http://www.okgazette.com/article/12-01-2010/Concerned_citizens_claim_development_plans_are_at_ odds_with_wetland_health.aspx

I frequent that area and would like to see it remain in its natural state with no development beyond what is there now. IMHO some areas just need to be left alone.

Another case of "I already live here, but I don't want you living here". I wonder if Lynda Bahr was so concerned about the water quality when her home was built.

1 home =/= a massive apartment complex in terms of environmental impact. There's zero comparison.

1 home =/= a massive apartment complex in terms of environmental impact. There's zero comparison.

True, but 1 home =/= 0 homes either.

Also true, but 1 home > 100+ unit complex with grocery store. In terms of environmental protection for that area.

If someone elects to buy next to or near bare land which isn't restricted to remaining bare land, they either can purchase the bare land too or they can roll the dice and take their chances that no one else will buy it and choose to put something on it.

Maybe it's not as simple as it seems to me.

We need to start sending these people to sprawlers' anonymous meetings because of the severity of the failed logic here. This makes absolutely no sense. I understand the premise of sprawl: all this cheap, useless land around the metro. But now we're just sprawling for sprawl's sake. It doesn't make sense for you to build an apt complex in the middle of an environmentally protected SWAMP that's 20 miles from downtown, but they want to anyway, because..because they can! But if you deny a developer the right to build that then he will cause a huge stink and then we get to hear all the usual worn arguments over property rights and all that good stuff.

I suspect that her objections are driven more by a potential reduction of property value than her concern for the wetlands and the "problem" of sprawl.

No doubt. Anyone should be mortally concerned when apartments are proposed right next to where you live. "There goes the neighborhood.."

This sounds like much ado about nothing to me. It says the property is already zoned commercial so some kind of development will happen anyway. It's not part of the wildlife refuge, just next to it and if you can trust the proposal they are planning to protect the wetlands that are currently designated. If development was denied here why couldn't development be denied on land next to this property but further away for the same reason? If more property needed to be protected the wildlife refuge should have been a larger area.

This sounds like much ado about nothing to me. It says the property is already zoned commercial so some kind of development will happen anyway. It's not part of the wildlife refuge, just next to it and if you can trust the proposal they are planning to protect the wetlands that are currently designated. If development was denied here why couldn't development be denied on land next to this property but further away for the same reason? If more property needed to be protected the wildlife refuge should have been a larger area.

^Exactly^ I don't think anyone desires sprawl; I see it more as a growth of northeast Yukon, an area underserved in retail.

So let me sum up the last 7 posts, "I already live here, but I don't want you to. Sprawl and living next to wetlands was ok when I did it, but if you live here it will be bad."

This sounds like much ado about nothing to me. It says the property is already zoned commercial so some kind of development will happen anyway. It's not part of the wildlife refuge, just next to it and if you can trust the proposal they are planning to protect the wetlands that are currently designated. If development was denied here why couldn't development be denied on land next to this property but further away for the same reason? If more property needed to be protected the wildlife refuge should have been a larger area.

It doesn't matter that the place isn't part of a wildlife refuge. If the land is registered as a wetland with the federal government, it is entitled to certain protections. The developers are going to have to satisfy the relevant governmental body (I believe it'll be the DEQ) that the wetlands will be sufficiently protected, or the whole project can be deep-sixed regardless of what the Council says or what public sentiment is.

Kinda funny - up here in Wisconsin the tree huggers protect any little crap hole and call it wetlands.

But I agree - that is one place that should be left alone. Very nice area. Find one of the 500 old farm fields for sale and build it there.

Why a wetland area, why not some other area of Northwest OKC that is dry, rolling prairie land? Don't screw with lake Overholser period.

Kinda funny - up here in Wisconsin the tree huggers protect any little crap hole and call it wetlands.

But I agree - that is one place that should be left alone. Very nice area. Find one of the 500 old farm fields for sale and build it there.

They must be pretty busy as there are a lot of crap holes in Wisconsin. J/K - I couldn't resist.

Someone with the city (or chamber) should try to sell them on building downtown instead. Maybe even a land swap with OCURA and then turn the rural land over to a wetland protection group.

A couple miles south there is at least one large complex boarded up. Lets build more next to a natural area and leave the ones we already have empty. Then the city can have them for unpaid taxes and pay more tax dollars for someone to bulldoze them, leaving slabs and weeds on the vacant land like the numerous other complexes we knocked down a couple of decades ago in the same area.

It doesn't matter that the place isn't part of a wildlife refuge. If the land is registered as a wetland with the federal government, it is entitled to certain protections. The developers are going to have to satisfy the relevant governmental body (I believe it'll be the DEQ) that the wetlands will be sufficiently protected, or the whole project can be deep-sixed regardless of what the Council says or what public sentiment is.

Only a portion of the property is designated wetlands and the article says that issue will be addressed. I doubt if the developers are unaware of the requirements. Again, if all of this property was meant to be left alone it should have had some other type of designation for the entire area.

Only a portion of the property is designated wetlands and the article says that issue will be addressed. I doubt if the developers are unaware of the requirements. Again, if all of this property was meant to be left alone it should have had some other type of designation for the entire area.

That's the issue. It's not zoned for what they want to do and perhaps the last zoning change was an error as well. It would be worth knowing when it was zoned commercial and what the OKC plan was at the time it was zoned commercial.

From the gazette link:


The land is currently zoned as commercial — after an aborted attempt to bring in a Walmart — and the land’s majority owner, Ken McGee of McGee Investments, is looking to zone part of the land as residential to make way for an apartment complex.

That's the issue. It's not zoned for what they want to do and perhaps the last zoning change was an error as well. It would be worth knowing when it was zoned commercial and what the OKC plan was at the time it was zoned commercial.

From the gazette link:


The land is currently zoned as commercial — after an aborted attempt to bring in a Walmart — and the land’s majority owner, Ken McGee of McGee Investments, is looking to zone part of the land as residential to make way for an apartment complex.

No, I don't really think that's the issue. I think the property owners would object no matter what was being built. Do you really think that they would rather have a 24 hour Walmart next to them compared to apartments?

That's a shame. I lived in that area for twenty five years and used to go birding around Overholser and the Stinchcomb area. All I can really say is that I feel bad about it. It is a lush area and there isn't a replacement, nearby. Let us hope that whatever they do, they don't destroy it. I wonder how this would impact Wiley Post. They are always on the alert to avoid bird strikes and construction might make the job a bit more dicey for a period of time.

As for downtown and urban sprawl - working downtown is a pretty much out outdated notion in this part of the world, notwithstanding the urban planners who have made a religion of it. Most of us, by far, work out of downtown. When I worked downtown, it was a cool novelty that quickly wore off because the benefits were vastly outweighed by the negatives. Mainstreet is for little burgs and landlocked places like NYC. There is a reason they call it the City that never sleeps - because it is different from most.

No, I don't really think that's the issue. I think the property owners would object no matter what was being built. Do you really think that they would rather have a 24 hour Walmart next to them compared to apartments?


Agreed. I'd guess the current surrounding residents didn't want the wallmart and were vocal about it and don't want the apartments or other building. (I'd include myself in that list. I live a couple of miles from there.) The current issue is they are asking to change from commercial to residential zoning.

My guess is the property was changed from an agricultural use to a commercial one when the push was on for the Walmart, but that's a guess and certainly could be wrong.

However, just because the city planners at some point decided they thought it in the best interest of OKC to develop the area, doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing to do now or perhaps even then. Such is governance.

There is a large empty apartment complex at 7200 NW 10th street, which is about 2.5 miles from that site as the crow flies and another down the street at about 6400 NW 10th street. They tore down apartments in the '80s and we still have vacant lots with paving and weeds, presumably still zoned multifamily on Rockwell just north of Melrose Lane and on Melrose Lane, just west of Rockwell. Does OKC really need to designate more parts of this end of the city multifamily or should we plan to make use of what we have now? I'm in favor of the later.

So let me sum up the last 7 posts, "I already live here, but I don't want you to. Sprawl and living next to wetlands was ok when I did it, but if you live here it will be bad."

Huge apartment complex > one house.

How do you know that these people, who you're talking crap about, wouldn't mind one or two more single-family neighbors?

There is a large empty apartment complex at 7200 NW 10th street, which is about 2.5 miles from that site as the crow flies and another down the street at about 6400 NW 10th street. They tore down apartments in the '80s and we still have vacant lots with paving and weeds, presumably still zoned multifamily on Rockwell just north of Melrose Lane and on Melrose Lane, just west of Rockwell. Does OKC really need to designate more parts of this end of the city multifamily or should we plan to make use of what we have now? I'm in favor of the later.

Basically all of NW 10th needs to be torn down and rebuilt and not in apartments. That is a real ghetto. That doesn't mean that multifamily building should be denied in other areas until this area is rebuilt though.

Huge apartment complex > one house.

How do you know that these people, who you're talking crap about, wouldn't mind one or two more single-family neighbors?

Spartan, that wouldn't surprise me at all. I lived in Mustang for many years and when it was really starting to grow the general consensus was that every new family that moved there hoped they were the last ones and wanted to prevent any additional growth.

Well there's a difference between more of the same and something new and on a much larger scale than what already exists. Sometimes it can be good to introduce larger-scale structures to an area and sometimes it can be extremely detrimental. This is not a downtown environment, this is not the Northwest Expressway, this is the Stinchcomb Wildlife Refuge.

This is why I don't like Kerry's argument that people already living there shouldn't be angry at more people living there. This isn't the same as the ridiculousness when people living in high-rise condos complain about proposed towers ruining their view. That is preposterous, this isn't. A single family home does not have nearly the impact that an apartment complex does. It is possible to have development that is environmentally sensitive but I highly doubt, given the track record of apartments in this part of OKC, that what the developer is proposing is going to be very sustainable. No, in reality it will be more of the same crap you see along 10th and 23rd west of I-44 that was nice in the 60s when it was first built and become bona fide slum in the 90s, the level it's hovered at since then.

I'm not even against development at Stinchcomb. I would be for bringing something cool there. I am however against bad development and bringing more slum to the pristine wildlife refuge.

Wildlife refuge, not development refuse.

I grew up riding motorcycles out at Stinchcomb and it was the party/hangout spot in high school, I knew the area well. When they gated it off and called it a wildlife refuge we used to joke that the humans were the only "wildlife" out there. I rode mountain bikes out there about 10 years after they closed it to vehicular traffic and the trails were gone by then but the horses had the road all chewed up. It definitely became a "nature area" due to lack of attention and/or use.

I've seen beaver, deer, owl and untold numbers of birds. Both Stinchcomb and Overholser are used by migratory species. There are currently migrating white pelicans hanging out in the shallows at the north end of Lake Overholser.

Tulsa Audubon:
Stinchcomb


The primary ways to enjoy the refuge are by foot, mountain bike and boat. Several trails suitable for hiking run through the refuge linking four small lakes to the river. Entrances to the trails are from NW 50th on the east side of the refuge and County Line and Morgan Roads on the west side.

Nesting Prothonotary Warblers and Wood Ducks are found in the several ponds along the river roads. Indigo Buntings, American Goldfinches, smaller woodpeckers, and Carolina Wrens are among the small birds present. Late summer concentrations of Double-crested Cormorants may number in the hundreds. Mississippi Kites, Swainson's and Red-tailed hawks use the area as well as Great Horned, Barred, and Screech-Owls. When water levels are low, wading birds including White-faced Ibis and rarely such southern visitors as the White Ibis, Roseate Spoonbill, and Olivaceous Cormorant are seen. During the periods of migration warblers, kinglets, and smaller flycatchers are abundant. Fall weather brings the wintering sparrows, Song, Swamp, Lincoln's, White-throated, White-crowned, Harris's and Fox

http://www.tulsaaudubon.org/guides/stinchcomb-wildlife-refuge.htm

OKC Audobon

Lake Overholser


With its variety of habitats, birding can be good here any season of the year. Obviously, spring and fall migrations are best with the combination of migrant passerines, shorebirds and waterfowl producing the largest numbers of birds. Winter can be productive with large rafts of ducks, gulls and cormorants, especially during iceover events.

Spring:
Rafts of ducks are common with Mallards, Shovelers, Green-winged Teal, Redhead, American Wigeon, Lesser Scaup, Bufflehead, and Ruddy Duck being the most numerous. Loons, grebes, gulls and terns are common. Watch for Common Loon, Horned and Eared Grebe, Franklin’s and Bonaparte’s Gulls, Forster’s and Black Terns. Passerines to look for are Yellow-billed Cuckoo, all swallows, Chimney Swift, Eastern Phoebe, Great-crested Flycatcher, Western and Eastern Kingbird, Scissortailed Flycatcher, House Wren, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Swainson’s Thrush, Cedar Waxwing, Vireos, as well as Yellow-rumped, Nashville, Black & White and Parula Warblers. Added to this list are Indigo Buntings, Dickcissel, Baltimore Orioles, and American Goldfinch.

Summer:
Breeding birds are limited due to lack of extensive woods around the lake. The best areas are the park areas on the north and east sides of the lake and the woods below the dam. Look for Mississippi Kite, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Common Nighthawk, Chimney Swift, Kingbirds, Scissortailed Flycatchers, Cliff and Barn Swallows, Carolina Chickadee, Tufted Titmouse, Carolina and Bewick’s Wrens, Eastern Bluebird, Robin, Mockingbird, Warbling Vireo, Common Yellowthroat, Indigo and Painted Buntings, Lark Sparrow, Baltimore Oriole, and American Goldfinch.

Fall:
Fall migration is less productive than spring but can hold a few surprises. Expect grebes, pelicans, egrets and herons, Snow Geese, ducks, Mississippi Kite, Osprey, Swainson’s Hawk, Sharp-shinned and Cooper’s Hawks, White-faced Ibis, gulls, terns, swallows, flycatchers, White-breasted Nuthatch, Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, vireos, warblers, Summer Tanager, sparrows, orioles and blackbirds.
Unusual birds would be bitterns, night herons, Broad-winged Hawk, rails, shorebirds, owls, Ruby-throated Hummingbird, Easter Wood Pewee, Marsh Wren, American Pipit, Rose-breasted and Blue Grosbeak, Clay-colored Sparrow, Yellow-headed Blackbird, and Pine Siskin.

Winter:
Large rafts of ducks become common, especially Common and Red-breasted Mergansers, Shovelers, Redheads, Lesser Scaup, Bufflehead and Ruddy Duck. Lesser numbers of teal, Gadwall, Canvasback, Ring-necked, Goldeneye, and Hooded Merganser may be present, Ring-billed, Herring and Bonaparte’s Gulls are regular. Cormorants and coots are common. Sparrows to watch for are Tree, Field, Song, Lincoln’s, White-throated, and Harris’s as well as Juncos.

Birds to be expected year-round are Pied-billed Grebe, Great Blue Heron, Canada Goose, Mallard, Red-tailed Hawk, Kestrel, Coot, Killdeer, Least Sandpiper, Ring-billed Gull, Rock Pigeon, Mourning Dove, Kingfisher, the Red-bellied, Downy and Flickers, Blue Jay, American Crow, Chickadee, Titmouse, Carolina and Bewick’s Wrens, Eastern Bluebird, Robin, Mockingbird, Starling, Cardinal, Red-winged Blackbird, Eastern Meadowlark, Great-tailed Grackle, Brown-headed Cowbird, House Finch, American Goldfinch, and House Sparrow.

http://okc-audubon.org/?cat=19

I've seen beaver, deer, owl and untold numbers of birds. Both Stinchcomb and Overholser are used by migratory species. There are currently migrating white pelicans hanging out in the shallows at the north end of Lake Overholser.
Yep, "nature" will take an area back over once humans have quit using it.

I grew up riding motorcycles out at Stinchcomb and it was the party/hangout spot in high school, I knew the area well. When they gated it off and called it a wildlife refuge we used to joke that the humans were the only "wildlife" out there. I rode mountain bikes out there about 10 years after they closed it to vehicular traffic and the trails were gone by then but the horses had the road all chewed up. It definitely became a "nature area" due to lack of attention and/or use.

Maybe one of our historians will weigh in but if memory serves the last time I investigated, it was a wildlife refuge from back before we were born, twenties or so. (I'm guessing at your age) That's probably the reason why access was limited, for misuse, motorcycle riding, high school parties, rather than the use it was designated for. That and policing it, I've heard there was a drowning of a high schooler in the late sixties at the river just north of 39th, known as Stinchcomb now. That was the end of swimming there according to my friend.

Either way, it was already a wildlife refuge in 2002 when the city hired a consultant to study it and make a long term plan for it. I can tell you the end result was not to turn it back to the kind of 'use' you're speaking of, parties and motorcycle riding, but to conserve the natural aspects of it and provide limited changes in infrastructure to accommodate the public's enjoyment of that.

And a tidbit I just learned about it today, it's the 99th largest city park in the US. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933260.html

We rode out there in the mid-70's to mid-80's, I started riding motorcycles in 1973 (at age 9) and it had well developed trails throughout, it was an open riding area in the OKC park system as Park Rangers patrolled the area and never stopped us. We also rode in the area south of the lake before the houses went in around NW 10th & Council. Those are the areas where were I learned to ride along with the railroad right-of-way behind my parents house, we eventually started riding out at Draper after us youngsters in the neighborhood got more experience.

The big party area was on the south side of the river where the County Line Road bridge was burned out over the river, those on the west side of OKC during the time would have known it as Five Mile. The north section where NW 50th dead ended was more of a quieter "parking" area. I think it was closed off for that kind of recreation around 88 or so.

I'm sure the city has been inconsistent over the decades WRT management of the area. This 2002 study was ordered by the parks department, or the water resources board possibly, I don't remember exactly. The area is still used for city, state or county controlled duck hunting too.

I participated in the below mentioned meetings...


Master Plan Development for Stinchcomb.

GUERNSEY and Howard Site Design were selected to perform the master planning activities for future development of the 1,000-acre Stinchcomb Wildlife Refuge, located north of Lake Overholser in Oklahoma City. The refuge serves as a buffer and water resources protection area for Lake Overholser.

Since 1920, the City has used the wildlife refuge and its four lakes as a filtering mechanism to trap floodwater sediments that would ultimately enter Lake Overholser. Lake Overholser is the storage reservoir for water coming to the Oklahoma City water supply system from Canton Lake and the North Canadian River. Water ultimately is diverted from Lake Overholser to Lake Hefner for additional storage, treatment, and distribution.

The refuge serves as a “filter” for water flowing from the North Canadian River into Lake Overholser. The 1,100-acre refuge contains four distinct, off-channel lakes and various wetland attributes that provide source protection for the City’s water supply during high flow periods (spring and fall). This provides extensive water quality enhancement.

GUERNSEY’s role in the process was to address the environmental issues related to the master planning process. Those issues include the following:

The process included several meetings with environmental groups and interested public agencies.

* Environmental Constraints (composite)
* Topography / geology
* Soils
* Surface water hydrology / groundwater
* Wetlands / other water bodies
* Site vegetation
* Cultural Resources
* Air Quality
* Recreation
* Wildlife
* Permitting Requirements
http://www.chguernsey.com/project.php?ProjectID=148

Back then the river was always low, we could ride in the river running sandbar to sandbar. When I rode bicycles out there around 90 the river was up, there was no way you could ride in it then so there might have been a water management issue that changed during that time.

Basically all of NW 10th needs to be torn down and rebuilt and not in apartments. That is a real ghetto. That doesn't mean that multifamily building should be denied in other areas until this area is rebuilt though.

This is textbook example of sprawl. Put in a highway for commuting at the outskirts, convert rich farmland, natural areas be damned, build new and let the inner city decay. That's a great plan, except for reasons I just listed and it continues to add the burden and cost of the city to maintain services over an ever widening area, does nothing to make the best use of areas already impacted and adds to fuel use and mass trans for commuting, to name a few issues.

This is why I don't like Kerry's argument that people already living there shouldn't be angry at more people living there.

I didn't read any quotes from residents saying they would welcome more homes instead of an apartment complex. All I read was how new construction would destory the wildlife refuge.

The issue is larger than the immediate residents.

I didn't read any quotes from residents saying they would welcome more homes instead of an apartment complex. All I read was how new construction would destory the wildlife refuge.

This is fair enough, but I assure you that the magnitude of their objection would be nowhere near what it is if the proposed development weren't apartments. If you lived in a really nice area of the Bethany region (where they see the bad effects of sprawl), and there are a lot of very nice areas mixed in with the not-so-nice, and seeing all the crappy apartments I am sure you too would throw a huge fit if some new apartments were to be built next to you or next to a wildlife refuge or park you liked.

I think the perspective in this case is relevant:

If I lived in Moore I'd throw a fit if there were a trailer park coming in next to me. If I lived in MWC I'd throw a fit if there were a pawn shop and check cashing business going in next to my home. If I lived downtown I'd throw a fit if there were was another great old building being replaced by a parking lot. If I lived in Edmond I'd throw a fit if "poor" people were moving in next to me. And so on.

[QUOTE=Spartan;381374]Well there's a difference between more of the same and something new and on a much larger scale than what already exists. Sometimes it can be good to introduce larger-scale structures to an area and sometimes it can be extremely detrimental. This is not a downtown environment, this is not the Northwest Expressway, this is the Stinchcomb Wildlife Refuge.

I'm not even against development at Stinchcomb. I would be for bringing something cool there. I am however against bad development and bringing more slum to the pristine wildlife refuge.


/QUOTE]

Spartan, this isn't the Wildlife Refuge. It's property next to the Wildlife Refuge that is already zoned commercial.

I agree that something cool would be nice but who decides what is cool? The people who post here certainly can't agree about anything being cool. You're just making a big leap assuming that because they are proposing apartments it will be a slum because it's on the west side of OKC and other apartment areas aren't wonderful. There are a number of very nice apartment complexes in far west OKC and the Yukon area. Check out on Mustang Road south of Yukon.

This isn't Yukon. This is the OKC side of Overholser.

And it probably shouldn't be zoned commercial anyway, not that zoning in this city means anything.

This isn't Yukon. This is the OKC side of Overholser.

And it probably shouldn't be zoned commercial anyway, not that zoning in this city means anything.

The other apartments I'm talking about aren't in Yukon either. They are south of Yukon in OKC. You're nitpicking and the exact city has no bearing on the issue at hand. It's a little late to complain about how it's already zoned. If someone wants to insure that it stays undeveloped they should be able and willing to buy out the current owners who are hoping to develop the land and then preserve it however they want to.

If someone wants to insure that it stays undeveloped they should be able and willing to buy out the current owners who are hoping to develop the land and then preserve it however they want to.

I too can personify failure to grasp the concepts of civil society and public governing.

Yeah, and if you want a road to get to work, pay for it yourself or find a group of coworkers that live nearby to pitch in together. If you want a school, same thing--find a group of neighbors that also want a school and everyone pitch in to buy the land and make the school whatever you want it. Right?

It sounds like there'll be a lawsuit regardless. I'm sure the company has done its due diligence, but so will the plaintiffs. The experts in the case will have different conclusions and a judge will decide. If the wetlands would be harmed by the runoff from this development, I'm against it, and I doubt it can happen as planned. If the wetlands will be just fine, this is not unlike any other development anywhere else. And I don't care about the fact that 10-15 years from now, no matter how nice those apartments are now, they'll probably be section 8. Poor folks gotta live somewhere too and OKC has more than its fair share of 'em.

If I had to bet $20 on it here is my official take - these residents don't want an apartment complex next door and the 'wildlife refuge' is just the vehicle to try and stop it. If these people really loved the wildlife refuge and were that concerned about it they wouldn't live next door to it either. They have their little piece of heaven and they want to keep it that way and if that means they need to scare the multitude into think wetlands are going to be destroyed, thus getting the enviro-left on their side, they will do it.

However, if the enviro-left told these current residents they had to stop using fertilizer on their lawns and that they had to build (and maintain) a storm water runoff collection pond to prevent heavy metals from entering the wildlife refuge, had to turn off all outside lights at sunset, and couldn't exceed 85 decibels of noise during the day, I suspect they wouldn't be so concerned about the wildlife refuge anymore.

[QUOTE=Spartan;381374]

already zoned commercial.



Maybe and maybe not. It's under PUD zoning, probably done for the Walmart that didn't happen. When you obtain PUD zoning you have to begin development within a year or the zoning reverts to what it was formerly. I'm pretty sure it's been more than a year, nothing has been done to qualify as having begun development under that PUD and that it was formerly AA zoning, as is the surrounding property.

In any case, under a PUD written for a Walmart, it's impossible to build anything that doesn't look, smell and feel like a Walmart. To do so, the owners have to go through this process we are going through now, rezoning with reconsideration of all the issues including input from the citizenry.

If I had to bet $20 on it here is my official take - these residents don't want an apartment complex next door and the 'wildlife refuge' is just the vehicle to try and stop it. If these people really loved the wildlife refuge and were that concerned about it they wouldn't live next door to it either. They have their little piece of heaven and they want to keep it that way and if that means they need to scare the multitude into think wetlands are going to be destroyed, thus getting the enviro-left on their side, they will do it.

However, if the enviro-left told these current residents they had to stop using fertilizer on their lawns and that they had to build (and maintain) a storm water runoff collection pond to prevent heavy metals from entering the wildlife refuge, had to turn off all outside lights at sunset, and couldn't exceed 85 decibels of noise during the day, I suspect they wouldn't be so concerned about the wildlife refuge anymore.

There is property available to people within the same distance as the residents who live in relative close proximity and are vocal about this complex. The primary woman quoted says she lives on the east side of Lake Overholser. That could be as close as a block from Stinchcomb or as far as a couple of miles. Why do we need to trade green space for more development when we have underused property already developed? That's a poor use of resources and poor planning.

the developers don't own the "other" space you are talking about ... they own this piece of land .. and they have the right to develop it

the developers don't own the "other" space you are talking about ... they own this piece of land .. and they have the right to develop it

In accordance with the law. And it sounds like we'll see what the law says if the homeowners can fund the legal battle.

There is property available to people within the same distance as the residents who live in relative close proximity and are vocal about this complex. The primary woman quoted says she lives on the east side of Lake Overholser. That could be as close as a block from Stinchcomb or as far as a couple of miles. Why do we need to trade green space for more development when we have underused property already developed? That's a poor use of resources and poor planning.

That is why I said the City should looking at trading out this land with OCURA owned land near the urban core. Build these apartments downtown.

I'm for rebuilding downtown before building new at the outskirts.

I'd have to know more details before I'd be willing to trade land with a developer and not if they bought swampy wetland zoned agricultural that is never going to get legally developed into anything otherwise.

I'm for rebuilding downtown before building new at the outskirts.

I'd have to know more details before I'd be willing to trade land with a developer and not if they bought swampy wetland zoned agricultural that is never going to get legally developed into anything otherwise.

I am talking about this one deal, but if land was already in a condition that would prevent development then 'no deal'.

I'm talking about this deal too. They have only filed a PUD, or SPUD or for some zoning change. It remains to be seen if they can do what they want to do and comply with the laws and concerns of the various entities who have to approve of it.

the developers don't own the "other" space you are talking about ... they own this piece of land .. and they have the right to develop it

You do not ever have carte blanche authority to do anything you want if you live in a city limits. Why is it with some people that controversy only increases that non-existent right??

If I had to bet $20 on it here is my official take - these residents don't want an apartment complex next door and the 'wildlife refuge' is just the vehicle to try and stop it. If these people really loved the wildlife refuge and were that concerned about it they wouldn't live next door to it either. They have their little piece of heaven and they want to keep it that way and if that means they need to scare the multitude into think wetlands are going to be destroyed, thus getting the enviro-left on their side, they will do it.

However, if the enviro-left told these current residents they had to stop using fertilizer on their lawns and that they had to build (and maintain) a storm water runoff collection pond to prevent heavy metals from entering the wildlife refuge, had to turn off all outside lights at sunset, and couldn't exceed 85 decibels of noise during the day, I suspect they wouldn't be so concerned about the wildlife refuge anymore.
A bunch of that goes on down here....

I too can personify failure to grasp the concepts of civil society and public governing.

Yeah, and if you want a road to get to work, pay for it yourself or find a group of coworkers that live nearby to pitch in together. If you want a school, same thing--find a group of neighbors that also want a school and everyone pitch in to buy the land and make the school whatever you want it. Right?

Your analogy has nothing at all to do with what I said. If you want to use that analogy, the property owners should get the city of OKC to buy out the developers which means that all citizens of OKC will be paying for it. Just because you or they don't like the proposed development doesn't mean that the developers should lose all of the money they have invested in a legal proposal. If that land needs to be preserved someone or somebody needs to compensate them.

It does suck that so many suburban developers don't do their due diligence. You do have a point though.

It just comes down to which the city needs to look out for more. Preventing a developer from taking a huge loss and having a property he can't develop or get rid of (although maybe he could put something of much less impact like 1 single family home on the site). Or whether we should prevent shoddy development, enforce development standards, and protect environmental standards especially around a wildlife refuge that is a natural asset to the city.

Not a black and white issue, but it's obvious which side I'm on.