And there are known issues with the water table in the C2S area...

And there are known issues with the water table in the C2S area...

I don't think you have to go deep to hit water. The city has meters hooked up just south of Reno to the river to gauge
the water table for the dams on the river.

Are the submitted RFPs not going to be made public anymore?

*EDIT* NVM just saw the posts on the Hotel Thread.

I'll do my best to summarize them.

It was really more set up as a Request for Interest than that Request for Proposal. Most the responses were very general.

However, they do have to get the list of 7 down to 3 finalists and go from there. Not sure how they are going to do that given the responses; they were all over the map.

However, they do have to get the list of 7 down to 3 finalists and go from there. Not sure how they are going to do that given the responses; they were all over the map.

That could be a good thing considering the CC is also all over the map - figurativelyand litterlly.

In today's council meeting they officially voted to stop the proceedings on the Fred Jones site. Dr. Shadid brought up some questions on the timeline of everything. One thing I didn't understand was the City attorney said their decision to stop on that site was because they found out the RIHCO was going to "challenge the take". What is challenge the take? Is it the property and adding the alley ways or streets as has already been talked about?

If anyone else wants to watch the meeting its live on youtube. http://youtu.be/7DnywsBmego Councilman Greenwall just had a comment on the property owners being greedy.

In today's council meeting they officially voted to stop the proceedings on the Fred Jones site. Dr. Shadid brought up some questions on the timeline of everything. One thing I didn't understand was the City attorney said their decision to stop on that site was because they found out the RIHCO was going to "challenge the take". What is challenge the take? Is it the property and adding the alley ways or streets as has already been talked about?

I'm glad this came out because it has not been discussed and seems to be a big reason the City dropped the eminent domain proceeding.

Oklahoma law specifically restricts eminent domain being used to take property for private development.

The convention hotel has been openly discussed as private development; in fact the hotel RFP specifically states that the project could be public or private ownership. In any situation, there would be some element of private development and therefore REHCO could have challenged the City's right to take the property from them, completely independent of cost.

In similar cases, the Oklahoma supreme court has ruled the government cannot eminent domain.

And this is why they are now suddenly proposing the hotel be moved to the Cox site; that site is already owned by the City.

That is very interesting. I know due to the MAPS timeline you have to work on designs and people like to see rendering but it seems it really helped REHCO case. Renderings show the CC using the streets so they want to included those and then ask hotel operators for their interests and then they challenged how they city could take it for that purpose.

There are other possibilities besides locating it on the Cox site. I don't think anyone is yet officially "proposing" it be located on the Cox site; that is merely being considered as one option.

Shadid made some pertinent comments regarding Lackmeyer's article on Sunday where he normalizes the quid pro quo relationship between REHCO and the City. We should all be concerned and perhaps need to rethink the value and equity of public-private partnerships.

So goes yet another dubious chapter in this project.

1. If using eminent domain to acquire land for the hotel was an issue, why did the City try and do this in the first place and why is the public (and City Council) just learning about it now. (I happen to know the City Council had absolutely no idea about this until the previous council meeting where they called a hurried executive session and told them the entire action had to be scrapped.)

2. They've already dropped the case. So today, they ask the council to approve that action completely after the fact? What if the council voted no? Answer: wouldn't have mattered because what they were voting on had already been done.

3. Now, we really can't put the cc anyplace where there isn't immediately adjacent publicly owned land for the hotel.

4. Why wasn't this discussed when they had the press release about dropping the site? It was all about "Oh, we just found out the land was too expensive." That part isn't even true. Court documents show the parties met last September and REHCO made it very clear they expected the streets and alleys included. Also, they wouldn't have filed eminent domain in the first place if they weren't way apart on price. The City's initial filing even said the basis for their petition is they couldn't agree on price.

Shadid asked the question but how was the Cox convention center land acquired? If it was imminent domain then we will run into the same problems.

I would be okay with things underground as we were looking at but I think the major problem with being under the park is that if you need to demo it in 50 years because there's a replacement you have to destroy a big portion of the park...

BoulderSooner can't post right now, but texted me and asked me to post on his behalf.

First, he says that the Oklahoma Urban Renewal Act, Title 11, Sections 38-101 through 38-123 specifically allow eminent domain for economic development purposes (private development, that is).

He says that the regular ED law only allowed for public development, but that this language changed that.

Also said that Council specifically added CC site and Santa Fe site to urban renewal area, because City would be leasing retail space in depot and because of potential for hotel on CC site.

BoulderSooner can't post right now, but texted me and asked me to post on his behalf.

First, he says that the Oklahoma Urban Renewal Act, Title 11, Sections 38-101 through 38-123 specifically allow eminent domain for economic development purposes (private development, that is).

He says that the regular ED law only allowed for public development, but that this language changed that.

Also said that Council specifically added CC site and Santa Fe site to urban renewal area, because City would be leasing retail space in depot and because of potential for hotel on CC site.

This is all true but the circumstances with this site are completely different than Santa Fe; not the least of which being the Brewers may have expressly given their consent.

Also, that Urban Renewal Act only provides for taking for private development without owner consent if 1. it's for public utilities; 2. the private development was on an incidental part of the taken property; or 3. the property posed a health risk.

None of these standards apply here which is no doubt why the City dropped their case once REHCO threatened to challenge them.

If there was clear law in the City's favor, the judge would have merely made that ruling.

It appears that our city leaders are now holding us back as much as the state gov't and that is sad. I have a couple of quick questions. If they propose the CC Hotel to be at the Cox site, does that mean they plan to somehow renovate the current CC and will they stack the hotel on top of it? I can't picture it any other way because it takes up the whole super block? I like the idea of the C2S and the parking garage being hidden from the park.

I still LOVE and dream of what could be if the city went in with some investors and chose the Lumber site. They could literally link it to BT and expand the canal. I loved the ideas of keeping the silos and doing some cool stuff with them and incorporating them into the CC. The investors could build the BT Residential Tower perhaps consisting of around 30 stories and we could have a 25-35 story CC Hotel as well. Then we could leave the option for building and MLS caliber stadium on that site and the expanded canal from BT that would further link us to the River. Pete or anyone else, could you please do a rendering of something like I just described. To me, that has vision and big league city writtten all over it. It would impress convention people or anybody from around the country without a doubt. This is the vision and action this city needs to take, it is what got us here when we dug a ditch in the middle of no where and you can see where we are now because of it. Combine the new rail system and street car and we are nothing short of amazing. Our city leaders need to redeem themselves and show some vision because they are losing the masses and people are getting tired of their actions.

The bottom line on this eminent domain issue is the Municipal Councilor stood before City Council today as they were asking to formally vote to dismiss the case and stated the reason for this was because the owners were challenging the City's right to take the land from them.

So, why is this just now coming out? They issued a press release last week. The mayor gave several interviews as did Cathy O'Connor. It was all about the price.

This is clearly a big issue because the case to acquire the land was completely drooped over it. So why wasn't this discussed anywhere before now?

Why does the public (and council) only find out in an off-handed way by the City's attorney?

And why wasn't this considered six years ago when we started looking for a convention center site and had already established a hotel had to be a part of it?

All this seems to confirm the only viable option is the Cox site, which sucks as an option (good location, bad in the short term, IMO).

The bottom line on this eminent domain issue is the Municipal Councilor stood before City Council today as they were asking to formally vote to dismiss the case and stated the reason for this was because the owners were challenging the City's right to take the land from them.

So, why is this just now coming out? They issued a press release last week. The mayor gave several interviews as did Cathy O'Connor. It was all about the price.

This is clearly a big issue because the case to acquire the land was completely drooped over it. So why wasn't this discussed anywhere before now?

Why does the public (and council) only find out in an off-handed way by the City's attorney?

And why wasn't this considered six years ago when we started looking for a convention center site and had already established a hotel had to be a part of it?


Lots of mistakes made, just coming to lite. We can probably point fingers from now on but it might be better served to regroup and learn from life's lessons. I'm peeved about it to and as guilty as the next at being a Monday morning coach. I really enjoy all the info on this site.

^^^^^^
Not necessarily. It only suggests that in hindsight eminent domain was probably the wrong approach, and that perhaps some reconfiguration and reexamination of land requirements is in order.

Lots of mistakes made, just coming to lite. We can probably point fingers from now on but it might be better served to regroup and learn from life's lessons. I'm peeved about it to and as guilty as the next at being a Monday morning coach. I really enjoy all the info on this site.

This whole project has been handled in a dubious way.

If this was the only issue it would be far less concerning.

Dubious, you mean by both parties. I'm with urbanized on this one.....nothing nefarious, just a whole lot of assuming.

Dubious, you mean by both parties. I'm with urbanized on this one.....nothing nefarious, just a whole lot of assuming.

I think what Pete was referring to was the entire history of the CC, starting with the Chamber never releasing the study to the public then rolling it into MAPS and having the public vote on something they can't even look at.

With that in mind, I wonder if it could be deemed that the entire CC is in fact a private development that is 100% public funded, since the Chamber did the study and not the City.

Well, you have a point there.

If I seem to be harsh, it's only because these matters are not discussed openly anywhere else. In fact, they are swept under the rug.

It should go without saying I have great respect for everyone involved in the process and believe they mean well.

But since this is a public project involving hundreds of millions of tax dollars, there has to be accountability. This project hasn't even commenced yet, and given the track record it's unwise to just assume everyone knows what they are doing and this will all turn out fine.

Too many missteps along the way; this whole thing deserves continued scrutiny.

The thing that worries me is if Councilmen Shadid hadn't of asked the questions today would it have come out to the public? People at City Hall obviously didn't expect this result or I am sure they would have taken a different path. I also thought that Mr. Couch smugly said in the meeting today that everyone was involved in getting this fixed, especially planning like they weren't before or that it was a favor to the planning department to get to help here.

The thing that worries me is if Councilmen Shadid hadn't of asked the questions today would it have come out to the public?

I need to re-watch the video before I comment on this further.

If I seem to be harsh, it's only because these matters are not discussed openly anywhere else. In fact, they are swept under the rug.

It should go without saying I have great respect for everyone involved in the process and believe they mean well.

But since this is a public project involving hundreds of millions of tax dollars, there has to be accountability. This project hasn't even commenced yet, and given the track record it's unwise to just assume everyone knows what they are doing and this will all turn out fine.

Too many missteps along the way; this whole thing deserves continued scrutiny.

100% agree. I think it would be a bad idea to give responsible parties a pass on this. If this was a private development, some people would be losing their jobs over this incompetence.

IMO, the convention center has become the albatross of MAPS. It was the least important project to the general public, yet the city gave it top priority because of the wishes of a few interested parties. Then they turn around and completely mismanage the process. They're really going to have to come up with something impressive to fix this or a lot of people will lose trust in the MAPS strategy. I know I've pretty much given up on the city's ability to manage development projects or city planning in any way and the most frustrating part about it is that it's hard to tell who is really responsible for some of these things or what their motivations are.

So our elected officials are now lamenting land values? Guess we should keep everything retrograde so that we can more easily CC over everything at some point within the century.

This episode is explaining why we can't have nice things.

100% agree. I think it would be a bad idea to give responsible parties a pass on this. If this was a private development, some people would be losing their jobs over this incompetence.

IMO, the convention center has become the albatross of MAPS. It was the least important project to the general public, yet the city gave it top priority because of the wishes of a few interested parties. Then they turn around and completely mismanage the process. They're really going to have to come up with something impressive to fix this or a lot of people will lose trust in the MAPS strategy. I know I've pretty much given up on the city's ability to manage development projects or city planning in any way and the most frustrating part about it is that it's hard to tell who is really responsible for some of these things or what their motivations are.

Great post and I agree. Not to change the topic, but could someone with some savvy skills do some renderings of what I had described earlier about the city joining in with some investors and doing things at the Lumber Yard and using the silo's and expanding the river as well as something like the BT Tower that was proposed a while back? I want to see what this would look like and truly believe that is the type of vision this city needs. I really think some investors would jump at this and work with the city.

Keep in mind, the longer the process goes on, the more any downtown land is worth.

If this deal would have been done back in 2011 when the site was chosen, prices would be quite different and there would be many more site options.

REHCO has to be thinking: 1) We never planned to sell this until the cc came calling; 2) if it's worth $70 million today, it's going to be worth way more once Hines, Clayco, Central Park and the boulevard are done.

Even if they were to get fair market value today, they are developers and investors. Why would they walk away from the huge upside of that property?

This part of Steve's story is very telling...

"Rehco demurred when the city asked them to name a price for the property and instead asked that the city begin eminent domain proceedings and let court-appointed appraisers set the price.

The city saw the filing last summer as “friendly” and began advancing design work for the convention center by its consultant, Populous. But after paying Populous $2.2 million for work to date, a $100 million asking price by Howard and Hall has city officials preparing to start over. Howard and Hall declined to discuss the land deal."

^

As I've stated over and over, REHCO wasn't asking for anything; that implies there was an on-going negotiation and they suddenly got greedy

They were merely submitting evidence to support a higher price and the City was making a case for a lower price.

The objective commissioners were doing their own research and would have considered the evidence presented by both sides, then made a binding ruling.

BTW, I've been told by several property owners and brokers when the City makes an offer on property it is seeking, they usually come in with a low-ball offer. Many times, owners don't even bother to respond.

It's like if someone knocked on the door of your $200K house that you had no intention of selling and offered you $50K. You wouldn't even bother to counter. You'd just tell them to get off your porch.

^

As I've stated over and over, REHCO wasn't asking for anything; that implies there was an on-going negotiation and they suddenly got greedy

They were merely submitting evidence to support a higher price and the City was making a case for a lower price.

The objective commissioners were doing their own research and would have considered the evidence presented by both sides, then made a binding ruling.

Then why didn't REHCO just tell the city up front how much they were wanting for the property? Why weren't they upfront with the city about the amount they believed that they could get through "friendly eminent domain proceedings"? If they had done so, we could have eliminated this property last summer... It doesn't sound like they were being straight with the city about their intentions...

What a mess.

Am I alone in feeling that we need to solve the problem of money before we proceed any further on this project? A storm of things have come together to make this project completely unrealistic in its current form. Even if we put the hotel on the Cox site, we're looking at a steep price for whatever portion of the Ford site we do purchase, and the need to start digging up streets in order to build the Ex-Hall under-ground, and there will really be no expansion available if we proceed forward with this plan.

Then why didn't REHCO just tell the city up front how much they were wanting for the property? Why weren't they upfront with the city about the amount they believed that they could get through "friendly eminent domain proceedings"? If they had done so, we could have eliminated this property last summer... It doesn't sound like they were being straight with the city about their intentions...

Is there such a thing as "friendly" eminent domain proceedings?

Then why didn't REHCO just tell the city up front how much they were wanting for the property? Why weren't they upfront with the city about the amount they believed that they could get through "friendly eminent domain proceedings"? If they had done so, we could have eliminated this property last summer... It doesn't sound like they were being straight with the city about their intentions...

Because they didn't want to sell at all. They had zero plans to do so and were sitting on property that is only going to become much more valuable in the very near future.

Remember, the City is the only one that has described this action as 'friendly'. It was a lawsuit; a legal action taken against REHCO where both sides were strongly advocating for their respective positions, which were completely cross-purposes (we want to pay you as little as possible; we want as much as can possibly get). How is any of that friendly?

And what is REHCO supposed to do here? As has been stated, they have tons of property in the urban core to still develop and had always relied on public incentives. Were they supposed to come out in the press and say the didn't want to sell and the City was trying to screw them?

From the very beginning, there was great conflict over the streets and alley issue. REHCO sought to close and annex them back in 2012, long before the eminent domain action. The City had denied their application multiple times even though they had approved similar actions in the past -- in fact, I'm not aware of them ever declining such a request.

They had been talking for 3 years about this transaction and only last summer was the ED action filed. The idea that only recently did the City know they were way apart on price is absurd.

One of the main reasons a seller may request entering into "friendly" eminent domain proceedings is that Section 1033 of the IRS code allows for easy tax-free conversion of the cash compensation into another like-kind property.

So REHCO files a request with the city to close the streets and the city denied it. Then the City turns around and tries to buy the same property and wants to close the street. Anyone know why the City rejected the REHCO request?

So REHCO files a request with the city to close the streets and the city denied it. Then the City turns around and tries to buy the same property and wants to close the street. Anyone know why the City rejected the REHCO request?

I remember seeing the application and posted about it in 2012; although I'm trying to confirm if the that was the first time it was filed. It then came back several times and was never approved. Not sure as to the reasons.

In the ED case, the City argued that the streets and alleys would only be closed for the convention center.

But then REHCO countered with three different City studies that showed their parcel -- which at the time was only contemplated as private development -- with all those streets and alleys closed. Pretty compelling argument that would have been abitrated by the commissioners as well as a fair price overall.

This has all been going on for at least three years and never seemed very 'friendly' to me.

With all the negativity, controversy, ineptness and suspicion surrounding this project, perhaps it's time to just concede that it isn't worth it to have a competitive convention space for OKC. Just build a big metal building at the fairgrounds where we can show farm implements and saddles. Let the motels on Meridian house whoever comes to whatever we can get. I am sure this is acceptable because it continues to be repeated over and over and over and over that this wasn't a popular project anyway. Between the over zealousness of the city and the eagerness of the detractors who are convinced it is a conspiracy against all other MAPS projects, it really has become tiresome.

Is there such a thing as "friendly" eminent domain proceedings?

There are good reasons to initiate a friendly condemnation case. If you have prominent ties to a city, and the city wants your property, you have a difficult choice to make: (1) accept such a low offer that no one can claim you got a sweetheart deal; (2) negotiate to the amount you believe is fair, in which case you risk accusations that you got a sweetheart deal if there's any valid argument for a lower price (and there usually is such an argument); (3) opt for a condemnation action, where the price set by the court-appointed commissioners is hopefully fair, and because it is set by uninterested parties, any claim that the city provided a sweetheart deal would not have much merit.

Given these options, the 3rd choice seems like a reasonable choice for the city and the landowner unless the landowner is in a particularly charitable mood and wants to choose the 1st option. Although I don't know what the thought process was, I suspect the idea of neutral price-setting was attractive.

Pete hopefully you can find out when they started trying to close those alleys and streets but I had heard that they were trying as far back as when the dealership was still in use. It never fit well with their plans and the majority of the traffic on them was the dealership traffic.

With all the negativity, controversy, ineptness and suspicion surrounding this project, perhaps it's time to just concede that it isn't worth it to have a competitive convention space for OKC. Just build a big metal building at the fairgrounds where we can show farm implements and saddles. Let the motels on Meridian house whoever comes to whatever we can get. I am sure this is acceptable because it continues to be repeated over and over and over and over that this wasn't a popular project anyway. Between the over zealousness of the city and the eagerness of the detractors who are convinced it is a conspiracy against all other MAPS projects, it really has become tiresome.

Or, we could just build the project that was approved by voters within the established budget and do it in an open and honest way.

That is all anybody is expecting. Why is that so much to ask?

There is nothing wrong with an ED procedure. If the parties have differing opinions as to price, use of an arbitration system is appropriate. There is also nothing wrong with dropping a court case if you see you are on the losing side before you get the decision. Better to drop it than to have an official position on the matter established by the courts. The city does not want to set precedence as to use of ED or to the price of land to reserve those options in the future. The only troubling thing is the initial price estimated by the city seems very low. It would be interesting to see how and why they came up with $13 million as the estimate and did not realize it would be far more.

Pete hopefully you can find out when they started trying to close those alleys and streets but I had heard that they were trying as far back as when the dealership was still in use. It never fit well with their plans and the majority of the traffic on them was the dealership traffic.
The alleys were such, but the streets (Harvey, Hudson) provided major points of ingress/egress between I-40 and downtown (Reno), especially prior to the I-40 reconstruction. The alleyway was actually gated at night.

Because they didn't want to sell at all. They had zero plans to do so and were sitting on property that is only going to become much more valuable in the very near future.

Remember, the City is the only one that has described this action as 'friendly'. It was a lawsuit; a legal action taken against REHCO where both sides were strongly advocating for their respective positions, which were completely cross-purposes (we want to pay you as little as possible; we want as much as can possibly get). How is any of that friendly?

And what is REHCO supposed to do here? As has been stated, they have tons of property in the urban core to still develop and had always relied on public incentives. Were they supposed to come out in the press and say the didn't want to sell and the City was trying to screw them?

From the very beginning, there was great conflict over the streets and alley issue. REHCO sought to close and annex them back in 2012, long before the eminent domain action. The City had denied their application multiple times even though they had approved similar actions in the past -- in fact, I'm not aware of them ever declining such a request.

They had been talking for 3 years about this transaction and only last summer was the ED action filed. The idea that only recently did the City know they were way apart on price is absurd.

Another quote from Steve's story would indicate otherwise...

"Hints that Rehco was seeking more than the $13 million budgeted by the city for the former dealership emerged privately in September. But it is fair to say city officials were not expecting such a large difference between what they wanted to pay and what Howard and Hall were seeking."

One thing is clear. The city totally screwed themselves by paying such a high price for the Vitagraph propery. It would be interesting to know what the property would have been valued at without that comp. Who did they buy that property from? Was it Hall? That would be another interesting twist...

If the case went forward and let's say the value was set at $75 million, would the City be obligated to buy it or could they have just said 'never mind'?

This was from their application on 2/14/12; I'm still not sure if this was the first application:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/ccclosures.jpg

That would depend of the written offer on the table from the city. Did the city offer to purchase the land at whatever the price to be established by the court? Doubtful.

If the case went forward and let's say the value was set at $75 million, would the City be obligated to buy it or could they have just said 'never mind'?

Once the commissioners rule, it's binding.

The only option is to appeal to a jury but the City Attorney told City Council that juries will almost always decide in favor of a property owner vs. the government.

Then why didn't REHCO just tell the city up front how much they were wanting for the property? Why weren't they upfront with the city about the amount they believed that they could get through "friendly eminent domain proceedings"? If they had done so, we could have eliminated this property last summer... It doesn't sound like they were being straight with the city about their intentions...

It does not appear to this reader that the city has not been straight with the tax payers or even the city council.

If the case went forward and let's say the value was set at $75 million, would the City be obligated to buy it or could they have just said 'never mind'?

Would the land owners have had the same option? If this were the case, why would you be in court with an ED case?

If the court decided the price to be $75million and that ED was appropriate in this instant, the owners would have had to sell to the city at that price. The doctrine of ED, says landowner rights are subject to governmental taking. I don't think the final court decision mandates that the city actually take the land if the price is set over what they want to pay.

It almost seems like the city thought they were going to bluff their way though the ED process and get a lower price then they came to the realization that probably wasn't going to happen.

Another quote from Steve's story would indicate otherwise...

"Hints that Rehco was seeking more than the $13 million budgeted by the city for the former dealership emerged privately in September. But it is fair to say city officials were not expecting such a large difference between what they wanted to pay and what Howard and Hall were seeking."

Let's just say I take great exception to many things in that article and don't believe it fairly represents the facts shown in the court case and other public filings that are in direct conflict.

If the court decided the price to be $75million and that ED was appropriate in this instant, the owners would have had to sell to the city at that price. The doctrine of ED, says landowner rights are subject to governmental taking. I don't think the final court decision mandates that the city actually take the land if the price is set over what they want to pay.

Not true.

Once the commissioners rule that decision is binding and the government body has a very short period of time to pay the identified price.

The only way out is appeal to a jury.

I
Or, we could just build the project that was approved by voters within the established budget and do it in an open and honest way.

That is all anybody is expecting. Why is that so much to ask?

It's perfectly right to expect. And that's what I am saying. That may be all we can afford. The city needs to quit trying to make it better and do no more or less. Just build on already owned land regardless of where it is. Build a building at or under budget. Don't include a hotel since many think it was bait and switch anyway. We can take the path of least resistance and have no questions about overreach, transparency, or anything else. Just build the thing. That's what is expected. Doing the safe thing can be easy and non controversial.

Well if the ED procedure required the governmental body to pay the price no matter what it is, it certainly was correct to terminate the court case before an unfavorable price was set. I thought the court process only set the price and the city could then purchase at that price or walk. I suppose the ED process assumes the government body must want the property no matter what price is set or they wouldn't force ED in the first place.