You’re so right. My preference would be: OK, let’s have mid-rise office or condo buildings lining the east side of the park and the south side of the boulevard. Yes. Fine. But the “interior” of the Coop and Core to shore? How about urban row houses in the tradition of Georgetown or Brooklyn or Center City Philadelphia? Single family, 2-3 stories is fine, think the Cosby Show. Throw some coffee shops or neighborhood bodegas at the intersections. Much more sustainable than trying to create some huge district that diverts attention from the already growing districts north of the CBD.

I agree. I think the area should be divided up into smaller lots and developed accordingly. I've mentioned this before, but Harbor Town Memphis is a perfect example of what Core 2 Shore could be. It's urban, attractive, and realistic for OKC.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6060/6261684194_f672bda04a_b.jpg

Also, let's remember that the idea for Core 2 Shore really took off during a time before all of the growth and development in areas like Midtown and Deep Deuce. At the time, Bricktown was pretty much all there was and the idea was to grow downtown towards the river. Instead, the free market took over and grew it north.

I wasn’t familiar with Harbor Town but I like it. Could be a good model for OKC.

Pretty similar to what Wheeler is shooting for, no?

Harbor Town Memphis...I like this...a lot!

Omaha uses TIF: https://planninghcd.cityofomaha.org/economic-development/tax-increment-financing
Wichita uses TIF: http://www.wichita.gov/Economic/Pages/Incentives.aspx
Kansas City uses TIF: http://www.edckc.com/agencies/tax-increment-financing-commission-tif/
Indianapolis uses TIF: http://indianaeconomicdigest.com/main.asp?SectionID=31&subsectionID=299&articleID=79469
Dallas uses TIF: http://www.dallasecodev.org/358/Tax-Increment-Financing-Districts
Austin uses TIF: http://www.dallasecodev.org/358/Tax-Increment-Financing-Districts
San Antonio uses TIF: http://www.sanantonio.gov/NHSD/TIF
Waco uses TIF: http://www.sanantonio.gov/NHSD/TIF
Houston uses TIF: http://www.houstontx.gov/ecodev/tirz.html
Albuquerque uses TIF: https://www.cabq.gov/economicdevelopment/business-owners/small-business-support/incentives
Denver uses TIF: http://renewdenver.org/about-dura/
Charlotte uses TIF: http://charlottenc.gov/ED/Development/Pages/Partnerships.aspx
Nashville uses TIF: http://www.nashville.gov/Mayors-Office/Economic-and-Community-Development/Incentives.aspx
Milwaukee uses TIF: http://city.milwaukee.gov/TaxIncrementalFinancing#.WrJ9a0tOmhA
Chicago uses TIF: https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dcd/provdrs/tif.html
Boston uses TIF: http://renewdenver.org/about-dura/
New York City uses TIF: http://www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org/index.aspx?NID=641

Most of those communities have way more TIF districts than OKC does. Many of them have funded many hundreds of projects. Also you can search pretty much any midsize communities you can think of...Buffalo, Rochester, Canandaigua? Yep. They have TIF. Portland Maine? Uses TIF.

Pretty much every major city in America uses this mechanism to some degree, and most midsize cities do, and even many small towns.

If you look at all of those you’ll see some differences; some appear to have more transparency than we have, some much less. In most of those cities you can find stories about people who are critical of the beneficiaries, the areas targeted, the process, or the concept entirely.

But can we please stop acting like OKC is some sort of outlier?

Post editing is wonky for some reason. Here are the correct links to Waco and Austin:

http://www.waco-texas.com/economic-development/tif-guidelines.asp
http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=191785

And Boston:

https://www.boston.gov/departments/assessing/tax-agreements

Keep in mind most those districts have been around a very long time and OKC has doubled the number of districts since the Alliance was formed a few years ago, and the total projected budget now tops $1 billion. Most are just starting and all run for 25 years, so this is an issue that is only going to grow with time.

I could give you lots of examples of cities and even whole states that have stopped using TIF.

In fact, it is now outlawed in California, the place it was born.


Also, none of those cities and states are in the financial crisis that is facing OKC and Oklahoma precisely due to not having proper income streams to fund their educational systems.

72% of property tax (which is what almost exclusively funds TIF in OKC) funds public education in Oklahoma and TIF is only growing here, and rapidly.

Did you know that no one in the state of Oklahoma even keeps a tally on the total amount of TIF dollars that are budgeted and spent? I know this because I am trying to compile this myself.

And did you know that the people running the OKC TIF program literally do not understand how it affects public education? I asked and was told "that is not our job; it's a state problem".

A number of those cities added TIF to their respective toolboxes MUCH later than OKC did. A decade or more later in some cases. The use of TIF in the U.S. is increasing, not decreasing.

A number of those cities added TIF to their respective toolboxes MUCH later than OKC did. A decade an more later in some cases. The use of TIF in the U.S. is increasing, not decreasing.

Source?

The source is that the number of states and cities which have passed TIF have increased just in the past five years. It is now legal in 49 states and the District of Columbia with California being the outlier, which is not really a surprise considering the politics of the California legislature, which outlawed it.

If you click on those links or do a simple google search for TIF use in those cities you will find that many of them added TIF in the past five to seven years, you will find debate on its implementation and usage, you will find that new TIF districts are being added, you will see law changes where terms are being extended, and you will find references to its use being expanded within those cities (with associated criticisms). It’s completely anecdotal, but one thing you will NOT find much mention of is cities reducing or terminating their programs, or mention of any state other than California outlawing it (quite the opposite, more states have made it legal to keep up with the Jonses).

Reminds me of the Ted's discussion - "Ted's must be great, look at all the cars in the parking lot and the lines out the door", and "Popular doesn't always correlate to great or even good". :)

You would have to go to every single municipality to see exactly how TIF is being used, as even within Oklahoma each application is unique.

Regardless, the way it is being used in OKC -- which is what we are concerned with here -- is that the program draws almost exclusively from property tax and 72% of those dollars goes to public education in the state of Oklahoma.

Considering the absolute crisis we are in regarding our education system here, every public incentive to developers should be viewed in direct competition with that acute need. And, the use of this tool has been sharply increased in just the last few years and most the effects of that has yet to be felt because it will play out over the next several decades.

We are in deep trouble now with the economy pretty darn good and before these most these incentives even come to bear.

The idea this is some sort of free money is complete nonsense. There is a real cost to the entire state.

One other thing: Change has already happened due to the light being shined on TIF. I know that for a fact.

Change is usually incremental, especially in political arenas.

...Regardless, the way it is being used in OKC -- which is what we are concerned with here -- is that the program draws almost exclusively from property tax and 72% of those dollars goes to public education in the state of Oklahoma.

Considering the absolute crisis we are in regarding our education system here, every public incentive to developers should be viewed in direct competition with that acute need. And, the use of this tool has been sharply increased in just the last few years and most the effects of that has yet to be felt because it will play out over the next several decades...

Regarding the first point:


While it is accurate to say that this keeps new taxes generated over the baseline set at the time of the TIF implementation (which is how TIF works), it is not accurate to say that it is zero sum. The investments in the core have driven property values around the core - in parts of central Oklahoma City which do NOT contribute to the TIF - much, MUCH higher (as you have mentioned in other threads). It is fair to say that these dramatically increased valuations are a direct result of public and private investment in the core, including TIF. These investments have also had positive impact on assessments city-wide. If there had been no MAPS and no TIF, who's to say how much OKC (and its property values) would have continued to stagnate.


It should be noted that Oklahoma City Public Schools AND Oklahoma County (who is also giving up tax monies coming from incremental growth assesments) BOTH signed off on the TIF.

Regarding the second point: use of TIF has increased sharply in OKC because property values have gone up exponentially, which results in much larger income for the TIF. As property values increase over the baseline, so does the pot of money generated by TIF. By law that has to be used for economic development (including incentives), and by law that has to occur within the TIF district where the money is generated. Increased use means our city has become more valuable.

1. The amount of TIF investment thus far in the core is minuscule in comparison to public investment and private investment by those not receiving any public subsidy whatsoever. Like well less than 1%. So absolutely no way you can correlate TIF expenditures to higher property values elsewhere.

2. Schools have only recently been brought to the table regarding future TIF's and have received information that is incomplete and also misleading. I just mentioned that the people involved in the OKC TIF's don't even understand the impact on schools and yet they gave a proposal to City Council (and the schools) that said it worked to their benefit. When I cited that presentation and asked for the background numbers and data to support the claims, I was then told they didn't fully understand how all this works on a state level, where the school allocations are actually made.

...Schools have only recently been brought to the table regarding future TIF's...

Not remotely true. I was personally involved in some of the conversations regarding the formation of the original downtown TIF. Very specifically the school district AND the County had to sign off on the creation of the district. It could not be created without their agreement. If those institutions have developed corporate amnesia in the intervening 18 years that is understandable, as of course people involved in the original conversations have moved on, been replaced, etc.. But they were intimately involved in its creation and at the time saw it as a means to help boost overall assessments city-wide.

I should have said not brought to the table in any meaningful way.

Hence this controversy and the complete change on how this was handled afterwards:

http://okgazette.com/2015/02/11/school-board-wants-more-involved-in-citys-tif-discussions/


During TIF discussions last month, the city council was told that school district officials were supportive of the plan. However, district officials said they were not aware of the conversations.

I think we can all agree that TIF dollars should be carefully used. It's not a fountain of free money. When used appropriately, they can help spur developments that wouldn't otherwise be possible. This can be an overall positive benefit for the city. On the other hand, if you just give money to everyone who comes asking for a handout, and they don't have to improve their projects or show how the money is really necessary, then it's a waste and the city shouldn't be doing it.

Exactly which end of the spectrum we normally operate on, that's the real question. There probably needs to be a lot more public oversight over how the money is spent. But I don't think people are intentionally being wasteful.

People just don't understand how it works, including most of City Council who are supposed to be giving their approval.

It's very complicated and it's all handled very secretively...

Here is an example. West Village, which has been under construction for a year, just received a $4 million award. I was told they had already reached an agreement but there was a delay due to HUD financing issues. But if City Council is supposed to be the policy makers and decision makers (something the Alliance repeats ad nauseum) then how is it 1) 100% of these 'requests' have been approved by Council and 100% originate with the Alliance; and 2) this development went forward completely relying on this TIF money (as we are told, this wouldn't happen without it) that has yet to be approved by Council?

The truth is a couple of people make these decisions behind closed-doors meetings with developers, in the larger cases the Alliance meets with City Council in private to get their buy-in, and then there is a sham of a public meeting and vote when it finally comes before the Council for approval.

Reminder that unlike MAPS or even the quality jobs program that is part of General Obligation Bonds, the public does not vote on TIF. The Alliance merely proposes these districts with what I view as very misleading information, and council approves then approves every single request that comes their way.

That's not what you view as transparency by the city; however let's not forget that our original MAPS was crafted behind closed doors before being put before the voters. Only difference is that the voters' representatives approved TIF; as you mentioned Pete, the Alliance merely proposes these districts.

Our city has benefited from the voter approval of MAPS I. We are now a victim of it's success in that it has driven some property values up--The Producers COOP site & the Ford Dealership properties are prime examples.

Sounds as though these TIF done development deals are a formality to hasten whatever agenda the council has.

Pete, speaking of California and them outlawing TIF's. It was suggested by Urbanized that this could have been due to their politics. While that is certainly an understandable position, do you feel that political persuasion was behind outlawing TIF's or could it have been economics? By this I mean because they were first in doing this method of financing, California would have been the first to see problems that became evident as the TIF's expired? Another question is do you see certain developers getting favorable treatment in getting TIF's based on "home cooking"?

Pete, speaking of California and them outlawing TIF's. It was suggested by Urbanized that this could have been due to their politics. While that is certainly an understandable position, do you feel that political persuasion was behind outlawing TIF's or could it have been economics? By this I mean because they were first in doing this method of financing, California would have been the first to see problems that became evident as the TIF's expired? Another question is do you see certain developers getting favorable treatment in getting TIF's based on "home cooking"?

California also a place where cities are close to bankruptcy or have already filed.

California also a place where cities are close to bankruptcy or have already filed.

The state budget has gone from a huge deficit to a surplus expected to be over $7 billion.

1. The amount of TIF investment thus far in the core is minuscule in comparison to public investment and private investment by those not receiving any public subsidy whatsoever. Like well less than 1%. So absolutely no way you can correlate TIF expenditures to higher property values elsewhere.

2. Schools have only recently been brought to the table regarding future TIF's and have received information that is incomplete and also misleading. I just mentioned that the people involved in the OKC TIF's don't even understand the impact on schools and yet they gave a proposal to City Council (and the schools) that said it worked to their benefit. When I cited that presentation and asked for the background numbers and data to support the claims, I was then told they didn't fully understand how all this works on a state level, where the school allocations are actually made.

Pete, not to discount your thought or dispute in any way - however, Point 1 may very well be why the city/state uses TIF the way they do; if it is true that TIF represents a very small amount of development in the core and we're still getting the volume of self supporting development then why should we restrict/regulate TIF?

I agree there shuold be controls and accountability added to TIF including clawbacks for those who do not deliver within a certain tolerance as was proposed (unless there's approval of a variance). But eliminating TIF might result in a backlash on property tax appreciation/funding far greater than what you're suggesting the normal channels aren't gaining WITH it.

^

Because there have been a ton more TIF districts created and lots more money to be spent in this way.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/coop041618a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/coop041618b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/coop041618c.jpg

In some respects I don't like how the RR tracks bisect downtown...

Are you talking about the main north/south viaduct?

There is literally nothing to like about it other than it allows for an amazing potential in a commuter rail setup @ the intermodal hub. But as of now, it has only and still does create a massive divide between Deep Deuce/Bricktown and the CBD/AA. Not only is the viaduct a physical barrier with few passages, the passages it does have are extremely unfriendly for pedestrians and in some places, cars. And do add to the viaduct, you have the monstrosity of EKG directly next to it, quite possibly one of the unfriendliest pedestrians streets in all of downtown.

Will the long-rumored site renderings ever show? I am starting to wonder.

The last shot looks like a tornado leveled the area south of downtown.

Are you talking about the main north/south viaduct?

There is literally nothing to like about it other than it allows for an amazing potential in a commuter rail setup @ the intermodal hub. But as of now, it has only and still does create a massive divide between Deep Deuce/Bricktown and the CBD/AA. Not only is the viaduct a physical barrier with few passages, the passages it does have are extremely unfriendly for pedestrians and in some places, cars. And do add to the viaduct, you have the monstrosity of EKG directly next to it, quite possibly one of the unfriendliest pedestrians streets in all of downtown.

It would be nice if they would make a plan to eventually tunnel the rail lines. I would still like to keep the viaduct, turn into something like the Highline Park in NYC, and then hollow out the bottom of the viaduct, add support structures, and add spaces for living, shops, and restaurants with direct stairway/elevator access to the path above it which could feature patios, and even new smaller structures for cafes or bike repair stations.

Pete, thanks for posting the updated photos. Love seeing the progress down there. Do we know what's planned for this area?

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/coop050618.jpg

If they're not destroying the last few structures then that tells me that a developer plans to remodel them for future use in a yet to be announced project, already in the works but under wraps.

If they're not destroying the last few structures then that tells me that a developer plans to remodel them for future use in a yet to be announced project, already in the works but under wraps.

Or, the city told them to not demolish a couple until a firm plan is in place.

If they're not destroying the last few structures then that tells me that a developer plans to remodel them for future use in a yet to be announced project, already in the works but under wraps.

I believe all the buildings will be coming down. Just a process they are going through. I had hoped they would save a couple, but I'm told they are all coming down.

I believe all the buildings will be coming down. Just a process they are going through. I had hoped they would save a couple, but I'm told they are all coming down.

That's good to hear.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/coop052018.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/coop062318.jpg

That's good to hear.

This area sure will have a lot more character once it's filled with generic strip shopping centers and architecturally-deficient apartment complexes.

Oh ye of little faith. I'm actually hearing they're drawing up plans way more ambitious than those. Im not in the know but I believe they see more potential in this land than that.

Oh ye of little faith. I'm actually hearing they're drawing up plans way more ambitious than those. Im not in the know but I believe they see more potential in this land than that.
I think there’s an article in yesterday’s Journal Record about this development. Maybe warreng will post it for us?

I think there’s an article in yesterday’s Journal Record about this development. Maybe warreng will post it for us?

Hey Nick, unfortunately, my subscription lapsed so I don’t have access to the website any more.

Hey Nick, unfortunately, my subscription lapsed so I don’t have access to the website any more.

How much? Maybe some of us can chip in? I find what you post very useful, but I don’t read them enough to justify my own.

Hey Nick, unfortunately, my subscription lapsed so I don’t have access to the website any more.
No problem, warren! Like catch said, maybe we could drum up enough to renew it with you as I really appreciated you sharing the articles.

Pete - has anything been done here? Doesn't look like anything changed between your May and June photos.

Pete - has anything been done here? Doesn't look like anything changed between your May and June photos.

They are doing soil remediation which I understand has turned into a huge job.

Does that mean removing contaminated soil by the truck loads? I wonder what they do with that if it's contaminated?

Does that mean removing contaminated soil by the truck loads? I wonder what they do with that if it's contaminated?

No, they clean the soil on site.

You can see the big mounds and processing machines in the drone photo.

I think they 'burn the soil'.

How much? Maybe some of us can chip in? I find what you post very useful, but I don’t read them enough to justify my own.

It's $199 for a year. I wouldn't mind doing it if people wouldn't mind pitching in. Send me a PM if you are interested in helping out.

148101481114812

saw this on another website for a development in Kiev. Hope we get something like this. Love how pedestrian friendly it is!

148101481114812

saw this on another website for a development in Kiev. Hope we get something like this. Love how pedestrian friendly it is!

Yeah even a scaled down version of that with say 3-4 floors instead of 7 would be amazing. The way I see the Producer's Coop development is it's not as much a matter of what goes there but how it's developed. It needs to be pedestrian friendly and it needs to tie in with the rest of downtown.

I personally think splitting up the land among many different developers would be very beneficial but it will never happen. Being such a large area developed by a single developer has me worried that it will end up being Lower Bricktown part deux.

I'd love to see a well designed network of low rise mixed use housing like this. A canal extension through the middle would be siick.

I'd love to see a well designed network of low rise mixed use housing like this. A canal extension through the middle would be siick.

i was more thinking this without the canal extension... just replace that middle with a pedestrian walkway that is well used, and perhaps lots of tables and trees, etc. open it up as a common place for eating, visiting, etc.

I'm just glad we are not looking at those big cotton mill plants anymore. Made OKC look really rural...They could develop a Wal-Mart SuperCenter there for all I care, lol.

A Walmart supercenter is just as rural as those cotton mills :lol2:

A Walmart supercenter is just as rural as those cotton mills :lol2:

i would say even more so.... if this becomes a terribly developed area... i would have rather PCOM had just stayed there

i would say even more so.... if this becomes a terribly developed area... i would have rather PCOM had just stayed there

I agree. I wouldn't mind a Wal-Mart if it was something like this.

http://www.mma-architects.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Fort-Totten.psd_0000s_0003_Fort-Totten-Walmart-3207Rt-V2-1200x700.jpg

But if it's a standard cookie cutter big box Wal-Mart Supercenter with a huge surface parking lot I would have rather the cotton mill just stayed.

Have you guys done any research on Sooner Investments? I will be ecstatic if we get anything better than a water-downed version of what Chisholm Creek development is.

Look @ the company's existing projects, they are all parking lot/big box stripmalls.
http://soonerinvestment.com/?page_id=9

This is probably one of the worst developers for this land and to hold your breath for anything pedestrian oriented without millions of sq footage in surface parking is a death sentence. Look @ their website, it is horrendous and has dead links everywhere. I'm not even sure this developer has the pockets to pull off the COOP site.

And I hope that does sound harsh, because I so badly want to be proven wrong. I still think the city messed up by not trying to buy this property.