Given how doubtful Steve has been about this particular development from day one, I don't believe for a moment that the two were related.

They weren't. I've personally discussed the "jealous" development with Steve since it fizzled, and this BrIcktown Towers "project" had nothing to do with it whatsoever..

Bricktown Towers from day one was a fishing expedition for OPM. When the market was super-hot, they apparently almost caught a lender, at that. But when a market cools it becomes really easy to say no to someone with no documented development experience of that scale and apparently no heavy-hitter as a development partner. Good intentions (if they were even good, that is) doesn't build buildings.

I've personally discussed the "jealous" development with Steve since it fizzled

What did he say about it? Any insights that the average joe poster doesn't know?

They weren't. I've personally discussed the "jealous" development with Steve since it fizzled, and this BrIcktown Towers "project" had nothing to do with it whatsoever..

Bricktown Towers from day one was a fishing expedition for OPM. When the market was super-hot, they apparently almost caught a lender, at that. But when a market cools it becomes really easy to say no to someone with no documented development experience of that scale and apparently no heavy-hitter as a development partner. Good intentions (if they were even good, that is) doesn't build buildings.

I think you are right. And people should realize there is a difference between "fishing expedition" and "pipe dream". On a fishing expedition you might actually catch a big one. Everything had to go just right and the stars line up, but it didn't happen.

What did he say about it? Any insights that the average joe poster doesn't know?

Steve discussed a bit of it with me, but it's not appropriate to betray that confidence. He covered overall details in two of his chats:

OKC Central Chat transcript, May 1, 2015 | News OK (http://newsok.com/okc-central-chat-transcript-may-1-2015/article/5415380) (11:48 AM entry)

and

OKC Central Chat transcript, May 15, 2015 | News OK (http://newsok.com/okc-central-chat-transcript-may-15-2015/article/5419383) (11:36 AM entry)

Steve discussed a bit of it with me, but it's not appropriate to betray that confidence. He covered overall details in two of his chats:

OKC Central Chat transcript, May 1, 2015 | News OK (http://newsok.com/okc-central-chat-transcript-may-1-2015/article/5415380) (11:48 AM entry)

and

OKC Central Chat transcript, May 15, 2015 | News OK (http://newsok.com/okc-central-chat-transcript-may-15-2015/article/5419383) (11:36 AM entry)

Holy Moly, that would of been a fantastic development. Too bad... Maybe the idea will be revived soon.

Holy Moly, that would of been a fantastic development. Too bad... Maybe the idea will be revived soon.

Putting the pieces together it appears that the Producers Co-op may have been a factor in killing it. It's unfortunate that even though it provides a lot of jobs it is somewhat an impediment to downtown development. Hopefully eventually the relocate and sell the land.

Putting the pieces together it appears that the Producers Co-op may have been a factor in killing it. It's unfortunate that even though it provides a lot of jobs it is somewhat an impediment to downtown development. Hopefully eventually the relocate and sell the land.

If we are talking about the Bricktown Towers (subject of THIS thread) then the Co-op didn't kill it. If you are talking about the fantasy development, then probably so.

The more I drive by Producer's CoOp, the more I can't stand it. I'd rather have all of those jobs either lost or moved elsewhere in the city, have the entire lot leveled and built up into new development than it to be a stain along I-40.

The more I drive by Producer's CoOp, the more I can't stand it. I'd rather have all of those jobs either lost or moved elsewhere in the city, have the entire lot leveled and built up into new development than it to be a stain along I-40.

It appears you don't care about other people's jobs, but why don't we first worry about bringing density to areas that have momentum now...midtown, Sosa, CTS, Film Row, Innovation District, Lots adjacent to Myriad gardens, Infill of Automobile Alley, etc. We have lots to build up before that environmentally challenged area has to be developed.

And, the BT towers was never going on Producers Coop.

Oh, I care about people's jobs. But in an area the size of Producer's CoOp there could be hundreds more jobs than there are at the CoOp. Especially if it's developed right with office space. I wish the CoOp had moved to their property at SW 29th and Council. It would have fixed a number of problems at once. It would keep the CoOp in business, free up the land near Bricktown, and develop the old tire plant.

How many people work at the Co-op? In the few times I have walked by I don't see an overwhelming amount of cars. I would be surprised if 20 people worked there.

Not related to the COOP, but is the owner of that TK7 building still around? Is he just waiting to file more lawsuits against developers?

I've drove by there countless times. I have yet to see one person walking around there. It's not like it's a major manufacturing facility with hundreds or thousands of employees. One idea I had, was the city buying them out and selling off the property either as a whole, or in parcels to future developers. The problem would be getting all the money back. But in reality, the tax revenue from the development would probably pay back what's left and then some.

I've drove by there countless times. I have yet to see one person walking around there. It's not like it's a major manufacturing facility with hundreds or thousands of employees. One idea I had, was the city buying them out and selling off the property either as a whole, or in parcels to future developers. The problem would be getting all the money back. But in reality, the tax revenue from the development would probably pay back what's left and then some.

Dont think the city legally can eminent domain the property to then sell or hand over to private developers. Besides, as mentioned above, there is still so much space, land, and property available around downtown that can be redeveloped. I say let the market decide. When it comes time that the co-op property is badly needed for redevelopment, then you will see an ambitious, game changing development. Anything done prior to that point, will artificially induce something that will likely be a big disappointment to us all.

Also, have industrial property and businesses near a downtown isnt something thats rare only to OKC.

I know one option the Coop is considering is getting out of the processing business altogether and out-sourcing that function to another company.

The property is owned by all the members of the Coop so they could sell it off, make a profit, and not necessarily need a new processing plant.

I believe that is the direction they are headed.

Also, have industrial property and businesses near a downtown isnt something thats rare only to OKC.

True. This has really become an issue though since the I-40 relocation and impending construction of the Boulevard. The Co-op used to be hidden away in the south side of the I-40 barrier in no-mans land. Since the relocation of I-40, its right in the middle of downtown and much more visible than it once was. It will become even moreso once the Boulevard is complete.

I know one option the Coop is considering is getting out of the processing business altogether and out-sourcing that function to another company.

The property is owned by all the members of the Coop so they could sell it off, make a profit, and not necessarily need a new processing plant.

I believe that is the direction they are headed.

That would certainly explain why they put the Dayton Tire property up for sale.

Mazaheri and Champion Hotels closed on the lumberyard property on Friday.

$8 million for 5.9 acres.

Said they don't have immediate plans and want to wait and see what happens with the Producers Coop property.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/lumberyard091015.jpg

The best thing they could do (IMO) to help the coop, which in turn helps them as well, is to let the city build out Oklahoma Ave south of the boulevard all the way to the coop site. This gives them two corners at a prime intersection to do hotels and creates access to the coop that doesn't exist and makes the coop non-trivially more attractive. Also it ensures that any future traffic to the coop has to go by whatever is built on their land at that intersection (vs if they built in a way where there wasn't an intersection and people had to go around the property instead...

Richard Mize's article.

Mid-States Wholesale Lumber's sale opens way for Oklahoma City Boulevard development | News OK (http://newsok.com/mid-states-wholesale-lumbers-sale-opens-way-for-oklahoma-city-boulevard-development/article/5446363)


"This property is a crucial link between Bricktown and development south of the boulevard,” Gregory said. “I've been watching the property for years and knew the time was right to give the property new life.

"The new intersection at Oklahoma Avenue and the boulevard changes everything. Bricktown will have a new south entrance, and this property will provide key access to the Producers Co-op property to the south, which is now in the process of being master planned.”

Now in the process of being master planned, eh? That's interesting.

Now in the process of being master planned, eh? That's interesting.

Interesting. Hopefully it pans out and whatever is done at the Lumberyard is a quality tie-in. Since the Producers Co-Op never connected to the grid, I really think a master planned community would be best fit for that area.

I can't wait to see on here, Newsok.com, or some other news website that plans are being made for demolition of the CoOp. I'm not from here originally, but just seeing that place by Downtown is a drag. So much potential waiting to be unleashed in a much better form that decades old metal clad buildings.

I can't wait to see on here, Newsok.com, or some other news website that plans are being made for demolition of the CoOp. I'm not from here originally, but just seeing that place by Downtown is a drag. So much potential waiting to be unleashed in a much better form that decades old metal clad buildings.

At least it's not stinking up all of downtown like it was last summer.

I noticed this 8 million dollar sales transaction was listed in the Saturday DOK.

Pete, have you heard anything about this site anytime recently

Pete, have you heard anything about this site anytime recently

I am sure nothing will happen here until plans to develop the Producers Coop come along.

I am sure nothing will happen here until plans to develop the Producers Coop come along.

Do you think it will be like the Fred Jones building where two groups are working together to redevelop a large area? I would hope there would be some sort of master plan and two groups don't act individually.

I can't wait to see on here, Newsok.com, or some other news website that plans are being made for demolition of the CoOp. I'm not from here originally, but just seeing that place by Downtown is a drag. So much potential waiting to be unleashed in a much better form that decades old metal clad buildings.

It will be a positive move in the right direction to get rid of this 'clinking clanking clattering collection of collagenous junk.'

A couple of months ago, the owners of this property brought out some graders, installed some cheap lights and started operating as a pay-to-park lot. Quickly thereafter started to store semi trucks there as well.

This was in violation of the municipal code that requires pavement for any type of parking. And of course, there are all types of design district regulations that prohibit this sort of thing; they never filed for any sort of approval.

The city recently shut them down. Somebody I know well may have been the person to file a complaint. :)


It's the same owner (Fred Mazaheri) that brought suit against the City that ended up being resolved in them selling him the old Goodwill site near Scissortail Park. And despite covenants in that sales agreement, there has been no movement towards the required development timeframe. Instead, he is operating another paid parking facility there.

Mazaheri also proposed an ambitious hotel development just east of Oklahoma Ranch (the old Bodyworks site) but he instead put it up for sale years ago and it's still a dirt lot.

He is also involved with the Strawberry Fields group as he owns a lot of the property that fronts the park on the west.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/lumberyard112418a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/lumberyard101622a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/lumberyard021023a.jpg

It's the same owner (Fred Mazaheri) that brought suit against the City that ended up being resolved in them selling him the old Goodwill site near Scissortail Park. And despite covenants in that sales agreement, there has been no movement towards the required development timeframe. Instead, he is operating another paid parking facility there.

Mazaheri also proposed an ambitious hotel development just east of Oklahoma Ranch (the old Bodyworks site) but he instead put it up for sale years ago and it's still a dirt lot.

He is also involved with the Strawberry Fields group as he owns a lot of the property that fronts the park on the west.

Do we have any idea how long we're going to be forced to allow Fred Mazaheri to hold all of these high-value properties hostage? I'm aware the goodwill site has a legally obligated timeframe for development(2026?) so that's not really included in this question.

Is it really as simple as the fact that we are required to sit and watch this guy do whatever he wants with the lots until he sells them or develops them?

Do we have any idea how long we're going to be forced to allow Fred Mazaheri to hold all of these high-value properties hostage? I'm aware the goodwill site has a legally obligated timeframe for development(2026?) so that's not really included in this question.

Is it really as simple as the fact that we are required to sit and watch this guy do whatever he wants with the lots until he sells them or develops them?

and how do you propose you "take" from him the property that he OWNS ... ??

Allowing property owners to run these shady pay-to-park lots obviously works against having the property developed.

Even as much respect as I have for the Midtown Renaissance group, they would certainly be more motivated to develop the property between Scissortail Park and the Myriad Gardens if they weren't already generating a ton of revenue from the Thunder contract and general parking.

MidtownR is operating within the proper channels; all you can do is report the unapproved parking areas to force an owner to either spend a bunch of money to properly put in a parking lot (not just the paving but all the design requirements downtown) or build a proper commercial development -- those are the only options to generate revenue from downtown property.

The Mazaheri website is so delightfully suburban. The landing page is just a collection of strip mall photos. Exactly the kind of person you want holding several key downtown properties.

and how do you propose you "take" from him the property that he OWNS ... ??

I'm not proposing anything. I'm uninformed. I am asking a question to become more informed. I never once suggested or said "take the property" so I'm not sure where that came from.

I asked a question regarding if there is literally nothing we/the city can do in regards to him not developing or selling the property.

It's not about the city taking his property the question was literally as simple as asking if there's nothing that can be done.

I asked a question regarding if there is literally nothing we/the city can do in regards to him not developing or selling the property.



no there is nothing the city can do to make him sell or develop the property ..

no there is nothing the city can do to make him sell or develop the property ..

They have a contract with him on the Goodwill site that requires various development milestones and it appears they are not being enforced.

Separate from the Lumberyard, but they specifically put those contingencies into the sales contract for Goodwill to ensure it would be developed in a timely manner.

They have a contract with him on the Goodwill site that requires various development milestones and it appears they are not being enforced.

Separate from the Lumberyard, but they specifically put those contingencies into the sales contract for Goodwill to ensure it would be developed in a timely manner.

right that is great and they should enforce that .. ..... but we were talking about his other property's not including that one ..

I'm not proposing anything. I'm uninformed. I am asking a question to become more informed. I never once suggested or said "take the property" so I'm not sure where that came from.

I asked a question regarding if there is literally nothing we/the city can do in regards to him not developing or selling the property.

It's not about the city taking his property the question was literally as simple as asking if there's nothing that can be done.

A land value tax would immediately solve this issue.

Thank you for reporting this. These pay to park lots that have basically no oversight are very shady indeed. Speaking of Midtown, how about these two lots here? They seem to be violating the same code, but for years.

https://i.imgur.com/IvlBq1z.png

Thank you for reporting this. These pay to park lots that have basically no oversight are very shady indeed. Speaking of Midtown, how about these two lots here? They seem to be violating the same code, but for years.

https://i.imgur.com/IvlBq1z.png

I think these have gone through the proper channels to be parking lots.

^

They are not charging for those lots, are they?

A land value tax would immediately solve this issue.

That would be illegal in Oklahoma. Not a realistic or doable solution here.

then perhaps one that needs to be implemented, make it specifically for urban downtown areas of OKC (and Tulsa perhaps if they want it?)

the state would possibly benefit from the added revenue they could tack on and/or the urban lots getting developed (thereby adding revenue to the state).

^

They are not charging for those lots, are they?

Pretty sure it is. Thought they put a kiosk in the big lot to pay to park.

Pretty sure it is. Thought they put a kiosk in the big lot to pay to park.

Anyone can report them and then see what the city says.

We can simply choose to park only in city owned lots/garages and not give these private owners any of our money. I do go out of my way to park in city owned parking whenever I have to pay for parking.

Those lots in midtown have signage and kiosks to pay, including an app. However, I have never seen it enforced... it is probably one of those deals of zero enforcement, but for those that don't know - thanks sucker!

I think there is a similar lot across from [what was] The Yard, where there is spots and signs in front with an app to pay. However, as long as you aren't camped there for days - I am sure no one will even know a car is there.

It is a solid business strategy for those lots since they would otherwise be used for free anyways. A couple scary signs to score some cashflow.

In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

True. It is just legally a long process in Oklahoma with many steps.

And then the taking entity has to pay fair market value for said property. Which also can go before judges.

^

Not just long but extremely expensive and you still don't know if a court will allow it if challenged.

Mazaheri has filed for a variance to allow this parking lot to operate despite being against code. He cites an agreement with Paycom Center and that the use is temporary.

I am pretty sure he is trying to do the same thing with the property he owns directly south of the new convention center parking.


https://i.imgur.com/9mCtbEn.png


https://i.imgur.com/4Zoyzqc.png

He's owned the property for 8 years and they continued to let hundreds of cars park on this property (for a charge) after being fined several times. They did it again this past weekend.

Why should he be allowed to operate an unpaved paid parking lot? It's against all types of ordinances and design codes.

Also, claiming it is 'temporary' is ridiculous. What surface parking lot isn't temporary?


His M.O. is to buy property, promise big things then do absolutely nothing with them. He forced the City to give him the former Goodwill property as part of a lawsuit he brought and he has yet to meet any of the development deadlines.

On top of all this, this Lumberyard property sits directly east of the taxpayer-paid-for parking garage which is owned by the City. That garage is never full so basically he's taking paid parking from a multi-level structure (and also taking revenue from the City) by charging less because he hasn't even bothered to pave his lot or do anything that remotely conforms with design ordinances.


And if this gets approved, what's to stop every unpaved lot downtown from following suit?

Allowing unpaved parking is not only an eyesore but allows owners to generate a bunch of revenue and never do anything with the property.

Land value tax.

Land value tax.

We heard you the first 50 times.


There are ordinances and contracts in place to deal with this; let's see if they are enforced.

Mazaheri is single handedly deterring downtown development.

He's owned the property for 8 years and they continued to let hundreds of cars park on this property (for a charge) after being fined several times. They did it again this past weekend.

Why should he be allowed to operate an unpaved paid parking lot? It's against all types of ordinances and design codes.

Also, claiming it is 'temporary' is ridiculous. What surface parking lot isn't temporary?


His M.O. is to buy property, promise big things then do absolutely nothing with them. He forced the City to give him the former Goodwill property as part of a lawsuit he brought and he has yet to meet any of the development deadlines.

On top of all this, this Lumberyard property sits directly east of the taxpayer-paid-for parking garage which is owned by the City. That garage is never full so basically he's taking paid parking from a multi-level structure (and also taking revenue from the City) by charging less because he hasn't even bothered to pave his lot or do anything that remotely conforms with design ordinances.


And if this gets approved, what's to stop every unpaved lot downtown from following suit?

Allowing unpaved parking is not only an eyesore but allows owners to generate a bunch of revenue and never do anything with the property.

Maybe OKC should start impounding the vehicles that park in those kinds of lots. That would put a stop to it once word gets out that's what will happen and people have to pay impound fees to get their car back.

Maybe OKC should start impounding the vehicles that park in those kinds of lots. That would put a stop to it once word gets out that's what will happen and people have to pay impound fees to get their car back.

i don't think they can legally do that to a vehicle parked on private property ..

i don't think they can legally do that to a vehicle parked on private property ..

The city should ticket all of the cars in these lots for parking on an unpaved surface. I believe the ticket is 100 dollars. It doesn't matter if the property is private or not. Have code enforcement sweep through the area a couple of times a day for a week and these lots would be gone.