That's a good point because real urbanism is really a very recent thing in Oklahoma and this is one of many instances where old laws did not fully contemplate a new way of looking at things.

The reactionary hatred aimed towards a religious organization is unacceptable in this society. Judge the church by their actions in the district, not by what you suppose their actions will be in the district.

No hatred at all. The fact is we have very few urban districts in OKC. We need these districts to fully blossom in order to attract the retail and other amenities we constantly pine after that arrive in Austin, Tulsa, and other cities with little effort.

Our city's zoning laws make churches unfortunate detriments to this development.

If we would change our zoning laws I would have no issue with churches locating in these precious few urban strips. But we have the laws that we have, so it's not hatred, it's a criticism of bad planning and shortsightedness.

Calling this "hatred" is the most reactionary comment I've seen on this thread. Please broaden your viewpoint.

I completely agree. It adds another slice of life to the area, other than commercial. But, it also brings people to the area several times a week who will THEN need somewhere to eat/shop/etc...

What, like twice? Three times? This reminds me of Steve and Urbanized's comments about clubs in Bricktown -- they are only used a few nights a week and are empty otherwise. How is a church any different? I would rather see a furniture store or a book store or a five and dime than a church that takes up precious retail frontage and is largely empty most of the week.

What is even the logic around the law?

That unless food is also sold with the alcohol somehow any bar within 300 feet is going to storm into a church and take it by force??


So incredibly silly and I can't imagine in this day and age any church would care about such things.

You're talking about a state in which the lawmaking body is considering banning hoodies in public. I've long since given up looking for "logic" in regards to our laws and ordinances. Most of them derived from Southern Baptist theology, and we continue to favor Southern Baptist theologians as leaders, witnessing Lankford's recent election. We need more Jews, Catholics, Presybterians, Muslims, and Agnostics to shake things up a little.

A surprising amount of them still do. Which is why I respectfully disagree with HHE. There's good reason to be fed up with it. Some churches use this restriction specifically to target growth of districts. There are several denominations who still adamantly oppose the consumption of alcohol. And to be clear, it's not just Christian or Protestant faiths.

I would love to see some evidence behind your claim about "some" churches using this restriction to target growth districts. It definitely hasn't happened in the recent growth in OKC. Your comments lumping current churches (and Christians) into a law that came into existence some time ago is pretty silly. To say that this church is "suppressing property rights" of other owners is ridiculous. They are exercising their same right to place their church where they are allowed. They didn't form the law and shouldn't be bound to change what they do either. You act as if the other property owners should have rights but not the church, which by the way is made up of people. Also, most churches are active multiple days a week and many have daycares and/or schools as well. To say they are only open once a week is just not reality.

The biggest problem is with the yo-yo's who run the state government. I guarantee you if it was put to a city vote you would have almost no resistance from Christians or church groups about this law. And I totally agree, alcohol zoning should have nothing to do with where churches go.

The bottom line is the law needs to change. And I think it would be great if church leaders, like the one going in on 23rd helped lead the way. I bet you their members would be on board.

So, the question is, How do we make this happen? Is it a petition?

I would love to see some evidence behind your claim about "some" churches using this restriction to target growth districts. It definitely hasn't happened in the recent growth in OKC. Your comments lumping current churches (and Christians) into a law that came into existence some time ago is pretty silly. To say that this church is "suppressing property rights" of other owners is ridiculous. They are exercising their same right to place their church where they are allowed. They didn't form the law and shouldn't be bound to change what they do either. You act as if the other property owners should have rights but not the church, which by the way is made up of people. Also, most churches are active multiple days a week and many have daycares and/or schools as well. To say they are only open once a week is just not reality.

The biggest problem is with the yo-yo's who run the state government. I guarantee you if it was put to a city vote you would have almost no resistance from Christians or church groups about this law. And I totally agree, alcohol zoning should have nothing to do with where churches go.

The bottom line is the law needs to change. And I think it would be great if church leaders, like the one going in on 23rd helped lead the way. I bet you their members would be on board.

So, the question is, How do we make this happen? Is it a petition?

I would be shocked if this law was not something a group of denominations was pushing for heavily. There have been several points in history where various religious groups have banded together both for stricter policies within their own church, denomination wide and for civil restrictions by the government.

L
To say they are only open once a week is just not reality

The church has stated that they will only hold Sunday activities for the foreseeable future (parking dodge?), so it will not contribute significantly to the vitality of the street.

We agree, the issue is with the law but I've seen it with my own eyes. I heard a preacher talk about wanting to put a church in the small town I grew up in on the corner in downtown to 'prevent another bar from opening up downtown'. In their mind, a bar would have been a blight on downtown. It wasn't horribly nefarious but even based on my anecdotal experience, I'm going to assume the same scenario has played out many times. I helped host a town-wide festival in our downtown. It wasn't a small operation. We brought in bands, shut down all of the streets, had large carnival rides. You know, a good 'ole festival. We had over a DOZEN churches write letters to us (the city council) to protest the sell of any alcohol during the festival. Claiming that it would take away from the wholesomeness of the event. I sat on the horseshoe and heard preacher and elder after preach and elder speak about the evils of alcohol. So I'm really sorry, but I will most definitely have to agree to disagree that churches would support a change to the law. I'd instead predict a very strong opposition to the chance. If it comes up, feel free to pull this post and call me out if I'm wrong. But I'm certain I wont be.

In fact, given what just happened with the new development in MidTown and the protest with Heritage Hills, it absolutely wouldn't surprise me to see this type of activity happen again. Some people, even kind nice people who are church elders, make decision like this that they feel are simply for the betterment of the neighborhood.

I'm not sure what you mean by my statement being ridiculous. The property owners adjacent to church wouldn't be allowed to lease their property to someone who wants to sell alcohol. How can I be more clear and less 'ridiculous' exactly?

I'm glad we all agree that the law is the culprit. But laws have contexts, and right now the primary contexts are 1) Churches 2) Establishments that want to sell alcohol. So one of these is going to have to make serious lobbying effort and the other is going to have to fail at opposing that effort. Right now, my money is on the religious establishment of Oklahoma opposing the change and the anti-religious establishment failing to successfully lobby.

The problem is lumping in the churches that are actually functioning in the area that are like the one going in on 23rd.

I think the statement is ridiculous because you said the church is suppressing their property rights. It's ridiculous because those rights go both ways. The church has every right to set up shop there just like the bar does. The law is suppressing their property rights not the church.

The problem is lumping in the churches that are actually functioning in the area that are like the one going in on 23rd.

I think the statement is ridiculous because you said the church is suppressing their property rights. It's ridiculous because those rights go both ways. The church has every right to set up shop there just like the bar does. The law is suppressing their property rights not the church.

I set up a bar and the following day....a church can open up next door. I set up a church and the following day....a bar can not set up next door. Doesn't seem like it goes both ways.

^ perhaps the law should be written so that no church or religious establishment open within 300 feet of the nearest bar.

^ perhaps the law should be written so that no church or religious establishment open within 300 feet of the nearest bar.

LOL. That's exactly what I was going to suggest.:)

Depends on if they wanted to be an active part of the neighborhood or (stereotyping here) if they wanted to make everyone conform to their particular doctrine. If a hundred 75 year olds show up to this church and then make the area a better place by becoming an active part of it, fantastic. If an extremely conservative set of 75 year olds want to end drinking in the area, not so much. No need to pick a fight Rover. You don't have to be contrary on everything.
When the talk starts turning towards eliminating specific segments, it's worth commenting on. The statement made was as silly as saying we should ban bars where millenials hang out because we know they only use the area at night and tend to drink too much. Lol.

Why is it that people want to feel free to make silly statements but view those that actually disagree as contrarians?

There's a reason Bricktown banned churches.

Not all churches are the same. Many aren't as uptight about alcohol consumption as they once were. I doubt most people would support a complete repeal of the law however due to the fact there still are plenty of fundamentalist denominations that do forbid it and want to use the government to force that on the citizenry. I think the only way it might possibly pass is if it was modified to allow churches to opt out in the same way they changed it a few years back to allow schools to do so.

In wanting to lobby for change, remember we're talking about a state law and not a city ordinance. We'd likely be better to go the route of challenging the constitutionality of the law given the demographics of the whole of Oklahoma. At the very least, try and add a few clauses that make the law go both ways (churches not being allowed within 300 ft of a bar) and a special variance for any area that already has both within 1,000 feet.

How did Bricktown ban churches? Never heard that.

I agree. I think it should be something that churches should have to waive if they are in an urban environment.

Also, wouldn't this same thing apply to John Rex? How dare they suppress the property rights of others by opening a school downtown!!

L

The church has stated that they will only hold Sunday activities for the foreseeable future (parking dodge?), so it will not contribute significantly to the vitality of the street.

No parking dodge as parking is not required for any use or zoning of this building. One of the many reasons. The music venue should not have been denied. The applicant at the time should have hired an attorney and shut down 100% of the parking talk.

According to Steve it will impair the area as far as new development goes and he has an update coming soon.

Soonerguru is right, there are way too many churches in this state. Yes, churches are a part of urban communities, they are like a freaking McDonald's along an interstate in the city here. They're everywhere. They don't need to be in every single part of the city.

Actually statisticly speaking. There are not enough churches in oklahoma

Actually statisticly speaking. There are not enough churches in oklahoma

lol. typical post from you.

No parking dodge as parking is not required for any use or zoning of this building. One of the many reasons. The music venue should not have been denied. The applicant at the time should have hired an attorney and shut down 100% of the parking talk.

Just to clarify, the music venue withdrew their application before it was voted on by the Planning Commission.

And as the situation with Guyutes demonstrated, even without PC approval City Council can approve, which they did in that case.

And while there are no parking requirements in this area, the applicants do have to present a parking plan, which can just be street parking but the Planning Commission has not be consistent on what type of parking plan will satisfy them.

L

The church has stated that they will only hold Sunday activities for the foreseeable future (parking dodge?), so it will not contribute significantly to the vitality of the street.
Many of these type of churches have activities during the week but they are not as heavily attended as a Sunday service would be. So there could be storefront activity but not near as much as a Sunday morning service.

The 300' requirement for churches and schools needs to go away completely, places of worship and schools peacefully coexist with establishments with alcohol all over the country. This is one area where the rural block is more likely to resist the change than those living in the cities and suburbs.

Remember, they already have a Community Room near Cuppies & Joe which they plan to keep, so that will be used as well for small activities and meetings.

There us no church ban in Bricktown. I've honestly been surprised that over the years someone hasn't located a church down there, but perhaps that is because property owners in the district - while at times self-absorbed - never hated their neighbors enough to intentionally try to screw over the district's development potential.

And John Rex was not built in a developing entertainment district.

There us no church ban in Bricktown. I've honestly been surprised that over the years someone hasn't located a church down there, but perhaps that is because property owners in the district - while at times self-absorbed - never hated their neighbors enough to intentionally try to screw over the district's development potential.

And John Rex was not built in a developing entertainment district.

John Rex wasn't built in a developing entertainment district but it is in an urban district. Also, is 23rd street a developing entertainment district? Seems to me to be a mixed-use district.

There's a reason Bricktown banned churches.

citation please. I would like to read this document.

John Rex wasn't built in a developing entertainment district but it is in an urban district. Also, is 23rd street a developing entertainment district? Seems to me to be a mixed-use district.

I had considered originally when buying this property how nice it would be to have as a tenant a small bar like the Oyster Bar that used to be in the Colcord Building. Sadly,(although some may not agree), this was not to be with the school slated to be built. With the oyster bar gone and the Library closed, there really isn't a good regulars type bar to go to downtown (not bricktown or midtown) after work. Not places like Skirvin or Vast. I am glad to see Retro pub coming downtown.

Yeah, i'm standing my ground on this one. The church moves in and suddenly, I can't lease my retail space out to a bar. Sounds exactly like suppression of my [reasonable] rights to me.

Agree. Just outdated law which does not have the best interest of today's citizens at heart.

Perhaps back in the 50's and 60's bars were places which attracted all sorts of trouble. You wouldn't want drunk transients near your churches, schools, and playgrounds. Nowadays, they are institutions and gathering places -- not simply watering holes for drunks.

Pretty sure oyster bar could be replicated as ABC-2, which could go right next door to John Rex.

Regarding 23rd being mixed use vs. entertainment district, that is valid, but it obviously has a strong entertainment bent. And Tower obviously is easiest to adapt as an entertainment venue of some sort. Bar service seems likely to be a revenue stream that could help with that adaptation, yet it might be hard to put a kitchen/restaurant in there.

Is it really too difficult to understand the importance of the Tower's renovation to the overall health of this district? It's critical. No options should be off the table. This storefront church could go anywhere on 23rd or anywhere in the city for that matter. The church is NOT critical to the health of 23rd. I'm not one of the people insisting churches are bad, but if THIS church in any way interferes with the redevelopment of the Tower it IS a bad fit for this district.

Is it really too difficult to understand the importance of the Tower's renovation to the overall health of this district? It's critical. No options should be off the table. This storefront church could go anywhere on 23rd or anywhere in the city for that matter. The church is NOT critical to the health of 23rd. I'm not one of the people insisting churches are bad, but if THIS church in any way interferes with the redevelopment of the Tower it IS a bad fit for this district.

This. The overall debate about churches being part of a neighborhood is one thing, but we can't miss the opportunity to get the Tower back.

Lots of hyperbole in this thread.

The law needs to change. Blaming the church for where it desires to be is just silliness. And to act as if churches aren't a part of urban districts is equally silly. Just go to any major urban city and start counting churches. They are everywhere. The churches aren't the problem the stupid law is the problem.

Again, I haven't heard anyone come up with a solution other than the church just bowing out of the urban environment. Since that isn't going to happen what is the next best thing?

I. Am. Not. Blaming. The. Church.

You are intractable.

There us no church ban in Bricktown. I've honestly been surprised that over the years someone hasn't located a church down there, but perhaps that is because property owners in the district - while at times self-absorbed - never hated their neighbors enough to intentionally try to screw over the district's development potential.

And John Rex was not built in a developing entertainment district.

I yield to you on all things Bricktown, but respectfully, are you sure about that? I distinctly remember reading about this way back in the Humprheys days. Plus, there are no churches there, and there are churches everywhere else.

Yeah, I'm sure. Honestly I'm not sure you COULD ban churches from an area if so desired. Maybe you're remembering the zoning tha officially precludes nudie bars in the district?

Yeah, I'm sure. Honestly I'm not sure you COULD ban churches from an area if so desired. Maybe you're remembering the zoning tha officially precludes nudie bars in the district?

Churches & nudie bars, interesting thing for someone to get confused on.

If memory serves, there was a time some church briefly arranged for space in an auditorium at Harkins for their sunday am services. Of course. I imagine a theater might rent out an empty room to most anyone whose check will clear if it would otherwise sit empty.

Has Frontline been an issue in Midtown? I've been there a few times and then my friends and I have strolled across the street to Packard's for brunch...I don't think they've had any issues, right?

Packard has a bar right? I guess I'm not understanding the issue here in Uptown...I'm not too familiar with state/local zoning related to alcohol.

Packard serves food so they don't need an ABC3.

roperty owners in the district - while at times self-absorbed - never hated their neighbors enough to intentionally try to screw over the district's development potential.

Are you saying you think that is the intent in this situation?

Reminder that this same family owns the two building directly east of the would-be church property.

Steve's article and video about this issue.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5382016?embargo=1

Yeah, I'm sure. Honestly I'm not sure you COULD ban churches from an area if so desired. Maybe you're remembering the zoning tha officially precludes nudie bars in the district?

No, I'm not. I specifically remember this because it was distinctly bizarre for OKC. And there are no churches there. Perhaps we should investigate this further as neither of us seems completely sure of our position.

No, I'm not. I specifically remember this because it was distinctly bizarre for OKC. And there are no churches there. Perhaps we should investigate this further as neither of us seems completely sure of our position.

I believe under the following law, "Urbanized" could very well be correct.
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Land_Use_and_Institutionalized_Persons_A ct)
RLUIPA's effect on zoning[edit]
Currently being litigated is the conflict RLUIPA presents to municipalities' zoning and regulating rights.[citation needed] Through RLUIPA, Congress has expanded religious accommodations to a point where it appears to restrict municipalities' zoning power. Arguably, RLUIPA gives religious landowners a special right to challenge land use laws which their secular neighbors do not have. But those defending RLUIPA would say this preference toward religion is in the First Amendment's religion clauses, so the law is just administering the Constitution itself. Even if a zoning law is void of discrimination, the court reviewing a challenge will apply strict scrutiny to the city's regulation.[

Are you saying you think that is the intent in this situation?

Reminder that this same family owns the two building directly east of the would-be church property.
I don't have any knowledge of the situation other than what I read, but all you have to do is go read other threads to see the nasty note left in the window of this very space by the property owner after the music venue deal fell through. The owner expressed extreme vitriol for their neighbors, an frankly came off as a bit unhinged. Does this theory seem too far fetched? Heck, I'm honestly afraid our discussion on this very board (my own posts very much included) unintentionally might have given this person a road map. If so, it is incredibly regrettable.


Has Frontline been an issue in Midtown? I've been there a few times and then my friends and I have strolled across the street to Packard's for brunch...I don't think they've had any issues, right?

Packard has a bar right? I guess I'm not understanding the issue here in Uptown...I'm not too familiar with state/local zoning related to alcohol.
This situation is apples and oranges because Tower Theater will likely require a bar-only license (the city zoning is known as ABC-3). Also, Uptown has shown indications of pursuing other bar-only establishments. These will be rendered impossible by the location of a church, at least within the 300' radius of the church. It becomes a deal-killer for other business ventures.

Packard's is not a problem because it is a restaurant, WITH a bar (ABC-2), which is unaffected by church proximity.

No, I'm not. I specifically remember this because it was distinctly bizarre for OKC. And there are no churches there. Perhaps we should investigate this further as neither of us seems completely sure of our position.

The only position I'm unsure of is whether in general it would even be possible to ban churches (which seems like a bad idea anyway). I am 100% certain there is no such ban in Bricktown.

I don't have any knowledge of the situation other than what I read, but all you have to do is go read other threads to see the nasty note left in the window of this very space by the property owner after the music venue deal fell through. The owner expressed extreme vitriol for their neighbors, an frankly came off as a bit unhinged. Does this theory seem too far fetched? Heck, I'm honestly afraid our discussion on this very board (my own posts very much included) unintentionally might have given this person a road map. If so, it is incredibly regrettable.

Right, but the owners would have as much to lose as anyone, as they will still own the two buildings immediately to the east.

BTW, the Tower Theater owners wanted to buy all three of those properties by the current owner only wanted to part with the one that is now under contract to the church.

people aren't against the church per say, they are against what most churches bring - a hault to urban/adult development. OKC has an abundance of churches that typically cator to residential neighbourhoods and I think most on here are fine with those and likely attend.

I for one, am curious why this church chose this location a) to be an asset to diversify (and encourage more) development in Uptown or b) to swoop in and cast out all non-Christian venues as unholy who don't adopt their beliefs and use the Okie-doke laws to close them down. It would likely be the same reaction if a church decided to open up on 39th Street, will they cator to the neighbourhood and become an asset/player or will they try to save everybody from the evils of urban adult entertainment. .. Again, this is somewhat typical of many churches in Oklahoma being a bit judgmental and fundamentalist; Uptown being a bar district, just like 39th Street being LGBiT; can anybody on here deny that protestant churches typically view these as secular and separate.

OKC doesn't have many positive experiences with churches in urban environments aside from those that have historical roots with the city itself (downtown/midtown). I have my suspicions but I'd like to know why they chose this locale in Uptown (and not the residential neighbourhoods nearby) and if they intend to be an asset or a hindrance to the district's 'secular' development. I hope they are an urban-oriented church that will work with the district and not against it.

**

Honestly, based on the harsh words this building's owners had for Uptown 23 and their neighbors, the tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist in me wonders if they didn't purposefully seek out a church just to screw with the district. This is something that was even openly worried about out loud BEFORE the fact, in the Tower thread. And if they got the idea here, I am seriously kicking myself for having participated in that discussion.

Deep, bruising self pwn.

^
lol I'm with you. I Doubt a church would want to give up their non-transparent tax exempt "we don't even file" status. It all feels like a big FU to the current and future development of the block.

**

Deep, bruising self pwn.
You wish. Again, this assigns blame (possibly) to the seller, while directing NONE at the church. But you don't really care about truth, do you? You only read what you want to read.

Who is the landlord and why are they even entertaining this idea? We have enough churches in OKC. Do they have to jump in to every tiny slice of urban landscape we revive?

**

It most certainly does have something to do with this, at least in my view. If we didn't have a church at every corner, than I wouldn't be as opposed to it as I am now. There isn't a damn church at every corner in North Dallas, I know that much.

Your last comment is just what I was referring to, this state is too religious, which is what I was explaining to HHE.

**

I think the examples you cite do not qualify as zealotry, bashing, etc. But nice try. I also believe it is completely rational to ask if churches are appropriate in urban retail locations. It's no different than people bemoaning night clubs in other areas. And we do live in an oppressively religious state, so people get uptight about it.

I'm glad things are going to work out well for the Tower, but I have my doubts that we will see a music venue or any other entertainment venues along NW 23rd now, and as Urbanized pointed out above, there will be no more ABC-3s granted for 23rd after the Tower. So hopefully the Tower will deliver.

I will point out that I am nothing if not consistent in these discussions. Just as I question whether typical church hours/activity are healthy for retail frontage in an emerging district - and point out that District House is good for Plaza precisely because it is Atypical - I also have spent years talking about the detrimental effect nightclubs (only open for a few LATE hours each week) have on sidewalks in other districts or more recently wondering about the effect offices will have on the ground floor of the Markham Building on Broadway.

These are fair points of discussion, and simply talking about them shouldn't qualify someone for the fires of eternal damnation. Think that's extreme? Maybe I should dig up the hateful comment someone made in this thread equating urbanism to Godlessness.

I will point out that I am nothing if not consistent in these discussions. Just as I question whether typical church hours/activity are healthy for retail frontage - and point out that District House is good for Plaza because it is Atypical - I also have spent years talking about the detrimental effect nightclubs (only open for a few LATE hours each week) have on sidewalks in other districts or more recently wondering about the effect offices will have on the ground floor of the Markham Building on Broadway.

These are fair points of discussion, and simply talking about them shouldn't qualify someone for the fires of eternal damnation. Think that's extreme? Maybe I should dig up the hateful comment someone made in this thread equating urbanism to Godlessness.

You church basher. I bet you were in favor of that Satan statue, too.

**If you had a brain, you would also know that I posted that this church has every right to locate here. IT IS MY PERSONAL DESIRE TO SEE SOMETHING ELSE HERE!!!!!!!!!!! Does that mean I should get what I want? NO! It isn't my money. I don't make the laws. Quite frankly, if I was in a position of power to deny the church I would not because I support the free market.

I think there are too many churches in this state and I think it is religious. Does that mean I am against religion? No. Hell, I drove one of my neighbors to church for two years FOR FREE!

You have no substance to any of your posts. Only bitching about something you are trying to make up. Not one person here has demonized this church. You want to think there has, but there hasn't. Urbanized was right and still is.

I think the examples you cite do not qualify as zealotry, bashing, etc. But nice try. I also believe it is completely rational to ask if churches are appropriate in urban retail locations. It's no different than people bemoaning night clubs in other areas. And we do live in an oppressively religious state, so people get uptight about it.

I'm glad things are going to work out well for the Tower, but I have my doubts that we will see a music venue or any other entertainment venues along NW 23rd now, and as Urbanized pointed out above, there will be no more ABC-3s granted for 23rd after the Tower. So hopefully the Tower will deliver.+1

Think that's extreme? Maybe I should dig up the hateful comment someone made in this thread equating urbanism to Godlessness.
Hope are you aren't referring to me. If so, I'd like to see it.

Nope.

Nope.Cool. I know I've been harsh to urbanism a couple times, but I don't think I ever went that far.

If you had a brain, you would also know that I posted that this church has every right to locate here. IT IS MY PERSONAL DESIRE TO SEE SOMETHING ELSE HERE!!!!!!!!!!! Does that mean I should get what I want? NO! It isn't my money. I don't make the laws. Quite frankly, if I was in a position of power to deny the church I would not because I support the free market.

I think there are too many churches in this state and I think it is religious. Does that mean I am against religion? No. Hell, I drove one of my neighbors to church for two years FOR FREE!

You have no substance to any of your posts. Only bitching about something you are trying to make up. Not one person here has demonized this church. You want to think there has, but there hasn't. Urbanized was right and still is.

Oh yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion man.