this is not the case


...left vacant for years and years, improve downtown.
The various owners of the building in question deliberately have chosen to leave the buildings vacant. They could have sold them, bringing what the market would bring, put the money in their pocket. Allowing someone else to renovate and actually improve downtown. They have deliberately chosen not to do that.

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2010/07/23/open-discussion-time/

The following lengthy comment was posted in http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2010/07/23/open-discussion-time/ by Suzette Hatfield, a principal in Preservation Oklahoma, yesterday afternoon. This sheds light on threats which have been alluded to previously ... it is long, but is well worth reading ...



Comment by Suzette Hatfield on July 24, 2010 @ 4:19 pm

So, what’s happening with Preservation Oklahoma?

We were inclined to stay out of the conversation this weekend, to lie low and let the wind blow around us. However, there have been so many questions and speculations about what has happened lately that I decided to post to clear the air.

Let me make it perfectly clear that I am posting as me, not as the official spokesperson for Preservation Oklahoma. When I say “we” in this post, I believe I am reflecting accurately things that our appeal group has seen together and consensus that we have reached.

On Tuesday of this week, Ralph McCalmont called POK to extend an invitation from SandRidge Energy to tour the buildings slated for demolition. He said that this would also be a good time to have a conversation about collaboration and compromise. We were a bit surprised to have the offer coming from McCalmont, because he has been known as a preservationist and was POK’s first president.

Katie Friddle accepted the invitation and asked for inclusion of Barrett Williamson, myself and Marva Ellard. No problem.

McCalmont later phoned Katie and said that he had invited others to join the tour, including two former POK presidents and another POK board member.

We reported for the tour at 8:00 AM on Wednesday, where we were greeted cordially by the SandRidge contingent, consisting of Marsha Wooden (VP, Administration), Rick Brown (Facilities Director), Allen Brown (architect, FSB), Aaron Young (architect, Rogers Marvel), Stan Lingo (structural engineer, construction manager) and Steve Ford (structural engineer).

We were supplied with flashlights and toured 107 Robert S. Kerr (India Temple), 125 RSK (YMCA) 135 RSK (Connector) and 300 N. Robinson (Oklahoma Savings and Loan or KerMac). We also toured the Braniff Building which is not on the demo list.

We were surprised to find the India Temple in quite good condition. It does not meet current code but that is to be expected of a building of that age and lack of maintenance. The building (and this is common to all of them except the Braniff) has been completely stripped. A great deal of original brick remains on the facade under the plaster panels. That brick is a beautiful warm brown color and is in good shape. Original window openings exist on the south, west and north sides of the building. There are no structural cracks around the windows. We are confident that this building is a strong candidate for mixed use. It was under contract for development at the time SandRidge acquired the buildings from Anadarko.

The YMCA could possibly be restored for mixed use but it would be a dilly of a project because prior owner removed about 15 feet from the front of the building. Ouch. There is really not much to work with here.

The Connector was built as such in 1959. As someone else who toured said, “This is a preposterous piece of crap.” Nothing at all to recommend it as a project.

The OK Savings and Loan is a great building. Certainly, it needs updating to meet current code but it would be a prime candidate for mixed use development. Except for window modifications made in the 1960?s, the original facade remains in good condition. In our opinion, it is in about the same condition as the Braniff Building.

There are only two real differences between the OK Savings and Loan and the Braniff:
(1) There is a bit of original crown molding, marble and signage left in the Braniff, whereas the OK Savings has been stripped.
(2) The Braniff is on the National Register.

During the tour, when we asked Mr. Ford about the buildings’ condition, he would only speak to the fact that they do not meet the current seismic code and would be seriously damaged during a significant seismic event.

After the tour, we were escorted to the executive conference room where we were offered refreshments.

Marsha Wooden began by indicating that SandRidge was surprised at POK’s opposition to the project because they thought they had covered all the bases, having contacted the SHPO and having had some sort of analysis done by Dian Everett.

Tom Ward came in at this point and said that SandRidge’s motto is “grow or die.” He said that accomplishment of their entire “master plan” was key to this strategy and that, if they do not get their entire plan approved, they would have to consider whether or not downtown Oklahoma City is the appropriate place to grow the company.

So, for those of you who wondered whether or not Frank Hill had the authority to say those words at the Board of Adjustment — yes, he did.

Aaron Young showed us a presentation about the planning process for the SandRidge Commons and showed some representations of the Braniff Building with a new glass wall with projections that would replace the back parti-wall.

We had the opportunity to ask some questions about the project. The dense landscaping plan had bothered me as a safety hazard so I asked if the company had a plan to secure the site from those seeking temporary housing. Marsha Wooden said that they have a competent security detail and will have a lot of cameras to keep the area secure. Their officers have already worked with OCPD to run off meth smokers.

POK sees several ways the company can grow on the existing site, without removing the India Temple and the OK Savings. Barrett asked if they would consider any compromise to their master plan.

We were told, unequivocally, “No.” Marsha Wooden repeated, in the nicest and most attractive way, that the company would consider moving out of downtown if their master plan is not approved.

We were surprised at this point when Ralph McCalmont addressed us and asked us to just, “Swallow the bitter pill” and cease our opposition to the project at that moment. He told us that Preservation Oklahoma would find itself “marginalized in the community” and that funding sources would dry up if we were to go forward with our opposition. He said that we would be seen as extremists and obstructionists and that it would be very difficult to be included in more important efforts, such as saving the First National Building, if we continued.

Marsha Wooden said that she hoped that we would not go forward as opponents, as that would “stress City resources more than they already have been.”

That pretty much concluded the event. We were grateful for the opportunity to tour.

Later in the day, Katie received a follow-up call from Mr. McCalmont repeating some of his comments, including his dire forecast for the future of POK if we continued in our position.

We found out that board members were receiving calls from Mr. McCalmont and others and that folks who had been friends and contributors to POK were receiving calls asking them to pressure us to stop.

For awhile we were worried that there may actually be a groundswell of support in the business and civic community for SandRidge. For a millisecond, we doubted ourselves.

Then, after a little due diligence, we found out that it’s just the same old folks behind the screen, tripping the little levers that release the smoke and mirrors. It turns out that this is what happened…

SandRidge hired a PR guy named Brent Gooden to wipe up the mess left by their inept handing of this project.

Gooden has been behind almost every statement or document that has been pro-SandRidge. The op-eds in the paper? The letters to the editor? Yes, Brent Gooden wrote those and had them signed by others. I’m not saying that Ford Price, Frank McPherson and others aren’t supporting the project. They obviously are. But, it appears they didn’t spend their own time and personal energy putting their viewpoints forward.

Frank Hill worked the phones and sent e-mails to some civic leaders giving them SandRidge’s perspective about the project. He urged them to get on the phone and pressure friends of POK to call off the dogs — us.

I’m sure you’ll recall the last Board of Adjustment hearing when Frank addressed the board and stated that, “City Staff approved EVERYTHING in our application.” Since POK’s position is to support the staff recommendation, which was to deny four demolitions, we were puzzled. We continue to be amazed that this is the information being conveyed to these prominent people in order to enlist them in the SandRidge “army.”

There has also been talk of “7500 jobs lost to downtown” if the project doesn’t go through. Who are these people? SandRidge’s “Linkedin” profile shows 2205 employees. Some of these are field personnel, not downtown office dwellers. Yes, SR just purchased Arena Resources. D&B lists Arena as having 71 employees.

One long-time civic leader, who has made innumerable contributions over the years, bought into the spiel and has been making lots of calls.

Others received the goods from Frank and Brent but did not drink the Kool-Aid.

So, the giant groundswell of opposition turns out to be 4 people, two of whom are paid by SandRidge.

Have there been threats? If you consider social and community marginalization to be threats, then surely there have been. I guess that’s the modern equivalent of shunning. They want us to take our buggy and go home.

Are we worried about losing our funding? We would hate to lose money but we are on our mission and message. Preservation Oklahoma’s duty is to advocate for the brick-and-mortar history of Oklahoma. We hope there are folks who see us hard at work and want to write a check to help us go forward.

And, unfortunately, we do have a business relationship that will terminate if we go to district court. I’m not going to name names here, but we have had a very successful partnership statewide that has been beneficial to both parties. We received a message that, if we go to court, we will be deemed to be “controversial and divisive” and the partnership will be over. That’s too bad because the small towns and cities where we do the projects don’t give two cents about the SandRidge Commons project in OKC.

Do I really believe that SandRidge will move out of downtown if they don’t get their way? They would have to hire two dozen Brent Goodens to clean up the public relations nightmare in the wake of such a move. Can you imagine how many people would accuse them of packing up their Barbies to go home and play alone?

I can’t imagine that it would be a good financial decision for them, either. They bought the complex of buildings on Robert S. Kerr for about $22/sq. ft. They have plenty of room to grow there. If they kept the India Temple and OK Savings, if they put their new recreation building north of the India Temple on Broadway and if they built a new tower at 120 RSK to mirror the existing one, they would be able to more than double the size of the company. Where else could they find prime office space for $22/sf?

What will happen Monday? We don’t know. We do not believe that due process at the Board of Adjustment has been corrupted at this time.

The two remaining buildings have been lumped together for one vote. We believe this is improper since the Downtown Design Ordinance gives the DDRC (and now, in its stead, the BoA) the authority to demolish A building larger than 20,000 sq ft per permit.

There will be four members of the Board present and voting. Jeff Austin is permanently recused because of his contract with SandRidge.

The only way that the 107 RSK and 300 N. Robinson buildings will be saved is if there is a 3-1 or 4-0 vote to reverse the decision of the DDRC.

The municipal counselor produced recommendations yesterday that we consider to be way off base. The document basically says that if the Board finds that the building(s) is/are economically feasible for SandRidge’s purposes, the Board can reverse the decision of the DDRC. It says if the Board finds that the building(s) is/are not economically feasible for SandRidge’s purpose, the Board can affirm the decision of the DDRC.

Yes, it really says that. Of course NONE of that is in the ordinance in ANY way. I wonder if the attorney has recovered from the thumbscrews yet.

SandRidge submitted a seismic/condition assessment of the remaining buildings only yesterday. In glancing through, we thought the report was pretty favorable.

Will POK appeal if things don’t go our way on Monday? We have scheduled a special meeting later in the week if we need to make that decision.

Steve,
As our only investigative newspaper in the city, when can we expect an expose on this issue with the full credibility of a mainstream and legitimate media source? It seems like we have some who will go on the record and with all the people involved, a balanced exposure of the facts should be obtainable. Seems like this is a responsibility of the Oklahoman. This is a case where the paper's credibility and civic responsibility may jeopardize some of their economic support, but isn't this what a free and independent press is supposed to do? Blogging is great, but is sort of the cheap way out of doing the real tough work of a major media player. I know you are up to this and would fairly represent all sides and have the integrity to expose real injustice and illegalities. Please complete what has been started.

Let's take this off the message boards and share with the entire public who may not even know this board exists. Corruption is a major deal and if it exists must be exposed. If there isn't corruption then the implications need to cease. We need to know for sure...is this just a tough issue with highly charged differences of opinion, or is this illegality at play?

Noted.

Steve,
As our only investigative newspaper in the city, when can we expect an expose on this issue with the full credibility of a mainstream and legitimate media source? It seems like we have some who will go on the record and with all the people involved, a balanced exposure of the facts should be obtainable. Seems like this is a responsibility of the Oklahoman. This is a case where the paper's credibility and civic responsibility may jeopardize some of their economic support, but isn't this what a free and independent press is supposed to do? Blogging is great, but is sort of the cheap way out of doing the real tough work of a major media player. I know you are up to this and would fairly represent all sides and have the integrity to expose real injustice and illegalities. Please complete what has been started.

Let's take this off the message boards and share with the entire public who may not even know this board exists. Corruption is a major deal and if it exists must be exposed. If there isn't corruption then the implications need to cease. We need to know for sure...is this just a tough issue with highly charged differences of opinion, or is this illegality at play?

here here :congrats::congrats::congrats:

Well, I don't think we're ever going to see an article critical of SR get past the Daily Oklahoman's ownership. That's just the way it is.

P.S. Metro, it's "hear hear."

The only publication that would ever publish a SR expose is the Gazette.

Well, I don't think we're ever going to see an article critical of SR get past the Daily Oklahoman's ownership. That's just the way it is.

P.S. Metro, it's "hear hear."

No, Nick, you're wrong. Metro was asking us to drop in for a visit. That is all.

No, Nick, you're wrong. Metro was asking us to drop in for a visit. That is all.

Oh, well in that case we should just help ourselves. :)

Like Nick (who republished Suzette's comment/letter here (http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2010/07/letter-from-suzette-hatfield.html)), I see Suzette Hatfield's (Treasurer and Board Member of Preservation Oklahoma) July 24 comment at OkcCentral as exceptionally important.

It, and 4 other documents filed with the Clerk late last week, are contained in and discussed in "The SandRidge Cut Cuts" here: http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2010/07/sandridge-cut-cuts.html (the software here doesn't make provision for "strikethroughs" ... otherwise the 1st "Cut" in the title would be stricken through since it is now apparent that the word form has usages as both a noun and a verb). The title relates to a 2nd video which uses "A Christmas Carol" as its model.

The other documents in the post are SandRidge's structural study of the India Temple Building, Preservation Oklahoma's reply, an apparently unsolicited legal opinion from the Municipal Counselor's office, and a letter from SandRidge's attorney, Frank Hill.

This thing (it seems to me) has now gone well past the point of legitimate differences of opinion about the SandRidge Commons proposal, per se, into much darker areas that none of us (I would hope) that this discussion would ever need or desired to have gone.

I have heard Suzette Hatfield's presentations before the BOA on an earlier occasion. In the large corporate scheme of things, she is a small fish to fry. But she has had the courage (unlike others who have 1st hand knowledge) to state on the record (if internet publications are actually that) a piece of this history that everyone should read, before concluding that SandRidge really cares that much for downtown or this city. A snippet from her report reads (referencing a meeting at SandRidge last week between it and Preservation Oklahoma),


Tom Ward came in at this point and said that SandRidge’s motto is “grow or die.” He said that accomplishment of their entire “master plan” was key to this strategy and that, if they do not get their entire plan approved, they would have to consider whether or not downtown Oklahoma City is the appropriate place to grow the company.
Hmmmm ...

Seems to me that Sandridge has the right to have a master plan and the right to attempt to achieve that master plan, just as pok has the right to try to stop the plan. Each party has the right to seek support for their side from wherever they see fit. Not being a drama queen, I see nothing dark or sinister with what has gone on so far. I have seen no threats from Sandridge. Tom Ward stepped up and plainly said that if their master plan could not go forward in its entirety Sandridge would reevaluate their presense downtown. That is a fact, not a threat. I would really like to see something substantial that is supported by real proof that Sandridge is taking this to the dark side. Suzzette's "exceptionally important" listing of events seemed to detail no threats, just the fact that someone was going to withdraw their support. Yet, Suzzette was very brave and courageous to draft her report and post it where it is available to a few hundred internet readers. Congratualations Suzzette. Isn't it grand that we have such wonderful drama here at OKCTalk. I hope this all ends tomorrow.

SandRidge hired a PR guy named Brent Gooden to wipe up the mess left by their inept handing of this project.

Gooden has been behind almost every statement or document that has been pro-SandRidge. The op-eds in the paper? The letters to the editor? Yes, Brent Gooden wrote those and had them signed by others. I’m not saying that Ford Price, Frank McPherson and others aren’t supporting the project. They obviously are. But, it appears they didn’t spend their own time and personal energy putting their viewpoints forward.



I wonder if he had anything to do with the opinion article in the paper today attributed to Clay Bennett in support of Sandridge. It basically just said they should be left alone because they are good guys.

I wonder if he had anything to do with the opinion article in the paper today attributed to Clay Bennett in support of Sandridge. It basically just said they should be left alone because they are good guys.

Here's the link: http://newsok.com/approval-of-sandridge-redevelopment-plan-important-for-citys-future/article/3478893?custom_click=headlines_widget

I am starting to rethink my support for the Thunder.

And I really think this is starting to go too far. So we all don't agree with what Sandridge plans for what some believe will be a lifeless corporate plaza while others believe it is an improvement downtown. I remain neutral on this matter for the fact that I had a feeling this was going to grow into a complex matter a couple of months ago. And... it has. Based on what I have been reading this past week, this has been nothing but a cluster ****.

I am starting to rethink my support for the Thunder.

Because Mr. Bennett does not share your same view point?

I am starting to rethink my support for the Thunder.

Please don't withdraw your support Kerry. The impact of such a decision would be devastating to the organization and the City.

As for me, I'll keep supporting the Thunder ... ha ha ... doubt they could stand such a devastating loss!

However, as to the report given by Ms. Hatfield, I've stated my observations about that report here: http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2010/07/sandridge-cut-cuts.html#observations but I'd just as soon say it again:


OBSERVATIONS ON MS. HATFIELD'S REPORT. Suzette's report was clearly carefully put together and it reads clearly. But, I wanted to know a little more, if I could find it or think of it to say.

Having done that at least a little, the Tuesday call for a meeting with SandRidge was clearly an ambush, a setup, from the get-go.

First, a call is received from a respected member, the initial president, of their own organization, Preservation Oklahoma. The call came from Ralph McCalomont.


On Tuesday of this week, Ralph McCalmont called POK to extend an invitation from SandRidge Energy to tour the buildings slated for demolition. He said that this would also be a good time to have a conversation about collaboration and compromise. We were a bit surprised to have the offer coming from McCalmont, because he has been known as a preservationist and was POK’s first president.
I can only speculate but the call must have been the cause for at least cautious optimism — SandRidge was inviting POK for a meeting involving "collaboration and compromise," things that POK had hoped for all along. And the call came from a trusted friend.

I did a little checking and found a bit of information about this person, and, indeed, there is good reason for the trust since he has excellent credentials as a person interested in historic preservation. A September 8, 2004, Journal Record article reported that he had just been named head of a new state task force to study the economic impact of historic preservation and resigned his post as interim director of the state's Tourism and Recreation Department to accept that position. On a quick look, I was unable to found more about the new task force and what it did or did not accomplish. I as able to find that, according to Forbes, he is 74 years old, is a director of BankFirst Corporation, and is self employed in the investment and management of personal financial holdings. I also found this glowing True West Magazine article about his efforts at historic preservation in Guthrie, where he lived before moving to Oklahoma City. The article is titled, "Horse Trading for a Better Guthrie — How the power of the few brought back the 'Magic City.' " Part of that article reads,


Many nights, during the late 1970s, Ralph McCalmont had to remind himself he was trying to save Oklahoma's "magic city." Opposition was so loud and so hurtful, he wondered if it was worth it.
So, like Preservation Oklahoma's present circumstance, he had been there, done that, and was presumably a person that POK could trust.

Before the meeting, POK was graciously received and were granted the building tour that they had been seeking to have for months but which SandRidge had not allowed until this past week.

And, then came the meeting McAlmont had said was for the purpose of "collaboration and compromise." In the executive conference room, refreshments were offered and everyone was polite. Eventually, a timely visit was made by Tom Ward to the group, and he said unequivocally that,


SandRidge’s motto is “grow or die.” He said that accomplishment of their entire “master plan” was key to this strategy and that, if they do not get their entire plan approved, they would have to consider whether or not downtown Oklahoma City is the appropriate place to grow the company.
Any lingering doubt about SandRidge's willingness to consider compromised was quickly dashed when Marsha Wooden replied to Barrett Williamson's query — would SandRidge consider ANY compromise? "No." the company would consider moving out of downtown if their master plan is not approved.

And then, rubbing salt into the wounds, POK's presumed friend, Ralph McCalmot addressed the invited guests who were told by him to "swallow the bitter pill" and cease opposition to SandRidge's plan, then and there, right at that very moment. Otherwise, POK would find itself "marginalized in the community," funding sources would dry up, the group would be seen as extremists and obstructionists.

After the meeting, McCalmot called Katie Friddle and repeated what he'd already said. Board members received calls from McCalmont and others and people who had been friends and contributors to POK were receiving calls asking them to pressure us to stop.

More, without naming the corporation, Hatfield said that POK had been informed that it the pending dispute is carried to district court (the next step by whoever the loser is at today's hearing before the BOA), a existing business relationship with an company that she did not name will be terminated and that that partnership "will be over."

Ralph McCalmont — some friend. Ralph McCalmont — some compromise meeting. Ralph McCalmont — will have great lengths to go to before being able to be trusted by Preservation Oklahoma ever again.

So, what began as a day of possible hope ended with quite a different reality. Setup. Ambush. Quit or die.

I assume that POK will show up at today's 1:30 pm meeting before the Board of Adjustment in City Council chambers.

Please don't withdraw your support Kerry. The impact of such a decision would be devastating to the organization and the City.

Don't underestimate my power. You already credited me once with driving a billion dollar company out of downtown. Surely I can help defeat a $250 million basketball team. If Tom Ward is going to lie day a scorched-Earth policy, then let the scorching begin.

Seems to me that Mr. McCalmont was doing everything he could to be a friend to pok. If pok and their supporters are too impaired by tunnel vision to recognize the sound advice they were given then they can stay on the same track and see what comes to pass.

Congratualations Suzzette. Isn't it grand that we have such wonderful drama here at OKCTalk. I hope this all ends tomorrow.

Now you're demeaning her? Piece. Of. Work. Popsy.

Don't underestimate my power. You already credited me once with driving a billion dollar company out of downtown. Surely I can defeat a $250 million basketball team.

Sorry Kerry, you have me confused with someone else. I never credited you for your driving abilities. No doubt, you are a very powerful man in Jacksonville, but I am not sure about your power in OKC.

Seems to me that Mr. McCalmont was doing everything he could to be a friend to pok. If pok and their supporters are too impaired by tunnel vision to recognize the sound advice they were given then they can stay on the same track and see what comes to pass.

So you agree with the threat made to POK?

Now you're demeaning her? Piece. Of. Work. Popsy.

Not at all Sparky. Doug indicated she deserved props and I obliged. You could work to improve your reading comprehension you know.

Sorry Kerry, you have me confused with someone else. I never credited you for your driving abilities. No doubt, you are a very powerful man in Jacksonville, but I am not sure about your power in OKC.

Maybe so - you suburbanist all look a like to me.

So you agree with the threat made to POK?

There was no threat, just sound advice because he cares about the organization. To label the advice a threat is only for the purpose of creating drama.

Seems to me that Mr. McCalmont was doing everything he could to be a friend to pok. If pok and their supporters are too impaired by tunnel vision to recognize the sound advice they were given then they can stay on the same track and see what comes to pass.

I can actually somewhat agree with this. I don't see McCalmont as any kind of bad guy, he just happens to work at SandRidge, who is going to marginalize Preservation Oklahoma with a vengeance, and he doesn't want that to happen.

Alright, now we're just insulting each other. Maybe some posters need the block button.

"Sparky?" LOL

Seems to me that Mr. McCalmont was doing everything he could to be a friend to pok. If pok and their supporters are too impaired by tunnel vision to recognize the sound advice they were given then they can stay on the same track and see what comes to pass.
Popsy, how do you regard Mr. McCalmont's invitation being to a meeting which would discuss "collaboration and compromise?" Was it OK for him to say that, in your estimation, given what was really planned to take place before the end of that day?

Popsy, how do you regard Mr. McCalmont's invitation being to a meeting which would discuss "collaboration and compromise?" Was it OK for him to say that, in your estimation, given what was really planned to take place before the end of that day?

Doug, I have no clue as to what Mr. McCalmont's intention was at the time he made the invitation and neither does anyone else. For some reason he might have experienced a moment of clarity between the time the invitation was made and the time the meeting was actually held.

Doug, I have no clue as to what Mr. McCalmont's intention was at the time he made the invitation and neither does anyone else. For some reason he might have experienced a moment of clarity between the time the invitation was made and the time the meeting was actually held.

"No clue" ?

I don't know if it's the reason, but "No clue" ? How about starting with what actually went down that day? Just an idear.

Doug, I have no clue as to what Mr. McCalmont's intention was at the time he made the invitation and neither does anyone else. For some reason he might have experienced a moment of clarity between the time the invitation was made and the time the meeting was actually held.
Oh, come on, Popsy. Can you not see how that is an unrealistic stretch of the events that took place?

But, for purposes of discussion, let's assume for the moment that HE DID know how that meeting was going to come down BEFORE he made the invitation, on behalf of SandRidge, for "collaboration and compromise?" IF that was the fact, how would you regard his words of invitation ... still OK?

"No clue" ?

I don't know if it's the reason, but "No clue" ? How about starting with what actually went down that day? Just an idear.

Thought processes change with time Sparky. What seems rational one day can look entirely different with time. You will hopefully understand this when you experience a degree of maturity.

Oh, come on, Popsy. Can you not see how that is an unrealistic stretch of the events that took place?

Doug, I learned a long time ago that assuming anything is a dangerous road to take. On the surface Mr. McMalmont appears to be an honorable man. Are you implying that he is not an honorable man?

Popsy, you replied before I finished editing my post. Please reread and if you will give your thoughts?

On Edit: but to answer your question, yes, if you want to put it that way. But I don't know what "honorable" might mean. My words would be that (1) IF he knew before he placed the invitation to POK on behalf of SandRidge what was really going to come down at that meeting (and I am persuaded that he did) and (2) IF he did say to Ms. Hatfield that "collaboration and compromise" would be discussed (and I am persuaded that he did), it is my opinion that he was being deceitful and was that he was lying.

Now, IF Mr. McMalmont comes forward and says that, no, he really thought that compromise would be discussed when he placed that call, then I would back off of that and say that there may have been an unintended misunderstanding. To my knowledge, he has not done that and I'm sure that he must have read by now what Ms. Hatfield has reported.

There was no threat, just sound advice because he cares about the organization. To label the advice a threat is only for the purpose of creating drama.

You mean like "an offer they can't refuse"? Stop or die. Some choice.

Thought processes change with time Sparky. What seems rational one day can look entirely different with time. You will hopefully understand this when you experience a degree of maturity.

ok..

Popsy, you replied before I finished editing my post. Please reread and if you will give your thoughts?

On Edit: but to answer your question, yes, if you want to put it that way. But I don't know what "honorable" might mean. My words would be that (1) IF he knew before he placed the invitation to POK on behalf of SandRidge what was really going to come down at that meeting (and I am persuaded that he did) and (2) IF he did say to Ms. Hatfield that "collaboration and compromise" would be discussed (and I am persuaded that he did), it is my opinion that he was being deceitful and was that he was lying.

Now, IF Mr. McMalmont comes forward and says that, no, he really thought that compromise would be discussed when he placed that call, then I would back off of that and say that there may have been an unintended misunderstanding. To my knowledge, he has not done that and I'm sure that he must have read by now what Ms. Hatfield has reported.

Doug I hate assuming anything, but I will try. From my limited view from the cheap seats it appears the parties discussed the situation, which would imply some degree of collaboration and the Sandridge side did offer a compromise which appears to have been for pok to back off or suffer diminished standing in the community, but I have not heard that pok offered a counter compromise. Granted the collaboration and compromise offered was not what pok was expecting, but there is still a basis there for the invitation to be accurately described as collaboration and compromise.

Sandridge is creating a huge PR mess as is Gooden PR. If they were smart they would work with P.O. and the community and come to a compromise instead of an all or nothing bully approach.

Doug I hate assuming anything, but I will try. From my limited view from the cheap seats it appears the parties discussed the situation, which would imply some degree of collaboration and the Sandridge side did offer a compromise which appears to have been for pok to back off or suffer diminished standing in the community, but I have not heard that pok offered a counter compromise. Granted the collaboration and compromise offered was not what pok was expecting, but there is still a basis there for the invitation to be accurately described as collaboration and compromise.
My understanding of the term "compromise" is that each party gives and gets something ... they find a middle ground. If you're saying that, "Quit now or suffer the consequences" is an offer of compromise, we really do live in two different worlds. What you are describing is capitulation, not compromise, in my view.

Sandridge is creating a huge PR mess as is Gooden PR. If they were smart they would work with PR and the community and come to a compromise instead of an all or nothing bully approach.

What bothers me the most from urbanists and preservationists is that they are convinced they are representing the community when in fact, they are an extremely small minority. It appears to me that the business community is coming down on you now and the rest of the community could care less for your efforts. Furthermore, just because an entity does not give in to a small group of dissenters does not make them a bully. I actually have more respect for them for standing their ground.

What bothers me the most from urbanists and preservationists is that they are convinced they are representing the community when in fact, they are an extremely small minority. It appears to me that the business community is coming down on you now and the rest of the community could care less for your efforts. Furthermore, just because an entity does not give in to a small group of dissenters does not make them a bully. I actually have more respect for them for standing their ground.
Do you not have similar respect for POK for standing its ground absent a willingness of the parties to temper their respective positions and find a mutually agreeable solution?

Whoops. Double post.

What bothers me the most from urbanists and preservationists is that they are convinced they are representing the community when in fact, they are an extremely small minority. It appears to me that the business community is coming down on you now and the rest of the community could care less for your efforts. Furthermore, just because an entity does not give in to a small group of dissenters does not make them a bully. I actually have more respect for them for standing their ground.

I think you are in the minority, actually.

Doug, if they continue the fight I would certainly have an equal amount of respect for them. I do not think either side should be villified for working towards achieving their convictions. To date I have not seen the Sandridge supporters trying to villify anyone, but on the other hand...................

To date I have not seen the Sandridge supporters trying to villify anyone, but on the other hand...................

Hey, I think I just found the rock you've been living underneath. Is this it?
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR5PnY6fxg1bfCrE6dZKP-PDUWiAR_aXEOzcLG63UnvASmjSjg&t=1&usg=__o8VdG-dTtprvlVFbwPwPwgCO7Vw=

-Sparky

Sparky, are you going to revert to total childishness now?

Says the man who came up with "Sparky"?

David, I affectionately refer to him as Sparky because of his relentless attempts at trying to enlighten the masses. Unfortunately he is being unfairly held back by the dimness of his message.

I have to take my wife to a medical appointment in a few minutes so I'll not be able to be present at the start of today's 1:30 meeting but hope to attend at least part of it. I'd be pleased to meet any of you that I've not met, on either side of this dispute. I'm told that I look pretty much like my avatar but I won't be wearing my thunder gear nor leaping from the basketball floor to higher than the basket.

I can't do that anymore. :ohno::ohno:

So, if I do make it, I'd hope to meet any of you who make yourselves known to me, Popsy, Kerry, anyone else.

David, I affectionately refer to him as Sparky because of his relentless attempts at trying to enlighten the masses. Unfortunately he is being unfairly held back by the dimness of his message.

If that's how you want to play it, sure. I was just struck by the apparent hypocrisy of accusing someone of childishness while using a childish nickname.

Sparky, are you going to revert to total childishness now?

Look, I'm just astonished that you would make the claim that nobody is attempting to vilify (not "villify") Preservation Oklahoma and yet it is rather PO that is attempting to vilify SandRidge.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but everyone on PO's side of this debacle has gone to great pains to not appear hostile toward SandRidge THE company that employs hard-working Oklahomans, but rather, SR that has offered to oust PO from the community and bring about its demise in a vengeful way if they go ANY further in attempting to preempt these building demolitions.

Am I missing something? All of that bolded text is completely without spin (or if it isn't, it's toward the company employing hard-working Oklahomans) and without my own perspective on what is really going on. I am pretty certain that the bolded text above is a very simple statement of fact that nobody on either side can disagree with. So if you disagree with what is going on Popsy, I have to ask are you even paying attention to what's been going on??

Look, I'm just astonished that you would make the claim that nobody is attempting to vilify (not "villify") Preservation Oklahoma and yet it is rather PO that is attempting to vilify SandRidge.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but everyone on PO's side of this debacle has gone to great pains to not appear hostile toward SandRidge THE company that employs hard-working Oklahomans, but rather, SR that has offered to oust PO from the community and bring about its demise in a vengeful way if they go ANY further in attempting to preempt these building demolitions.

Am I missing something? All of that bolded text is completely without spin (or if it isn't, it's toward the company employing hard-working Oklahomans) and without my own perspective on what is really going on. I am pretty certain that the bolded text above is a very simple statement of fact that nobody on either side can disagree with. So if you disagree with what is going on Popsy, I have to ask are you even paying attention to what's been going on??

Once again your lack of reading comprehension raises it's ugly head. If you will reread my remarks that you take exception to you will note that I referenced the Sandridge "supporters" not trying to villify pok. I agree that pok has said nothing that I can remember that would imply that they were trying to villify Sandridge. The pok "supporters" have been quite active in bad mouthing Sandridge in this forum, thus my implied statement to that effect. So, my answer to your first and your final question is yes you are and yes I am. Satisfied?

The pok "supporters" have been quite active in bad mouthing Sandridge in this forum...

Can you provide one example of someone 'bad mouthing' Sandridge? And as a follow-up question, will you be providing that example today?