Go talk to Congress about that one.
Yeah I know we’ve had this conversation before. A true world class casino downtown if built right to activate the street would do so much to turn OKC’s core that practically dies after work hours into a 24hr vibrant area.

If pushed by local senate members, why would it be an issue for congress? Would they care at all? Just pass it and throw Oklahoma a bone.

OKC’s core ... practically dies after work hours into a 24hr vibrant area.

What part of the core are you talking about?

What part of the core are you talking about?
The financial district. Or the CBD. Whatever it’s called. The main part of downtown.

Yeah I know we’ve had this conversation before. A true world class casino downtown if built right to activate the street would do so much to turn OKC’s core that practically dies after work hours into a 24hr vibrant area.

If pushed by local senate members, why would it be an issue for congress? Would they care at all? Just pass it and throw Oklahoma a bone.

It's federal, I believe, not state, that controls the OK casino land stuff.

It's federal, I believe, not state, that controls the OK casino land stuff.
But what I mean is if we had local/state leaders or representatives who lobbied for this would it pass? Why wouldn’t it?

But what I mean is if we had local/state leaders or representatives who lobbied for this would it pass? Why wouldn’t it?

Quick and dirty explanation. Some details might not be perfect.

Indian casinos have to be on ancestral tribal land. A tribe has to have been there as their home in the eyes of the US government. The general OKC area was never given to any tribe, and was therefore described as “Unassigned Lands”. The US government then gave this “Unassigned Lands” away to settlers via the Land Run of 1889. For any tribe to open an Indian casino in this area all tribes registered in Oklahoma would have to agree and a bunch of other land swap and hurdles would have to be overcome. Tribes in Oklahoma are kinda grandfathered in casino control in the state, and would have to give up their rights for a non-tribal casino in OKC. Remington Park is not a casino-it is a horse track with limited casino games. That is another animal.

No casino in Downtown OKC, thank you! This is not Vegas, you won't find similar people going casinos in Vegas casinos in OKC (I meant $$$$ vs $).

The financial district. Or the CBD. Whatever it’s called. The main part of downtown.

OK. Just so you know, that happens in a lot of cities. But there are now several districts in and around the core in OKC where that does not happen every day.

And with what's happening in and around The First National Center, it's happening a lot less often in OKC's CBD, financial district, or whatever it's called, too. You should check it out.

No casino in Downtown OKC, thank you! This is not Vegas, you won't find similar people going casinos in Vegas casinos in OKC (I meant $$$$ vs $).

Very true.

And, either way, it's not necessary, either.

This site will sit vacant for years to come unless OCURA buys it from Sooner Investments and RFP out plats at a time. That is the best option.

The financial district. Or the CBD. Whatever it’s called. The main part of downtown.

This is literally the case in every major city all over the world, even the most urban. Go to the financial district in Vancouver - dead at night. Financial district in DC - dead at night. London (Canary Wharf and other areas) - dead at night. Paris (La Defense) - dead at night. Tokyo (major office clusters in neighborhoods like Shinjuku, etc.) - dead at night. Melbourne/Sydney CBD's in Australia - dead at night. Financial district in NYC (downtown and midtown) - dead at night. Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Miami, Denver, etc etc.

It's just the nature of office clusters that attract certain types of retail geared more toward lunch crowds and rents are too expensive for nightlife and active uses that keep the neighborhoods lively all day long. Many of these areas have proximate or adjacent neighborhoods more geared towards evening/party crowds. Austin has Rainy Street, 6th Street - but Congress for the most part north of the lake to UT is pretty dead compared to other areas (6th Street is not the CBD office cluster downtown). DC has Adam's Morgan, Logan Circle/14th/U Street, etc. NYC has Hell's Kitchen, Soho, Chelsea, etc.. Seattle has Capitol Hill and other areas. Vancouver has Granville and West End/Davie Street. It's just that these areas are more urban so it's not as noticeable when it's easier to walk between areas and everything feels more cohesive and it gives the mental impression that it has lively CBD's but in almost every major city the primary office cores have little going on past 6pm or weekends.

Given how Bricktown is separated from the CBD by the railroad it makes it feel even more isolated from nightlife and that won't ever be fixable for that area, but as Automobile Alley/Midtown fill in more over the decade it will make it less obvious and will feel more like other cities with cohesive urban cores. I've lived in many of these cities - DC for example, I highly doubt you see more people walking around K Street on any given evening or weekend than you do walking around in OKC's office core area.

I couldn’t disagree more. I’ve been to a few of those cities and they are absolutely not anywhere near as dead as OKC is at night.

I couldn’t disagree more. I’ve been to a few of those cities and they are absolutely not anywhere near as dead as OKC is at night.

Tell me what examples then - I can bet when you list them the areas you feel like are the financial center are actually different neighborhoods from the core CBD.

Tell me what examples then - I can bet when you list them the areas you feel like are the financial center are actually different neighborhoods from the core CBD.
The exact ones you gave. Yes they get quiet at times but overall are all much more lively than OKC at night.

TLDR: "The owner of a prominent downtown property was given a reprieve on Thursday to continue using it as a parking lot despite not complying with city code."

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2023/06/01/oklahoma-city-to-decide-legality-of-downtown-parking-lots/70275386007/

The exact ones you gave. Yes they get quiet at times but overall are all much more lively than OKC at night.

those cities (and their cores) are also much larger than OKC's; so it is no surprise that they are more vibrant. Point being, a CBD will by nature be less vibrant when the offices close for the day/week. That is anywhere. And as had been noted, OKC's CBD is more vibrant now than it's been since the Urban Renewal era and will only continue to improve as more residential and hotels are built.

The other point that you missed, is that most all major cities have vibrant nighttime neighborhoods surrounding the CBD or their main office cluster, as does OKC with Bricktown, AAlley, Midtown, and Film Row. ....

Any guess as to what Eminent Domain would cause this property to land at in terms of value?

Any guess as to what Eminent Domain would cause this property to land at in terms of value?

hundreds of millions

hundreds of millions

That's nuts. I guess it would just be better to pay asking price @ $65M then if the city were to buy it.

That's nuts. I guess it would just be better to pay asking price @ $65M then if the city were to buy it.
It’s not like the brownfield clean up costs are only going to be an affordable $15000.

I’m glad the old oil mill is gone., it’s hard to imagine a site that gave a worse impression of downtown OKC. Be it that everpresent fart smell or the very rural undeveloped feel you got just from looking at it. I’m glad everyone is optimistic about the purchase and development of the vacant site. But the site is literally a toxic waste dump with a very inflated price tag.,perhaps if it had an EPA level cleaning and remediation it might be worth the price but It’s hard to imagine it being developed in the next 10

That's nuts. I guess it would just be better to pay asking price @ $65M then if the city were to buy it.

Or just ignore it and let the price come down or let time go by to where $65M is worth it. Nothing has to happen here immediately, you know. They keep asking a high price and they'll see activity move to the OKANA sight or elsewhere.

Why are the former owners not liable for clean up?

Why are the former owners not liable for clean up?

Right? I don't understand why it's only a problem only once it's sold to someone else? If it's toxic now then that's a problem that needs addressed

Why are the former owners not liable for clean up?

Who owns it now? I mean it is for sale for $65 million just like it has been since I can remember

Why are the former owners not liable for clean up?

This is Oklahoma. Just say”job killing regulations” and you can get away with a lot.

hundreds of millions

What are you basing this on and are you baseing this opinion on the land being rid of contaniments?

This is Oklahoma. Just say”job killing regulations” and you can get away with a lot.

What jobs, the land is vacant. If anything clean up provides jobs. Where is the leadership at City Hall? Inquiring minds want to know.

That's nuts. I guess it would just be better to pay asking price @ $65M then if the city were to buy it.

I would like to know if the price tag reflects the cost of remediation. If not, why not? I can't believe the condition of the land is not factored in to the valuation.

Someone can value something at whatever they want. No one is paying, so they must not care too much.

I couldn’t disagree more. I’ve been to a few of those cities and they are absolutely not anywhere near as dead as OKC is at night.

Using Denver as an example (downtown active entertainment zone,s are now experiencing some sort of violence nearly every weekend - including this past weekend), having throngs of partygoer's streaming around downtown isn't always a good thing when someone always feels the need to shoot at someone else.

[QUOTE=Jersey Boss;1244429]What jobs, the land is vacant. If anything clean up provides jobs. Where is the leadership at City Hall? Inquiring minds want to know.[/QUOTE
I’m not following you? The jobs that were there when the contamination occured. Environment clean up means regulations and clean up costs

[QUOTE=Jersey Boss;1244429]What jobs, the land is vacant. If anything clean up provides jobs. Where is the leadership at City Hall? Inquiring minds want to know.[/QUOTE
I’m not following you? The jobs that were there when the contamination occured. Environment clean up means regulations and clean up costs

Agreed., people can have whatever take they want. Mine is that nobody and I mean nobody is going to touch that property until it’s remediated.

I would like to know if the price tag reflects the cost of remediation. If not, why not? I can't believe the condition of the land is not factored in to the valuation.



It does not. The cost of cleanup is currently unknown because full environmental assessments have not been performed. That is the main reason it has not sold. The costs for cleanup are unknown, thus no one will buy it for the inflated price. At least three different developers were close to buying it. I was in meetings with two. Those developers had fairly detailed plans for their developments but eventually walked away because of the uncertainty of cleanup costs and the apparent unwillingness of the owners to account for such in the purchase price. Those cleanup costs are why the city would never take it via imminent domain. Because the city would then be on the hook. It should be remembered that this whole area was once part of the turn of the century OKC oil fields. There was also a refinery there if I remember correctly. Then decades of industrial use. The amount of contamination could be very high, but no one knows. Most developers want a mix of commercial and residential to make their projects work. A residential component makes the cleanup way more expensive as the maximum contamination levels come way down if folks are living there. The owner also appears to be unwilling to clean it up because they too fear the price tag. Until the owner cleans it up, or reduces the price to account for the possible contamination, it will just sit like it is.

^

Yukong knows!

As he said, the unknown cleanup is a huge hindrance but then you throw in a much higher cost to make it suitable for any residential component and you basically have land that has been sitting for a decade and looks like it will continue to do so through what is shaping up to be the biggest building boom in OKC history.

Retail and office are really struggling right now and may continue to do so. Hotels may be an option but that sector looks well-served with more planned. That leaves residential which has continued to do well, but if you can't build apartments or condos without knowing the exact cost to get the property livable, there doesn't seem to be a way forward.

And because of the ownership nature -- a bunch of owners in one co-op -- nobody seems very motivated.

Does the site not qualify for an EPA Brownfield Cleanup Grant?

Does the site not qualify for an EPA Brownfield Cleanup Grant?

Would think it would qualify for the EPA grant but then also would think the state and Fed govts would be able to assist with it as well. Having it sit does nothing for the city and with how close the property is to the river you have to wonder if there are additional impact concerns with the contamination reaching the water table.

This site reminds me of the 1990 compact Toyota pick up with the four banger on Facebook marketplace. The owner still thinks they’ll get $22,500 for it even with a rod knocking

Does the site not qualify for an EPA Brownfield Cleanup Grant?

No it does not. Grants only go to governmental or quasi-governmental entities. Grants are not allowed for privately owned property. Now, if the City or State has Brownfields revolving loan funds, the owners could apply for a low interest loan. However those funds are limited and likely not even in the ballpark of the amounts needed to remediate the site.

^

Hotels may be an option but that sector looks well-served with more planned. That leaves residential which has continued to do well, but if you can't build apartments or condos without knowing the exact cost to get the property livable, there doesn't seem to be a way forward.

Pete is correct...to make this site profitable, it will likely have to have a residential component. That will make cleanup magnitudes higher in cost. Even after cleanup, any residential construction will likely have to be equipped with vapor intrusion bypass equipment, which can be very costly. Also, even a hotel component will be difficult as those too will likely require cleanup to residential levels. The break between Commercial and Residential cleanup levels is basically answered by the question..."will there be persons present who are in a structure for more than 24 hours at a time. Also, if any development involves daycares or a school, the cleanup will have to be to residential levels. Now, if a development has multiple components, residential, hotel, commercial, etc...only the actual parcels where the residential, hotels, etc are situated have to be to residential levels, so a developer could have residential in one section of the whole site, and avoid the massive costs of residential over the whole site, but that can still be problematic. A big question is what is the condition of the groundwater below the site. There could be a large area of groundwater. How contaminated it is? It is pretty much unknown because I do not believe a phase I or phase II site assessments have been done.

Flashback to 2017 when demolition was starting:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/coop100817a.jpg

It does not. The cost of cleanup is currently unknown because full environmental assessments have not been performed. That is the main reason it has not sold. The costs for cleanup are unknown, thus no one will buy it for the inflated price. At least three different developers were close to buying it. I was in meetings with two. Those developers had fairly detailed plans for their developments but eventually walked away because of the uncertainty of cleanup costs and the apparent unwillingness of the owners to account for such in the purchase price. Those cleanup costs are why the city would never take it via imminent domain. Because the city would then be on the hook. It should be remembered that this whole area was once part of the turn of the century OKC oil fields. There was also a refinery there if I remember correctly. Then decades of industrial use. The amount of contamination could be very high, but no one knows. Most developers want a mix of commercial and residential to make their projects work. A residential component makes the cleanup way more expensive as the maximum contamination levels come way down if folks are living there. The owner also appears to be unwilling to clean it up because they too fear the price tag. Until the owner cleans it up, or reduces the price to account for the possible contamination, it will just sit like it is.

Thanks for such a well written post that clears up many "how come..." questions about valuation and viability.

Yukong is the man.

No it does not. Grants only go to governmental or quasi-governmental entities. Grants are not allowed for privately owned property. Now, if the City or State has Brownfields revolving loan funds, the owners could apply for a low interest loan. However those funds are limited and likely not even in the ballpark of the amounts needed to remediate the site.

So not even OERB?

So, this property is basically hopeless unless the city or state somehow acquire it through a land swap or something similar. Thats what is seems as a total layman.

I still don't understand why the contamination is only seems to be a problem IF someone wants to buy and use the land... if the contamination is already there and causing problems it should be cleaned up now, regardless of sale or future use.

I still don't understand why the contamination is only seems to be a problem IF someone wants to buy and use the land... if the contamination is already there and causing problems it should be cleaned up now, regardless of sale or future use.

Agree 1000% - why not make the polluter responsible for cleaning up their mess?

Agree 1000% - why not make the polluter responsible for cleaning up their mess?

i'm assuming it would be they were grandfathered in? or given and exemption. and thus it's on the next owner.

Agree 1000% - why not make the polluter responsible for cleaning up their mess?

The American way is to privatize profits and socialize costs. We very rarely hold corporate polluters to task, more often than not they get to write their own rules.

Agree 1000% - why not make the polluter responsible for cleaning up their mess?

That’s not how things work. Companies get bailed out but stil make profits. Think paycheck protection loan fiasco. Those loans were designed to be forgiven., same with this situation. The business structure is designed to minimize private cost while maximizing private profits

I got a call from someone at the OERB several months back about property that my Wife's family owns in western Oklahoma. there was a report of old storage tanks leaking oil onto the ground. They said they would clean it up for nothing if we give them permission and they did. Not sure how that came about but maybe there are options for brownfield funds.

It is pretty much unknown because I do not believe a phase I or phase II site assessments have been done.

How much would the assessments costs so they can figure out what the cleanup would cost?

Since I switched the plant for a number of years, wondering what the ground pollution might be. We delivered cars loaded with cottonseed, and pulled cars with bales of cotton lint, and tank cars of cottonseed oil. Whatever the processing was, not questioning, just wonder where the pollution comes from.

So not even OERB?

The OERB is not in the business of buying commercial property, so no. There is no budget for a state agency to buy property to clean up and sell to a commercial entity.

The bottom line is this…either the current owners spend the unknown amount of money to clean it, or they reduce the price to enable a purchaser to be able to make the money work considering the clean up costs. Short of those two things, it will sit empty like it has for several years. The ball is completely in the current owners hands. The City and the State are not going to bail them out.

I still don't understand why the contamination is only seems to be a problem IF someone wants to buy and use the land... if the contamination is already there and causing problems it should be cleaned up now, regardless of sale or future use.

The reason is that as the property currently sits...no environmental harm is occurring. It occurred decades up to 100 years ago. Since there are no ongoing releases...then there isn't a real need to do anything. The problem comes when someone wants to develop the property. Under the law, for most contamination issues, there are two main screen levels...industrial which is more lax, and residential which is very strict. Because the property was industrial, there wasn't an issue. And, if a developer wanted to just put in a commercial development, then the cleanup would not be as difficult. But as previously stated, the only way to really make this profitable is to have a residential component. That causes the most stringent of cleanup requirements. That drives the cost way way up. But as the property sits now...there isn't a real issue.

So, this property is basically hopeless unless the city or state somehow acquire it through a land swap or something similar. Thats what is seems as a total layman.

Not going to happen. Not a chance. The city and the state will not take the property in a land swap. Neither are in the "development" business themselves, and neither is going to expend taxpayer money to benefit private development.

Agree 1000% - why not make the polluter responsible for cleaning up their mess?

The majority of the contamination of that property occurred over 100 years ago. It is likely that the "generators" of the contamination have been gone from existence for close to 100 years. It would be virtually impossible if not wholly impossible to determine who generated the contamination. Under RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) and state environmental laws, the responsible parties are the owners of property and the operators. Since the operators of the oil field businesses are no longer in existence, then the environmental agencies go after the owners. That is one of the reasons neither the state or the city will take the property. As owner, they do not want the liability. Another big problem for a developer is without knowing the extent of the contamination, no bank will finance the purchase or development because no bank or financial company wants a mortgage on contaminated property because they would not want to foreclose and then own contaminated property that they couldn't sell without remediation. It is a catch 22. Either the current owner remediates the property, or they take cleanup costs into consideration as to the purchase price.

i'm assuming it would be they were grandfathered in? or given and exemption. and thus it's on the next owner.

Not grandfathered it...they likely no longer exist. The majority of the contamination occurred over 100 years ago.

I got a call from someone at the OERB several months back about property that my Wife's family owns in western Oklahoma. there was a report of old storage tanks leaking oil onto the ground. They said they would clean it up for nothing if we give them permission and they did. Not sure how that came about but maybe there are options for brownfield funds.

That's what they do. They will clean up current and ongoing contamination, but I doubt that they would step in here. Usually they do cleanups for private land owners who are trying to commercially market their property. This is not one they would entertain.