Can you provide one example of someone 'bad mouthing' Sandridge?

Yes.

Yes.

Very funny. Let me re-phrase the question. Will you provide an example of someone 'bad mouthing' Sandridge?

Very funny. Let me re-phrase the question. Will you provide an example of someone 'bad mouthing' Sandridge?

I do not have the time to research and copy every post right now, but I will try to refresh your memory with a few of the phrases bandied about. Sandridge is doing this only because of vanity; Sandridge is not a good corporate citizen; Sandridge uses bullying tactics; references to Sandridge using illegal tactics and possiblly extortion and arm twisting. They go on and on, but surely you remember those. Parse or twist it however you want, with luck this will be decided today.

I do not have the time to research and copy every post right now, but I will try to refresh your memory with a few of the phrases bandied about. Sandridge is doing this only because of vanity; Sandridge is not a good corporate citizen; Sandridge uses bullying tactics; references to Sandridge using illegal tactics and possiblly extortion and arm twisting. They go on and on, but surely you remember those. Parse or twist it however you want, with luck this will be decided today.

Dude - that isn't bad mouthing. Those are facts. And facts created by Sandridge's own actions I might add.

I see on Channel 20, Sandridge is trying to claim there isn't any parking to support residential. How many parking spaces is Sandridge taking out as part of their Sandridge Common plans? Where is the parking for the Braniff Building, Park Harvey, or The Colcord?

Now they are going on about how great urban parks are. Really, that would be a great argument for Core2Shore park. Where are the examples of all the great Corporate Plazas?

Why is it that some people think the only valid opinion is their own and that any other opinion is stupid? That is the height of arrogance. Just because you don't agree doesn't automatically make someone else wrong or stupid.

We all know how much you disagree and hate SR's idea. Let's see what the law says about their actions and requests. These hearings are not about whether you and I agree, but rather what is allowed by law and/or what is agreed on by our governing bodies.

Dude - that isn't bad mouthing. Those are facts. And facts created by Sandridge's own actions I might add.

Well punkin, I suppose you wouldn't know if a fact hit you square in the face if you really think those are facts. Life is much to short to dwell any further on this now non-matter, so I bid you ado to continue your fact finding efforts.

Popsy, It's so obvious you are a Sandridge PR guy. Are they paying you well?

Popsy, It's so obvious you are a Sandridge PR guy. Are they paying you well?

No Mike. I am just an old burned out former business owner that started sticking up for Sandridge back when no one else was on their side. I do thank you for the compliment however, as no one else has deemed me worthy of being paid in quite some time. My efforts would not be worth anything to them any way as this is just a forum where people can share their views at times without being attacked. (well not too often attacked)

3-1 Fail. There goes the neighborhood.


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?

Well here's what you actually said.


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...................

So you claim that you said SR and pro-SR parties are not attempting to vilify PO. I don't dispute that, I am in wholehearted agreement that you made that statement. Contrary to the facts however, there have been threats made to PO including a threatened loss of funding. Not sure what more you want.

You can claim that you never implied PO has been attempting to vilify (a word you continue to misspell) SR. But here's what you actually said: "To date I have not seen the Sandridge supporters trying to villify anyone, but on the other hand..................."


And my lack of reading comprehension? I think you're the one with the problem, evidently. [Insert childish insult come-back.]

Popsy, It's so obvious you are a Sandridge PR guy. Are they paying you well?

I dunno.. pretty sure that if they can get their letters to the editor published in the Oklahoman, they're going to go that route above diving into the fray on okctalk.

Well punkin,

Punkin? That is what I call my wife. Here is a list of acceptable nicknames: Kerry-okie, t-bone, slow-mo, and dead eye. Or were you coming onto me with the 'punkin' reference?

Just got back. I was able to catch everything from about 2:15 on so I'll naturally have to make some comments about that later in my blog and here. However, by the time the speech making was all done, the board spent very little time with discussion a motion was made and seconded and then voted upon, denying the appeal 3-1, only David Wanzer voting to sustain the appeal. It was, in my opinion, a done deal well before the hearing commenced. That's life in the big city, movin' west, c'est la vie, etc. etc. etc. Preservation OK acquitted itself well, but power (in my opinion) won the day.

Anyone know if POK will appeal this to the district court?

Sounds like the Good Ole'Boy network is still strong in OKC. Sad considering I doubt Sandridge will be here in 10 years and we'll have more vacant lots than necessary downtown.

Unless Tom Ward is a liar, we shouldn't have to live with the corporate plaza for long. He said in the meeting he needed the space to build another tower in the future. We'll see.

Anyone know if POK will appeal this to the district court?


Funding, alas, would be an issue for an appeal I would imagine. I think it's a done deal, sadly ... Our city is still very young, and this is a good reminder that we don't always collectively make the best decisions . However, there's a lot of good things happening too, as we all know.

I'll be on the look out for the silver lining, and that I'll be proven wrong that all this demolition is a profoundly bad idea for our downtown.

metro,

You're worried that the company isn't stable, or you think they're going to bolt after all this controversy?

Funding, alas, would be an issue for an appeal I would imagine. I think it's a done deal, sadly ... Our city is still very young, and this is a good reminder that we don't always collectively make the best decisions . However, there's a lot of good things happening too, as we all know.

I'll be on the look out for the silver lining, and that I'll be proven wrong that all this demolition is a profoundly bad idea for our downtown.

Not-for-profit foundations can often find lawyers who are willing to take on bears of cases (or just little bits of them) on a pro-bono basis. Taking a case like this, if nothing else, will provide free publicity and would be worth the time and effort in terms of free marketing.

I wouldn't completely count them out.

Unless Tom Ward is a liar, we shouldn't have to live with the corporate plaza for long. He said in the meeting he needed the space to build another tower in the future. We'll see.
I honestly don't know how to feel on this, but, it looks like it is done. So, maybe it is time to move on and hope the new tower is needed soon.

If it is appealed it will be an interesting appeal. These are tough to overturn since the party appealing has the burden, and it is a heavy burden to overcome. If it does go to District Court, it will be POK v. the Board of Adjustment which will be represented by the City Attorney's office (unless they outsourced it which is unlikely). SR will likely join as another party to the suit.

I think we knew all along that a legal appeal in District Court would be the best shot at getting the city ordinances applied fairly, but in all honesty.. I am almost ready to move on. It will be interesting to see what PO does, but I think they're going to have to genuinely evaluate the outlook. I truly agree that there may be benefits to working with and not against the establishment to ensure the well-being of other historic buildings, most notably the First National. I agree with the assessment that it is fixing to become an issue as well. I wouldn't underestimate the value of these buildings in question, as Jonathon Poston made it very clear that the National Trust in D.C. has identified them as being very important, but it will be interesting to see what happens to say the least.

Interestingly, it would not be the first time in the last 2 years that these buildings and their future have been involved in a lawsuit.

As for today, what a mess. I think this thing was SandRidge's for the taking as long as they could be nice for a change. SandRidge pulled the rug out on us by shocking everyone with niceness. Frank Hill didn't even say a pppppeepppp. I covered it extensively in the write-up on my blog, but I'll also mention on here that I think Michael Dunn's comments have the ability to become very prophetic if we keep heading down this path. In an Orwellian-I.M. Pei sort of way.

Remember his quotes. Maybe he is right.

If it is true that he has future plans to build a new tower on those empty sites left from these buildings then why didn't he say that in the first place. Most people are angry at the misconception that the replacing landscape was to become permanent and not open to future development.

If it is true that he has future plans to build a new tower on those empty sites left from these buildings then why didn't he say that in the first place.
He never said it before. He lied and so did most of the others. But when the City is corrupt you can get away with it.

If it is true that he has future plans to build a new tower on those empty sites left from these buildings then why didn't he say that in the first place. Most people are angry at the misconception that the replacing landscape was to become permanent and not open to future development.

I'm not the expert others are on this site, but this comment seems to make a big difference. If the plaza is possibly only temporary so that they can build another tower later then this would be a much more bearable situation. Can anyone shed any light on the probability if this happening?

I'm not the expert others are on this site, but this comment seems to make a big difference. If the plaza is possibly only temporary so that they can build another tower later then this would be a much more bearable situation. Can anyone shed any light on the probability if this happening?

Posturing/P.R.

If they had ever planned to do this, it would have been mentioned at another time.

this was a win for OKC and for our future ... empty buildings do not density make ... and this will only help attract business to our city

Punkin? That is what I call my wife. Here is a list of acceptable nicknames: Kerry-okie, t-bone, slow-mo, and dead eye. Or were you coming onto me with the 'punkin' reference? LOL. Poor Popsy.

It was, in my opinion, a done deal well before the hearing commenced. That's life in the big city, movin' west, c'est la vie, etc. etc. etc. Preservation OK acquitted itself well, but power (in my opinion) won the day.
Of course, the decision was made well before the meeting, it always has been and always will be the case everywhere, that is definitely not something unique to OKC. Those who have the money can buy influence, with influence you can get what you want. That is what happens on small town Main Street and all the way to Washington DC, just the way that it has always been...nothing is going to change. What happened today was what I expected from the start.



metro,

You're worried that the company isn't stable, or you think they're going to bolt after all this controversy?
Probably swallowed up by a larger entity and moved to Houston as Sandridge is a small player in that business sector. They would be a big time player in some business sectors but not the one they are in.


this was a win for OKC and for our future ... empty buildings do not density make ... and this will only help attract business to our city
Well...hell, let's just level all of downtown then if it's for the common good....
Wait, that was already tried 25-30 years ago.

Time to move on...

this was a win for OKC and for our future ... empty buildings do not density make ... and this will only help attract business to our city

Bullsh*t.

I'm sure Tom Ward is dancing a happy dance for showing up all of us "brick huggers." Maybe he can look at himself in the mirror and practice his free enterprise chant.

He never said it before. He lied and so did most of the others. But when the City is corrupt you can get away with it.

Not entirely true, although I guarantee you everyone on my row nearly rolled their eyes out when they heard him talking about this. I was hoping Tom would provide us some elevations, preliminary sketches, or just give us some picture of what "Phase 2" will be like. Truthfully, they are planning in the long-range (maybe a decade from now) to build an elongated office building lining Broadway for the entire block. The fact is that they just stenciled a ubiquitous rectangular shape toward that end and have done no planning and most likely won't get to building it for a very long time if at all. It's existence on the masterplan is almost just a mirage of density.

To be fair, most of their speakers did give very honest depictions. The India Temple DOES lack horizontal supports and as such would be earthquake prone, that's a fact..in the same way that probably 60% of structures in OK County are. I would also assume that Stan Lingo's cost estimates were accurate..as far as extreme high-end cost estimates go. I also don't doubt Ford Price's assessment of only a 4% return on investment on his pro forma, assuming that you were too busy to apply for a single tax credit. The building would qualify for the historic register AFTER it was restored but not before, ironically, but you can still get the tax credit, just can't get it guaranteed beforehand like you would for a building already on the register.

So there was truth in everything said, actually, and I appreciate their integrity enough to defend them on it. Except for some of Michael Dunn's comments, a lot of his comments are still puzzling to me. With Frank Hill sidelined, they also came across as much more sincere and concerned about their PR.

Spartan, I appreciate your assessment. I know you are disappointed and I sort of am too. This has been a very divisive and bitter discussion on this board. Let's now hope SR grows and we all breath easier in a couple of years.

Yeah, no problem. I just hope a huge amount of E.Coli suddenly flows through their pipelines, because otherwise I don't see anything-SandRidge growing as big as they hope. Maybe we just don't have the evil genius it takes to see the growth potential, but it's a fact that most people in Tom Ward's present situation go bust. I just don't feel good about this, I can't help it. Hope I'm wrong.

Well, I do have a good feeling about this. I've had a bad feeling about many projects in OKC, but not about this. To me, this isn't Pei in repeat. It's a seed being planted that looks bad to preservationists at first but in time will see its true vision. I am not going to apologize for that. It is what it is.

If you haven't read Steve's last couple of postings on his blog at NewsOK you might want to read. Is a good and fair read.

I don't know about SR's future, but they are in an industry that can spur huge growth. I know a lot of people who have bet against Aubrey time and time again and have lost. Ward seems to be cut of similar cloth. But then again, many conservative and old line companies in this country have gone under or have been purchased and absorbed over the past couple of years. too. There are no guarantees that any company will be around in 10 years. Ask BP how fast it can change. Ask Conoco and Ponca City how fast. Ask any of the Big 8 accounting firms that used to be. So let's not wish SR its demise or count on it. Let's hope they are the hunter and not the hunted. Let's hope they grow and hire all kinds of people who want to live and play in downtown OKC and the developers respond with new living opportunities.

Did they intend to say that 85% of their workforce lives north of the Valiance Bank Tower or north of SandRidge Tower? They were giving a condensed timeline story...and I don't speak evil genius wildcatter, so my comprehension of Ward's schpeel is somewhat limited I guess.

I also got a little confused when Larry Nichols said he spent millions renovating The Colcord. I thought he bought it AFTER the renovation.

I also got a little confused when Larry Nichols said he spent millions renovating The Colcord. I thought he bought it AFTER the renovation.

No, it was a decrepit old building before Larry Nichols graced it with his vision. lol
Note: I am not implying anything negative about Nichols, who I have great respect for, it's just a joke that came up.

Why is it that some people think the only valid opinion is their own and that any other opinion is stupid? That is the height of arrogance. Just because you don't agree doesn't automatically make someone else wrong or stupid.

We all know how much you disagree and hate SR's idea. Let's see what the law says about their actions and requests. These hearings are not about whether you and I agree, but rather what is allowed by law and/or what is agreed on by our governing bodies.

Just because it was allowed by a governing body doesn't automatically mean it was legal to do so. By the "plain and ordinary meaning" of the ordinance, it would appear to be a flagrant violation. Unfortunately, the only way to test the legality of the actions by the parties is to take it to the judicial system. Just as with the legality of the original MAPS and subsequent MAPS 3 ballots, they may or may not be legal but if no one challenges them, they will continue on in the same manner.

What is the point of even having the ordinance if it isn't going to be followed? Remove the board members who apparently don't wish to enforce the ordinances & replace them with someone who will. Or completely eliminate the Ordinance, the DDRC and the BoA and let every property owner do whatever they want.

this was a win for OKC and for our future ... empty buildings do not density make ... and this will only help attract business to our city

And how does a vacant corporate plaza add to the density (certainly more building density is achieved with a building (occupied or not) than some landscaping. Again, how does the destruction "attract business to our city"?

Yes, we know how the "illegal" Maps programs have decreased the value of our city and destroyed the great momentum that was created before. These OKC businessmen and property owners downtown are just so stupid they supported a plan that will shoo off business and lower their property values.

Reports say they currently have 600 employees downtown. Rule of thumb is 1,000 square feet per employee and the current tower has at least 300,000.

So, they would have to grow by a factor of five before running out of space.

Of course that did happen with Devon and they ended up spread all over downtown necessitating their new tower.

Yes, we know how the "illegal" Maps programs have decreased the value of our city and destroyed the great momentum that was created before. These OKC businessmen and property owners downtown are just so stupid they supported a plan that will shoo off business and lower their property values.

Tom Ward lost half his net worth in 18 months. McClendon damn near lost everything during the same time-frame. Don't substitute intelligence for 'right place at the right time'. These are smart guys no doubt, but they probably aren't any smarter than most people - they are just willing to take risk. My wife is very smart, but she won't take a risk to save her life. I work with a woman that just got accepted into MENSA, but she is as ditzy as they come. Paris Hilton is rich and she is dumber than a bag of hammers.

One of my learning experiences that I may have gained from witnessing the Board of Adjustment proceedings in the SandRidge matter is stated in the updated blog article (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2010/07/sandridge-cut-cuts.html) that I just made. It has more to do with naiveté than anything else. There, I said,



CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS. Although I'm 67 years of age, until sitting in on the Board of Adjustment proceedings on this matter, I've never closely followed any municipal proceeding before, so this was a new experience for me. Now that it is done, I'm reflecting on the process that I've witnessed — things that are important, things that are not, things that go on behind the scenes, the importance of procedure, the importance of power.

One thing that I've learned from this experience is that my background in the legal system — courtroom procedure, rules of evidence, rules pertaining to appeals, etc. — did not serve me well in providing expectations as to what would occur in a municipal procedural context. The contexts are completely dissimilar and the rules are not even remotely the same. More precisely, my conclusion is that there are no rules in the municipal appellate context. Anything goes. Because of my naiveté, I did not know what the municipal context was all about.

Appellate Context. In courts of law, except under very unusual circumstances, an appeal from a decision of a lower court is limited to the evidence presented in the lower court. Arguments during an appeal are generally based upon whether the lower court erred in its determination of the applicable law and/or whether the evidence presented in the lower court was sustained by the applicable measure of proof required — in most cases, by a "preponderance of the evidence," in others by "clear and convincing evidence," and in criminal proceedings, "beyond a reasonable doubt." New evidence is ordinarily not possible to be presented. I naively figured that an appeal from the Downtown Design Review Committee's decision would be fairly parallel to an appeal in a court of law.


In this proceeding, it quickly became evident that I was badly mistaken — this was much more like a trial de novo — effectively a separate and distinct trial — with old and new evidence submitted as the parties would care to present.

Trial Context — Surprise Evidence. In courts of law, in non-criminal cases at least, a pretrial conference will ordinarily occur. Before that conference occurs, each party is afforded the opportunity to conduct "discovery" (vastly oversimplified, the process of obtaining information from the other side or from witnesses other than the parties) and "discovery" will need to be completed prior to a pretrial conference hearing. At that pretrial hearing, parties are required to identify witnesses they may call to testify and documents they may offer for introduction as evidence during the trial. If witnesses or documents are not identified at this hearing, they are ordinarily precluded from being utilized during trial. A party cannot simply pop-up a new witness or a new document on the eve of trial and have a remote chance of it be received as evidence during trial unless no objection is presented by the other side. In this municipal proceeding, it was not only allowed but it was apparently the norm as may well be true for other municipal proceedings, I don't know. In this proceeding, an expert's written report as to structural and seismic integrity was filed four (4) days prior to yesterday's hearing and was part of the evidence considered by the Board of Adjustment.


During Barrett Williamson's remarks, above, he inquired, "Is the board considering this new information," and the reply from Chairman Wanzer was, "It's on the record," which was to say, "Yes." In other words, if a document is filed with the Clerk, or even presented during the hearing itself, that would be sufficient for it to be considered.

Hearsay. Hearsay evidence (oversimplifying greatly, evidence/testimony of what someone not present in court to testify, e.g., "Bob Blackburn told me that ... " when Mr. Blackburn is not a witness in the case) is generally disallowed if an objection is presented. Rampant hearsay was presented by both sides during these proceedings with nary an objection. One can only wonder what would have happened were such an objection to have been presented, but I have no doubt that it would have been overruled. That non-rule is part of the municipal procedure that I witnessed.

Out-of-Court Information. In courts of law, the "evidence" is that submitted by the parties during the course of trial. Non-procedural communications between judges, lawyers, witnesses, and others related to the pending matter which are not made during trial are strictly disallowed and may be the basis for bar association or judicial disciplinary proceedings if they do occur. During Barrett Williamson's remarks, above, one commission member interrupted him to remark and state as a fact that Park Harvey Apartments' occupancy rate had dropped from 92% to 49% before and after Devon acquired the municipal parking garage south of those apartments. Perhaps Mr. Tannenbaum testified to that in an earlier hearing although I have no such recollection and do not think that he did. If Tannenbaum did not so testify, what was the source of those statistics and how and by whom were they communicated to the commission member who made the remark?

Relevance of Evidence. In courts of law, evidence must be"relevant," i.e., under the law involved, it must be relevant to a fact decision to be made in the case. So, if a particular statute is involved which will decide the issue, the evidence needs to relate to the statutory language which is involved. In a municipal proceeding context, that is apparently not the case. At least, I'm not aware of anything involved with the municipal ordinances involved in this proceeding which make letters or e-mails (from either side) which extol the position of one side or another as being relevant as to whether ordinance requirements were being followed or not. Such things were abundant in this case, on both sides.

I could go on — such as the right to cross-examine witnesses (wouldn't it have been fun, for example, to inquire of Ralph McCalmont under oath how it was that he became involved in this proceeding, who (if anyone) contacted him to do so, his conversations with those who did, who he contacted and what he said, and so on — talk about a lawyer's field day!) — but the above is enough to make the point — courts of law are one thing and municipal proceedings are apparently quite another.

The teaching point, I suppose, is that one would be badly misguided into thinking, and planning as to how to proceed, in supposing that municipal hearings are reasonably akin to what occurs in a court of law. Quite possibly, in its naiveté, Preservation Oklahoma misjudged the "rules of the game" just as badly as I did myself.
We live and we learn.

Tom Ward lost half his net worth in 18 months. McClendon damn near lost everything during the same time-frame. Don't substitute intelligence for 'right place at the right time'. These are smart guys no doubt, but they probably aren't any smarter than most people - they are just willing to take risk. My wife is very smart, but she won't take a risk to save her life. I work with a woman that just got accepted into MENSA, but she is as ditzy as they come. Paris Hilton is rich and she is dumber than a bag of hammers.

Yes, I am quite sure that the only thing that separates the highly successful from all others is their luck. LOL. That is usually the excuse the less successful use for their failures.....I would be just like them but I am just unlucky.

There were multiple people with long track records of success who had significant skin in the game who supported SR. I guess it is just an amazing coincidence all these "lucky" people agreed.

By the way, there is smart risk and dumb risk. Just working with risk is not a measure. It is amazing how some people are consistently "lucky".

I believe there is also a difference between having a high IQ and being smart or wise or having good judgment.

That is absolutely correct. A court of law and a municipal board are two totally different animals and rules that govern courts are not applicable in municipal proceedings for obvious reasons. There are no rules of evidence and certainly no discovery in the municipal setting.

That is absolutely correct. A court of law and a municipal board are two totally different animals and rules that govern courts are not applicable in municipal proceedings for obvious reasons. There are no rules of evidence and certainly no discovery in the municipal setting.
Thanks, DirtLaw. Guess one is never too old to learn! :sofa:

Yes, I am quite sure that the only thing that separates the highly successful from all others is their luck. LOL. That is usually the excuse the less successful use for their failures.....I would be just like them but I am just unlucky.

Luck? Luck is where opportunity and preparation intersect. Even Tom Ward agrees with this when he said you have to be prepared for growth because you don't know when it is going to happen. To put it another way, when opportunity knocks you have to be there to answer the door (you also have to take the risk of opening the door).

Would the standard on appeal be the same as the standard of review on appeal from a body governed by the OAPA? (I'm guessing that's the same as the APA) in that the board's decision must be arbitrary and capricious and not supported by the evidence on the record at least as to the findings of fact to be subject to modification or remand by the District Court?

Would the standard on appeal be the same as the standard of review on appeal from a body governed by the OAPA? (I'm guessing that's the same as the APA) in that the board's decision must be arbitrary and capricious and not supported by the evidence on the record at least as to the findings of fact to be subject to modification or remand by the District Court?
Midtowner, I obviously haven't got a clue, given my lengthy post above. Maybe DirtLaw knows.

I am fairly certain it is tried de novo (meaning basically a new trial) . . . it is in Title 11 section 44 I think. A lot of them are bench trials and the Judge gives a lot of deference to the decision made by the BOA. A lot of Judges think that, minus some sort of gross negligence on the part of the BOA, that the BOA was in the best position to handle the issue and most likely decided it correctly. The one BOA appeal that I had was won on demurer (which means that when the plaintiff rested, i.e. the person appealing the BOA decision, I moved for a verdict in my favor basically saying that the Plaintiff has not made out a case and I should win without even putting on my case).

BOA appeals are tough to win at the trial court level. Once a trial court decision is appealed to the supreme court there is no telling what you will get, but at this point the cost of this thing will be so far out of control.

If it is true that he has future plans to build a new tower on those empty sites left from these buildings then why didn't he say that in the first place. Most people are angry at the misconception that the replacing landscape was to become permanent and not open to future development.

This has been the plan/direction since day one.

BOA appeals are tough to win at the trial court level. Once a trial court decision is appealed to the supreme court there is no telling what you will get, but at this point the cost of this thing will be so far out of control.

Why do you think the cost will be so high? The attorneys running the show can control costs to some extent. Discovery has essentially already been done, I can't see how depositions would lead to a huge amount of new information or be all that helpful. What are the material issues of fact? It seems like we're talking about facts for which we already have an ample record.

Mid, I just completed an appeal of a Corporation Commission order through the OK CIV APP up to requesting cert. Believe me, LOTS of hours are put into just briefing even though many of the arguments have been substantially fleshed out. It won't be astronomical, but it would be expensive.

So glad to have seen the story on the news last night that they approved this project. Those buildings were ugly anyway and there wasn't anything restoration could do for them (ex. the India Building looked much better way back when until they concreted all the windows up and squared the building out). They were beautiful in their heyday but it's time to see them go. Oh, nevermind, I won't be downtown to see them go. I'm shedding a tear. Seriously?

So glad to have seen the story on the news last night that they approved this project. Those buildings were ugly anyway and there wasn't anything restoration could do for them (ex. the India Building looked much better way back when until they concreted all the windows up and squared the building out). They were beautiful in their heyday but it's time to see them go. Oh, nevermind, I won't be downtown to see them go. I'm shedding a tear. Seriously?

Actually, I'm not sure you're correct. The India Temple had a facade, and frequently facades can be removed when the building is restored.

I just spent the last 4 days in Chicago, and must say it made me sadder than ever to think about those buildings going. There are older buildings intermingled with new ones all over downtown Chicago, and it adds to the interest of the place.

I also noticed that we usually walked a half mile or so to catch public transportation and didn't mind the walk a bit, because there was always something interesting to look at: a window to look in, architecture to admire, etc., but no plazas.

Hey, I don't know if that can be done. I was just referring to the pictures between how the building looked when it was brand new and how it currently looks today. I'm gonna go frolic barefoot through the grass as soon as that plaza is open! lol

Mid, I just completed an appeal of a Corporation Commission order through the OK CIV APP up to requesting cert. Believe me, LOTS of hours are put into just briefing even though many of the arguments have been substantially fleshed out. It won't be astronomical, but it would be expensive.

Oh I know, through I haven't yet worked on my own appeal, during my law school days, I did a lot of appellate work. I know what it costs, but for an organization which can probably get some pro-bono work or at least do some fundraising (the members of the Preservation Society are fairly well heeled), a District Court action and whatever appellate work isn't totally out of reach financially.