These days, even strip malls and gas stations seem to get TIF.

Either a project is economically viable or it isn't. $3M is a lot of public money to put towards a private development--especially one the local neighborhoods don't want. This isn't a corporate relocation or really even a situation where there's much to say this will be a profitable project. There are everal music venues of a similar size in the immediate area which did not receive TIF to be functional like the Tower Theatre, the Criterion, Will Rogers, etc.

We have an underfunded urban school system with declining enrollment to think of. The City, which approves these TIFs does so mostly at the expense of other political entities and not the city budget. The City will financially come out a winner if this project is successful because they will collect far more in sales tax than they would have in ad valorem on 128 mills or whatever it is.

And this operator doesn't know the first thing about music venues from what I can gather. The article in the Oklahoman where Holt is touting the obvious need for TIF here mentions that the operator was originally interested in the First Christian Church site (the egg church) but was surprised to see it torn down in 2022. Now I've played the egg church. The acoustics were insanely bad. In no universe should it have ever been considered for a music venue. I have questions about the acoustics in this venue, and I'm sure as mentioned above, they can work that out. I'm just not sure that's a good use of taxpayer money--or rather money being taken from gains which should be going to our school system.

And let's not forget, hasn't this site already been used to attempt to scam the city out of resourcse by that O&G company which financed the property where the CEO went to prison?

yeah, this particular iteration of the City Council seems particularly obsessed with giving away mountains of taxpayer cash to private entities. it's honestly kind of weird, given the enormous infrastructure challenges this city faces.

I'm not sure there's anything inately historic about this dome.

It's a geodesic dome built in 1958 on the original route of historic Route 66, declared eligible to be listed on the national register of historic places.

It's a unique and iconic structure along Oklahoma City's stretch of route 66.

Whether TIF is a responsible use of public incentives to restore it to a functional existence is clearly debatable on many levels, but dismissing it as historically insignificant to make that point just renders the rest of your argument as dubious.

I also think those other venues are going to have fewer accoustical concerns, which some say can be dealt with, but I'm not sure. I'm a musician and I've played halls like the egg church. I've played the egg church. That this operator was thinking about that as a venue tells me that they probably don't have much experience witht his sort of thing. That would have been a terrible venue..

From an acoustical stand point, how are the former "egg church" and the gold dome the same? Unrefracted dome structures are certainly challenging, especially for performers, because, as you know, they can directly reflect sounds from a source quicker or at greater amplitude back to an individual performer or listener in the group. The egg church seemed more like an open dome, or curved top, situation. We know that the gold dome is not that. We don't know if it's a better or worse acoustic situation as the egg church, but we do know that it's not the same. I think ( but do not know), that it's a lowered ceiling with refracting features under a dome structure.

That could actually be pretty amazing acoustically. Unique, but potentially amazing.

From an acoustical stand point, how are the former "egg church" and the gold dome the same? Unrefracted dome structures are certainly challenging, especially for performers, because, as you know, they can directly reflect sounds from a source quicker or at greater amplitude back to an individual performer or listener in the group. The egg church seemed more like an open dome, or curved top, situation. We know that the gold dome is not that. We don't know if it's a better or worse acoustic situation as the egg church, but we do know that it's not the same. I think ( but do not know), that it's a lowered ceiling with refracting features under a dome structure.

That could actually be pretty amazing acoustically. Unique, but potentially amazing.

It wasn't designed as a venue with accoustics in mind. It was designed as a bank lobby. There is a reason all of these old movie theaters are turning into concert venues--they were designed at least somewhat with accoustics in mind.

"Potentially amazing"? I really doubt it. The last time I was there, it had lots of hard surfaces, a high domed ceiling. I've performed both accoustically and with amplification in all kinds of spaces. This one reminds me mostly of a church with a hard floor. It'll probably be very bouncy with sound and if you try amplification, it's not going to sound good without significant work.

Potentially a money hole with a very questionable business plan? Yes. That. There are several other venues in the area which didn't need millions in public school money to get built. This developer wants that free money and then is going to compete against these other developers which are at least right now standing on their own two feet.

This building as it stands is nothing more than a vehicle for would-be developers to shake down our city for money which should be going to educate our children. That O&G guy who is in prison tried it. Now it appears the current developer purchased it as a vehicle to hit the city up for money.

Maybe it's worthy, but I really wish the city would develop some TIF guidelines. It seems the primary criterion for getting TIF awards right now is personal connections of developers or the hiring of whats her face from the Alliance. That's no way to run a city.

It's a pretty stupid question though. This year, OKCPS is projected to have an $838 million budget. It has over $2 billion in assets. Is there some waste there? I'm sure there is somewhere. But using that as a reason to say eff it, give it all to private developers to pad their bottom line is just insane.

Do you even know how to read, man? Nowhere did I say 'screw' the public school system or criticize the OKC school system specifically. My point is simple: questioning the assumption that just giving schools—whether in OKC, San Francisco, or NYC—more money automatically leads to better outcomes. There are those who strongly believe so, but I agree that’s a different argument. If a school has a bad principal or poor management, more money can easily be wasted. I meet so many people like you nowadays, those who think, 'If you don't agree with me, you're stupid,' which doesn't help foster constructive conversations. Chill a little, dude! When you have a solid record, respect comes naturally. There's no need to undermine others to appear smarter.

Maybe we could go back to the grocery store idea. Grocery store by day, concert venue by night :tongue:

It wasn't designed as a venue with accoustics in mind. It was designed as a bank lobby. There is a reason all of these old movie theaters are turning into concert venues--they were designed at least somewhat with accoustics in mind.

"Potentially amazing"? I really doubt it. The last time I was there, it had lots of hard surfaces, a high domed ceiling. I've performed both accoustically and with amplification in all kinds of spaces. This one reminds me mostly of a church with a hard floor. It'll probably be very bouncy with sound and if you try amplification, it's not going to sound good without significant work.

Potentially a money hole with a very questionable business plan? Yes. That. There are several other venues in the area which didn't need millions in public school money to get built. This developer wants that free money and then is going to compete against these other developers which are at least right now standing on their own two feet.

This building as it stands is nothing more than a vehicle for would-be developers to shake down our city for money which should be going to educate our children. That O&G guy who is in prison tried it. Now it appears the current developer purchased it as a vehicle to hit the city up for money.

Maybe it's worthy, but I really wish the city would develop some TIF guidelines. It seems the primary criterion for getting TIF awards right now is personal connections of developers or the hiring of whats her face from the Alliance. That's no way to run a city.

I agree with just about all of this. Guidelines are definitely needed for how the money is distributed and to whom. However, as long as it is exists developers should take advantage of it. Our company is always applying for grants and other incentives from all types of departments. It has helped in so many ways even if it isn't much money. I do not like the idea of this being a music venue and I feel the TIF should be for businesses and companies that have a track record for success.

I want the dome to actually have a use more than just a landmark. All developments need to have a reason for existing.

Another issue about TIF, once a new district starts, it runs for a full 25 years.

And as soon as one is set to finally expire, like the main downtown TIF, they merely create new ones. And this is happening at an increasing rate.

None of us will live to see TIF end in OKC, so it's not a matter of 'as long as it exists'; it's become a permanent and ever-growing part of shifting billions (yes, with a B) of public money to private developers.


It's really the same people taking these handouts over and over again. It's a pretty small group that has developed relationships with the City economic development heads, and they know how to work the system. In fact, for the people in this club, it's pretty much all they do.

Just watched the presentation for the Gold Dome redevelopment.

They show property acquisition cost at $3 million. Jonathan Russell bought at $1.1 million and has made zero improvements or really maintained what was there.


So, as expected, of the $3 million in TIF, fully $1.9 million is going to the speculator, not the developer.

Also, the concert capacity is estimated at 2,500 to 3,000 for standing.

Maybe we could go back to the grocery store idea. Grocery store by day, concert venue by night :tongue:

So Kamp's circa 2012?

I agree with just about all of this. Guidelines are definitely needed for how the money is distributed and to whom. However, as long as it is exists developers should take advantage of it.

I mean if your business wasn't applying for every dollar available to it, that'd be bad business. You can't blame a biting dog for biting.

But you can blame the city for creating this unaccountable environment.

This bond will take 10-15 years to retire, right? Does anyone think this thing will even last that long? In a part of town which already has several venues, what is another going to mean? Especially when that venue has pretty limited parking. Nowhere near enough for the 2,500-3,000 people Pete says could occupy the venue.

And the sort of hazards of that many people coming and going to an event in an already very busy part of town surrounded by streets just seems like a recipe for mayhem.

Do you even know how to read, man? Nowhere did I say 'screw' the public school system or criticize the OKC school system specifically. My point is simple: questioning the assumption that just giving schools—whether in OKC, San Francisco, or NYC—more money automatically leads to better outcomes.

It seems pretty uncontroversial to suggest that giving them too little money leads to poor outcomes. And when they are already among the nation's lowest in terms of $/pupil, we should be prioritizing getting $ to the classroom instead of into the hands of real estate speculators who bought a property with no plans other than to resell it without improvement or further investment to someone who would be paying for it with dollars borrowed from our pubklic school budget. Any way you slice it, that's pretty inexcusable, but it seems to already be a fait accomplis.

It's honestly a little strange how you seem to be trying to defend this point you tried to make, i.e., it could be a better use of money to give it to a private real estate developer rather than let it go to a school which MIGHT be mismanaged.

Does any City money even ever go to schools? I thought they are funded by State money and County property taxes.

Does any City money even ever go to schools? I thought they are funded by State money and County property taxes.

TIF is all property tax, with the exception of a few which also incorporates some amount of sales tax.

If you think about it, it's pretty odd that city agencies are the ones making TIF districts and then allocating the funds, when property tax flows through the county, not the city.

TIF is all property tax, with the exception of a few which also incorporates some amount of sales tax.

If you think about it, it's pretty odd that city agencies are the ones making TIF districts and then allocating the funds, when property tax flows through the county, not the city.

Doesn’t the county have to raise taxes elsewhere to offset the revenue it loses from the TIF district?

Doesn’t the county have to raise taxes elsewhere to offset the revenue it loses from the TIF district?

I made this graphic to illustrate where TIF money comes from; the County only takes 11.9% of property tax.

And again, sales tax is rarely used in TIF; exceptions are for single-purpose projects like the Skirvin or First National.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/tifgraphic1.jpg

Just watched the presentation for the Gold Dome redevelopment.

They show property acquisition cost at $3 million. Jonathan Russell bought at $1.1 million and has made zero improvements or really maintained what was there.


So, as expected, of the $3 million in TIF, fully $1.9 million is going to the speculator, not the developer.

Seems like this should be illegal.

So if the money wasn't going to TIF would it be going to the schools instead? Or is money being withheld from schools to divert to TIF? That's what I thought was being argued in this thread and that it was coming out of the City's budget.

So if the money wasn't going to TIF would it be going to the schools instead? Or is money being withheld from schools to divert to TIF? That's what I thought was being argued in this thread and that it was coming out of the City's budget.

72% of property tax goes to schools. Cities get 11.4%.

I don't recall city's getting any of the property tax collected unless it was to retire bonds voted for by the city. Is that where you are getting the 11.4%?

I don't recall city's getting any of the property tax collected unless it was to retire bonds voted for by the city. Is that where you are getting the 11.4%?

The distributions in the graphic above come straight from Oklahoma County.

And yes, the city portion is to retire revenue bonds:

https://docs.oklahomacounty.org/treasurer/acctapportionment.asp?AccountId=14238148&TaxClass=A

Just watched the presentation for the Gold Dome redevelopment.

They show property acquisition cost at $3 million. Jonathan Russel bought at $1.1 million and has made zero improvements or really maintained what was there.


So, as expected, of the $3 million in TIF, fully $1.9 million is going to the speculator, not the developer.

The property was bought in June, 2015, for $1.1 million (the same as was paid for it in 2003).. Using actual inflation numbers, the equivalent cost today would be $1,459,356. If there was a mortgage taken with floating rates of interest based on prime rate only, the cost of money for that time (9.5 years to date), would be $365,750 (assuming 3.5% average rate). That makes a total of $1,825,106. It has paid approximately $13,000 in property tax each year for 10 years, bringing the total investment to at least 1$,955,000. Given other costs, it is safe to assume the current investment by Russell is around $2,250,000 at today's values/dollars. There would also be basic other costs,... insurance, etc. So, I am Russel won't lose money, but they aren't making a killing.

^
You are just guessing at numbers.

What we do know is he is getting 3x what he paid for the property 9 years ago and has done absolutely nothing to it.

In fact, it's been in completely derelict condition since the day he bought it.

Do you even know how to read, man? Nowhere did I say 'screw' the public school system or criticize the OKC school system specifically. My point is simple: questioning the assumption that just giving schools—whether in OKC, San Francisco, or NYC—more money automatically leads to better outcomes. There are those who strongly believe so, but I agree that’s a different argument. If a school has a bad principal or poor management, more money can easily be wasted. I meet so many people like you nowadays, those who think, 'If you don't agree with me, you're stupid,' which doesn't help foster constructive conversations. Chill a little, dude! When you have a solid record, respect comes naturally. There's no need to undermine others to appear smarter.

What you said was a stupid comment that doesn't really even belong in this thread.

You seem to be suggesting and strangely defending the idea that because some money MIGHT be spent in a way you don't like that we should be fine giving taxpayer money to private parties who speculate on land.

And while more money might not necessarily lead to better outcomes, I don't think it's controversial at all to suggest that less money leads to worse outcomes--and OKC students and students in Oklahoma in general are some of the lowest funded students around and this practice seems geared to ensure that continues.

You don't even suggest that OKCPS has poor management. Even if you could find, and I'm sure you could, out of $838 million, some examples of how $ could be better spent, that's not a great reason to give the money to private developers, is it?

^^^ You know what? I've lived long enough to realize it's not worth my time to argue with people like you. So, I'll save my energy. Adios!

The property was bought in June, 2015, for $1.1 million (the same as was paid for it in 2003).. Using actual inflation numbers, the equivalent cost today would be $1,459,356. If there was a mortgage taken with floating rates of interest based on prime rate only, the cost of money for that time (9.5 years to date), would be $365,750 (assuming 3.5% average rate). That makes a total of $1,825,106. It has paid approximately $13,000 in property tax each year for 10 years, bringing the total investment to at least 1$,955,000. Given other costs, it is safe to assume the current investment by Russell is around $2,250,000 at today's values/dollars. There would also be basic other costs,... insurance, etc. So, I am Russel won't lose money, but they aren't making a killing.

I really don't care if he makes a profit. Why should anyone?

He bought land to sit on it. There is risk inherent in any purchase. Especially when you buy a distinct property and let it sit derlict for years on end.

In fact, if there was any justice in the world, speculators in these situations would lose lots of money. They serve no purpose other than to delay a piece of property being devleloped to its highest and best use until they get paid off.

^^^ You know what? I've lived long enough to realize it's not worth my time to argue with people like you. So, I'll save my energy. Adios!

I'm just trying to get you to actually frame your argument and you keep complaining about your honor being besmirched or something to that effect.

In fact, if there was any justice in the world, speculators in these situations would lose lots of money. They serve no purpose other than to delay a piece of property being devleloped to its highest and best use until they get paid off.

The fact that speculators run up prices is exactly the reason one local developer told me TIF is needed.

Again, there are a handful of people in OKC gaming all these pubic incentives and they've become very good at it.

The fact that speculators run up prices is exactly the reason one local developer told me TIF is needed.

Again, there are a handful of people in OKC gaming all these pubic incentives and they've become very good at it.

I'd say let them sit on it, let's ditch any exemptions for developers and let them pay property taxes until the property goes up for a tax sale or they sell at a loss.

The city could arguably take this property calling it 'blighted' at this point.

I'd rather see them fight that fight than pay a ransom.

Would the building that we all want to save ever be viable again if not for this speculator making a ton of the 3 mil, or 3x his investment, in TIF money.
And if the total project is 10 mil and the developer paid the 3 mil out of their pocket to purchase the property from the speculator. Then got the TIF money to redo the building isn't it really the same thing for the taxpayer in the end?

^
You are just guessing at numbers.

What we do know is he is getting 3x what he paid for the property 9 years ago and has done absolutely nothing to it.

In fact, it's been in completely derelict condition since the day he bought it.

Not a guess. He is getting a little less than three times the purchase price, but not near three times what it has actually cost to own it. I'm not actually for TIF but I also am for being fair in an analysis. He's still making money and people apparently want him punished. Glad someone thinks they can make a go of it now. A lot happened between 2015 and now and am glad everyone thinks it's a moneymaker now.

Would the building that we all want to save ever be viable again if not for this speculator making a ton of the 3mil in TIF money.
And if the total project is 10 mil and the developer paid the 3 mil to purchase the property and then got the TIF money to redo the building isn't it really the same thing for the taxpayer in the end?

No, because if the speculator didn't mark up the property by $2 million, then the developer wouldn't need TIF.

No, because if the speculator didn't mark up the property by $2 million, then the developer wouldn't need TIF.Ok. But that's just how speculative real estate works. They don't purchase properties with the intent of breaking even or making a little bit. Sometimes if we want to save an iconic property we have to suck it up.

Ok. But that's just how speculative real estate works. They don't purchase properties with the intent of breaking even or making a little bit. Sometimes if we want to save an iconic property we have to suck it up.

The previous owner held the property for 12 years and sold it for exactly what he paid.

The current one held it for 9 years and tripled his money. The only difference is TIF.

The previous owner held the property for 12 years and sold it for exactly what he paid.

The current one held it for 9 years and tripled his money. The only difference is TIF.
It does suck but that's business. Ethics isn't a priority in speculative real estate. The 12 year owner wouldn't have held it for 12 years if given an opportunity to triple his money.

It does suck but that's business. Ethics isn't a priority in speculative real estate. The 12 year owner wouldn't have held it for 12 years if given an opportunity to triple his money.

Right, but this whole discussion is about the role of TIF (i.e taxpayer money) in all of this.

Right, but this whole discussion is about the role of TIF (i.e taxpayer money) in all of this.

Actually the thread started out with the joy of saving an iconic building. Which should be the central focus.
What if this spending of TIF money is the last chance at saving an iconic building instead of it sitting for another 10 years and corroding away to a point of no return. Which is more important. A couple million dollars of taxpayer money or losing an irreplaceable building?
So many want to save historic buildings but don't have the money to do so. Like it or not that leaves us at the mercy of the people that do have the money. Or we just quit worrying about saving historic buildings. Or we all become independently wealthy and do it ourselves.

^

Bill, just a few posts above you asked a question about TIF. If you didn't mean it to be a question and get an answer you shouldn't have stated it that way.

Absolutely no one is saying we should 'quit worrying about saving historic buildings', in fact there are thousands and thousands of posts arguing the complete opposite.

Actually the thread started out with the joy of saving an iconic building. Which should be the central focus.
What if this spending of TIF money is the last chance at saving an iconic building instead of it sitting for another 10 years and corroding away to a point of no return. Which is more important. A couple million dollars of taxpayer money or losing an irreplaceable building?
So many want to save historic buildings but don't have the money to do so. Like it or not that leaves us at the mercy of the people that do have the money. Or we just quit worrying about saving historic buildings. Or we all become independently wealthy and do it ourselves.

This discussion is about both if you ask me. I want to save this building and have tons of fond memories inside and outside of it, but there are so many problems with the structure. I worked for the owner who had it for 12 years. During that time there was plenty of opportunities to invest in fixing the problems with the building. The owner paid to find all of the problems and then after they realized it wasn't worth spending as much as it was going to cost they waited for someone to come around and purchase it. They eventually warned they would demolish it. Only then did someone come around and buy it. Both owners know how much it would cost to fix this structure and both decided they were not capable of spending that amount of money or even the time it will take.

We have lost so many buildings because of the mounting costs of repair. So saving the Dome and TIF are going to be in the same discussion.

Actually the thread started out with the joy of saving an iconic building. Which should be the central focus.
What if this spending of TIF money is the last chance at saving an iconic building instead of it sitting for another 10 years and corroding away to a point of no return. Which is more important. A couple million dollars of taxpayer money or losing an irreplaceable building?
So many want to save historic buildings but don't have the money to do so. Like it or not that leaves us at the mercy of the people that do have the money. Or we just quit worrying about saving historic buildings. Or we all become independently wealthy and do it ourselves.

TIF is what seems to be delaying anyone doing anything here.

The investor bought the building at market and has been holding out for a 3x market offer which could only be possible with public money.

And the continued prospect of this money being available is going to foster an environment where developers simply won't move forward unless they have free money from you and I to play with.

If TIF wasn't a possibility, I'll bet someone would have figured out a use for this land by now.

The previous owner held the property for 12 years and sold it for exactly what he paid.

The current one held it for 9 years and tripled his money. The only difference is TIF.

Respectfully, he didn't triple his money, no matter how many times you say it Pete. I know you know business better than that. Your point can be made anyway.

We have lost so many buildings because of the mounting costs of repair. So saving the Dome and TIF are going to be in the same discussion.

I think that's where TIF needs to be reevaluated. On its face, this is a property that seems to match a lot of the original intent of TIF, which was to mitigate costs associated with repairing and renovating historic structures and/ or jump start blighted areas the community wanted to see improved. However, it is now serving as an example of how TIF has just been baked into the market and is functioning as a gift to the speculator more so than an aide to the developer to offset the costs and risks of taking on the project.

I think that's where TIF needs to be reevaluated. On its face, this is a property that seems to match a lot of the original intent of TIF, which was to mitigate costs associated with repairing and renovating historic structures and/ or jump start blighted areas the community wanted to see improved. However, it is now serving as an example of how TIF has just been baked into the market and is functioning as a gift to the speculator more so than an aide to the developer to offset the costs and risks of taking on the project.

Totally Agree!

This is the developer with the current proposal:

https://www.kansas.com/news/local/article296117229.html

He issued a bold ultimatum. But will Crown Uptown’s owner really tear it down? Can he?
By Denise Neil and Kylie Cameron
The Wichita Eagle
Updated November 27, 2024

When word got out late last week that the new owner of the Crown Uptown — Tulsa businessman Mike Brown — had promised to demolish the 96-year-old Crown Uptown Theatre at 3207 E. Douglas if the Wichita City Council did not approve his request to more than double the building’s capacity, former owner J Basham felt torn.

On one hand, he was mortified. Basham, who sold the building to Brown last year, never thought the new buyer would make such a threat. In fact, Basham said, he purposely looked for a buyer who he thought would be a good steward for the building, which opened in 1928 as a movie theater.

“I do not want the place to come down,” Basham said. “When I had it on the market, some of the business owners around me said, ‘I wish you the best. Just don’t sell it to someone who would tear it down.’ And I wouldn’t. I don’t want that.”

On the other hand, Basham said, as someone who tried to do business in the aging building for many years, he understands Brown’s desire to increase its capacity. Brown should be able to expect a return on his investment, and people who are opposed to the capacity increase don’t understand how much it costs to operate the building, Basham said, noting that heating and electric bills alone often cost him between $5,000 and $6,000 a month.

But, it appears, few Wichitans have such ambiguous feelings about the Crown Uptown, which few people knew was in jeopardy until Brown granted an interview to KSN last weekend promising to tear down the theater on Dec. 4 if the council does not approve his zoning request at its Dec. 3 meeting.

“Without the approval of the capacity increase, the building will go away,” Brown told the TV station, sparking a wave of public outcry and inspiring a Change.org petition demanding that the theater be protected from demolition. (As of Wednesday, the 5-day-old petition had been signed by 200 people.)

When contacted by The Eagle this week, Brown said he had no comment on the issue other than to say that he’d be issuing a statement soon. Basham said that, in a recent conversation, Brown told him that he was thinking about inviting both his detractors and supporters to sit down with him at The Crown and “have an open dialogue.”

But it might be an uphill climb for Brown, who doesn’t appear to have made many friends in the neighborhood during his time in Wichita — and who likely didn’t help his case with his ultimatum.

Wichita City Council member Brandon Johnson, whose district includes the theater, said that he’s been hearing all week from people with strong feelings on the matter. Most say they don’t want to see the Crown Uptown go. Many worry that allowing Brown to more than double the theater’s capacity would create a parking nightmare for College Hill.

Many others said they just didn’t like Brown’s tactics.

“There’s kind of three themes I’m hearing,” Johnson said. “One is: ‘Don’t let the developer bully the city of Wichita to get what he wants.’”

Movie palace to dinner theater
The Crown, which opened as a first-run movie theater in 1928, was an “atmospheric” theater designed by the Boller Brothers, architects from Kansas City. Its first event was a screening of “The Jazz Singer” starring Al Jolson on July 16, 1928.

Known for its ornate facade, the Crown closed as a movie theater in 1975. But a year later, Ted Morris remodeled it and reopened it as a dinner theater. For decades, he filled its stage with shows like “Fiddler on the Roof” and “Seven Brides for Seven Brothers” and fed his audiences at a popular buffet.

During Morris’ tenure, the theater was also home to many company Christmas parties and for years provided a stage for Wichita Children’s Theatre & Dance Center productions.

Morris died unexpectedly in 2009, suffering a heart attack in the theater. It got new owners, then in 2017 was purchased by Mike Garvey of Buildings Inc., who fitted the Crown with a new sound system and modern lighting. Garvey ended the building’s run as a dinner theater and instead used it for smaller scale concerts and also rented it out for dances and weddings.

Basham, a longtime theater professional who had managed The Crown for Garvey, purchased the venue in 2017 and ushered it through the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, he also ushered dinner theater back into the building by renting it to a nonprofit called Crown Arts Collaborative, which put on full seasons of stage productions.

But in 2022, Basham announced he was ready to retire and was looking for a buyer. He listed the theater building for $1.2 million.

Brown, who worked as vice president of operations for TempleLive when the company purchased the Scottish Rite Center in 2019 and turned part of it into a concert venue, offered Basham double what others were willing to pay for the building, he said.

Brown had the same concert venue vision for the Crown, he told members of the District 1 District Advisory Board during a Nov. 4 meeting. But the overall unreceptive body eventually voted not to recommend that the city council approve Brown’s request to increase the building’s capacity.

To turn a profit, Brown told the committee, he needs The Crown to be able to function at its full capacity, which an occupancy review he had performed — a review he said was agreed upon by fire officials — determined was 2,066. But to fill the building, which has been stripped of the half-circle booths used by previous owners, he needs the City Council to amend a Planned Unit Development passed in 2017 that limits The Crown’s capacity to 850.

His goal is to fill the venue with larger acts — “not your Taylor Swifts of the world,” Brown’s representative, Jay Cook, a planning consultant with Baughman Co., told the board, but acts who won’t consider booking at venues whose capacities are smaller than 2,000.

“This is probably a middle-grade artist, someone on the up-and-coming,” Cook said.

The Metropolitan Area Planning Commission voted Oct. 24 to recommend the council approve Brown’s plan. But at the Nov. 4 DAB meeting, Brown faced significant opposition.

The issue quickly became parking, or a lack of it, in the area around The Crown. Because its parking requirements were settled before newer guidelines were established, the building is required to have only 17 paved off-street parking spaces, but the owners say they understand it would need far more.

The board was told that Brown had made verbal agreements with nearby businesses to use their lots in the evenings and had managed to identify 500 additional spots. If patrons used ride share services and the Q-Line, Cook said, that would be more than enough.

But the board members, some of whom live in the College Hill neighborhood, were skeptical and argued that the area was already congested without a capacity increase. One board member pointed out that, under modern-day parking requirements, the crown would need more than 700 spaces to make their requested capacity work.

Board member Tila Puritty admonished Brown for getting himself into the situation.

“Shame on you for buying the business when you didn’t know what the capacity was,” she said.

“Shame on the title company,” Brown quickly responded.

When the public comment portion of the DAB meeting opened, Brown’s plans were overwhelmingly denounced by College Hill residents and the Crown’s business neighbors, including an animated Stephen Holt, who owns the building attached to the theater and sits on the southeast corner of Douglas and Hillside. Holt told board members that he owned the parking lot directly south of his building but that a war had developed over an 8-foot area in between The Crown and where that parking lot starts.

Trucks, trailers and RVs have been unloading at the Crown since it’s become a concert venue, he said, and they refuse to move, even when they block him and his tenants from getting out of the lot. Holt told The Eagle in July that the vehicles usually stay for eight, 10 or 16 hours and block both driveways.

In June, Dive Inn Properties LLC and Kismet Koncerts Wichita LLC sued Holt’s Crown Plaza LLC, saying that The Crown should be granted an easement out of necessity. The suit says that “the owners of the Crown Uptown Theatre have used the Parking Lot in the manner described above without impairment for nearly 100 years.”

Holt, who was instructed by Johnson to stop speaking out of turn several times during the DAB meeting, told the board that “this type of behavior and tactic of effectively using hostage-style negotiation tactics should be of special note to the neighborhood and its governing bodies.

“Do we really want to set the precedent of allowing developers to buy cherished historic buildings and then threaten to tear them down if they don’t get what they want?”

Owners of other neighboring businesses also spoke out at the DAB meeting against the capacity increase, including Robin Van Huss, the owner of most of the buildings across the street from The Crown, including the Traditions Furniture building, who said she was never asked for permission to use her parking spaces nor would she ever have granted it.

“We’re constantly having to handle parking problems with all the parking lots that we do own,” she said. “We have cross use agreements with our own tenants, but we don’t have any room for anybody else.”

Trish Hileman, the vice president of the College Hill Neighborhood Association, asked if the developers could wait until after The College Hill Neighborhood Plan — which she’s working on with others in the neighborhood to address such questions — was complete. But Brown said that wouldn’t work: He has to sign contracts for his 2025 concert lineup now.

After public comment and before the vote, Brown and his agent, Cook, reiterated that they just wanted to be able to use the building to its capacity, and they don’t believe parking will be an issue.

But the caliber of artists they want to bring to Wichita won’t perform for crowds of just 850.

“Yes, the uptick of 850 to 2,000 is a lot. I’m not denying that,” Cook said. “My client is not denying that. You all know that. But it’s what the building holds. It was its intended use. ... We’re not changing the use. We’re only asking for an increase in the amount of people that’s allowed in the building. “

Would he really?
In the days following the KSN story, the Change.org petition popped up online. It was started by Paul Knapp, a self-described fan of The Crown and a former board member for the Crown Arts Collaborative.

He was inspired to start the petition, he said, because he did not care for how the new owner was doing business.

“I was kind of surprised at the drastic measure that he was putting forth. And I have not really liked the way that I’ve seen the Crown go in the last couple of years, especially with new ownership,” he said, adding that the Crown Arts Collaborative contract was canceled by the new owners when they took over.

Even though his petition won’t result in any binding action, he said, he felt it was important to stand up for the building.

“To come to this final pinnacle moment of, ‘I’m tearing down the building if City Council doesn’t go my way’... that’s kind of holding the building hostage even if he doesn’t intend to. He doesn’t understand the historical significance of the building.”

Knapp also said he questioned whether Brown could legally tear the building down and that he’d been frantically researching to find an answer.

The Crown is not on the National Registry of Historic Places, so it receives no protection against demolition there. But it may be able to get a stay under a 1991 municipal code that listed it and many other structures in town — including the original Nu-Way building at 1415 W. Douglas and the Flatiron Building at 2144 N. Broadway — as “Undesignated Historic Resources.”

Megan Lovely, communications manager with the city, said that, according to the code, if the city receives an application for demolition of a structure on the list, the city preservation staff must be notified and that it may be able to temporarily prevent demolition or alteration “until effective evaluation of the building, site or structure can be made.”

The property owner would have the right to appeal the preservation staff’s ultimate decision. A few structures on the list of Undesignated Historic Resources have since been demolished, including downtown’s Allis Hotel and the Wichita Livestock Exchange building at 702 E. 21st St. But many others have since been added to the historic register.

And there may be another issue, Lovely said.

“We have also had ongoing discussions between the property owner and fire personnel,” she said in an email. “The building is currently classified as an A2, which would require a fire sprinkler system for an increase in occupancy. The City offered to assist the owner in pursuing this, but he has not chosen to pursue that option at this time.”

So could Brown be bluffing about his intention to tear the building down if things don’t go his way?

At the DAB meeting on Nov. 4, he repeatedly said how much he loved the building, and when a board member asked him what his Plan B would be if he didn’t get approval from the council, he said he didn’t know. He’d have to determine how else the building could be used.

“But our intent would be to put all kinds of historic protection on that building moving forward,” he told the board.

Basham said Wood has made the same declarations to him. He has no idea how serious Wood’s demolition threats might be.

“The first day he saw the building, he fell in love with it,” Basham said. “He said, ’I want this building. I love this building. I’ll make you an offer.

“It’s hard for me to imagine him doing it. But again, he’s a businessman, and if he can’t make his money. . . .”

TIF is what seems to be delaying anyone doing anything here.

The investor bought the building at market and has been holding out for a 3x market offer which could only be possible with public money.

And the continued prospect of this money being available is going to foster an environment where developers simply won't move forward unless they have free money from you and I to play with.

If TIF wasn't a possibility, I'll bet someone would have figured out a use for this land by now.

to be fair .. with this building if the previous owner could have demoed it it would have been development a decade ago ..

The Wichita Eagle article is concerning.

In Brown's presentation to the Economic Development Trust where he was seeking approval for TIF, he stated capacity would be 2,500 to 3,000, and if you've ever been in that building, that is an awful lot of people to fit in there.

For comparison, the Tower holds 1,027, including the balcony. And that's general admission; seated is only 651. The Criterion can hold up to 3,000, and they have a sizeable u-shaped 2nd level. The County Assessor shows the dome at 17,800 square feet while the Criterion is 22,600. But those measurements are just for the first floor and of course the Criterion was purpose-built as a concert facility. It's hard to imagine the dome could have anywhere near the capacity of the Criterion on its 2nd level.

The Wichita article is a bit stunning.

In Brown's presentation to the Economic Development Trust where he was seeking approval for TIF, he stated capacity would be 2,500 to 3,000, and if you've ever been in that building, that is an awful lot of people to fit in there.

For comparison, the Tower holds less than 1,027, including the balcony. And that's general admission; seated is only 651. The Criterion can hold up to 3,000, and they have a sizeable u-shaped 2nd level.

for comparision the criterion is 22k sqft and the gold dome is 18k

Gold Dome vs. Criterion:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/goldome121224b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/criterion122024a.jpg

Wow. The Wichita Eagle is obviously not a Gannett newspaper. That was an excellent, well-researched article.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/golddome033121g.jpg


That doesn't look like it could hold 2,600 people...

I mentioned there were already Mesta Park homeowners upset about the concert venue idea.

I asked Brown about parking and he deflected the question, only mentioning that lots of people use Uber and Lyft these days.


If the dome was to be converted into a concert venue, they'd need to get proper zoning and a liquor license. I would expect a bunch of push-back from neighbors, similar to the situation in Wichita.

The Wichita Eagle article is concerning.

In Brown's presentation to the Economic Development Trust where he was seeking approval for TIF, he stated capacity would be 2,500 to 3,000, and if you've ever been in that building, that is an awful lot of people to fit in there.

For comparison, the Tower holds 1,027, including the balcony. And that's general admission; seated is only 651. The Criterion can hold up to 3,000, and they have a sizeable u-shaped 2nd level. The County Assessor shows the dome at 17,800 square feet while the Criterion is 22,600. But those measurements are just for the first floor and of course the Criterion was purpose-built as a concert facility. It's hard to imagine the dome could have anywhere near the capacity of the Criterion on its 2nd level.

Sigh....Another case of a developer or business person pulling numbers out their rear end. Starting to become too common.

"Sure, we can get 3,000 people to fit in our venue, deep breaths!" Hope there is no fire otherwise your going to have a huge disaster when everyone panics and runs for their lives.

^

Bill, just a few posts above you asked a question about TIF. If you didn't mean it to be a question and get an answer you shouldn't have stated it that way.

Absolutely no one is saying we should 'quit worrying about saving historic buildings', in fact there are thousands and thousands of posts arguing the complete opposite.
My question was kind of a what do you want to pay the devil for.
Yes. It's blatantly obvious the number of people that want to see historical buildings saved. But none of us have any money.
So if someone with money wants to save a building we want to see saved does it really matter how it gets done. As long as it gets done? Even it it means the bulldozer is the next alternative.
Which is more important. The building or how it gets saved. In many cases you can't have both.

A person who threatens to tear down his building tomorrow if they don't get approval today is nonsensical. I can't imagine anyone who has the financial equity to reduce the overall value of the borrowed-on asset by 40% or more on a whim. Filthy rich guys like Midtown Renaissance, etc... might. But they would be too smart to ever engage in that self-destructive blackmail.

This is a major red flag, IMO.

A person who threatens to tear down his building tomorrow if they don't get approval today is nonsensical. I can't imagine anyone who has the financial equity to reduce the overall value of the borrowed-on asset by 40% or more on a whim. Filthy rich guys like Midtown Renaissance, etc... might. But they would be too smart to ever engage in that self-destructive blackmail.

This is a major red flag, IMO.If the dome structure is as far gone as it very well is the bare lot is more valuable than the lot with the building. The building is a net loss from the get go. This is my whole point. If someone wants to try and save the dome let them do it at any cost or don't bitch if it gets bulldozed.,

Notre Dame was a net loss 200 years ago (yes, l know, not an equal comparison).

If the dome structure is as far gone as it very well is the bare lot is more valuable than the lot with the building. The building is a net loss from the get go. This is my whole point. If someone wants to try and save the dome let them do it at any cost or don't bitch if it gets bulldozed.,

I was referring to his Wichita efforts. If he didn't get city approval on December 3, he was going to tear down the theater building on the 4th.

Notre Dame was a net loss 200 years ago (yes, l know, not an equal comparison).

Slightly different.

Only slightly.

A person who threatens to tear down his building tomorrow if they don't get approval today is nonsensical. I can't imagine anyone who has the financial equity to reduce the overall value of the borrowed-on asset by 40% or more on a whim. Filthy rich guys like Midtown Renaissance, etc... might. But they would be too smart to ever engage in that self-destructive blackmail.

This is a major red flag, IMO.

this property is worth more as demo'ed blank slate ..