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.

also don't think they can do that ..

when someone parks on their grass at a house that is not a ticket for the car .. it is a violation for the house ..

also don't think they can do that ..

when someone parks on their grass at a house that is not a ticket for the car .. it is a violation for the house ..

Then have code enforcement write a violation for the owner of the address for every car on that unpaved surface.

also don't think they can do that ..

when someone parks on their grass at a house that is not a ticket for the car .. it is a violation for the house ..

Even better. The penalty should be assessed to the property owner facilitating the illegal parking. There would be little reason for the site owners to operate these pay to park lots if every car coming in was going to cost them 100 dollar fine. This should be heavily enforced with zero tolerance.

Give the parking lot owner whatever days are allowed to correct this problem (must meet code for paved surface lot for parking) with appropriate fines and penalties for code violations.

Even better. The penalty should be assessed to the property owner facilitating the illegal parking. There would be little reason for the site owners to operate these pay to park lots if every car coming in was going to cost them 100 dollar fine. This should be heavily enforced with zero tolerance.

except i think the violation is not written to be a ticket per car ... it is just a ticket ..

This board has weird expectations for development.

What the eff is a "Land Value Tax"? How is that different than property tax that is already being levied? The land is valued and taxed!

If the dirt that land owners is so valuable, then buy it from them and develop it! How is anyone stopping progress? Strawberry fields is not a good deal! Those investors regret the investment, largely because it doesn't work at the current densities, demand, interest rates, construction costs and rents.....

This board has weird expectations for development.

What the eff is a "Land Value Tax"? How is that different than property tax that is already being levied? The land is valued and taxed!

If the dirt that land owners is so valuable, then buy it from them and develop it! How is anyone stopping progress? Strawberry fields is not a good deal! Those investors regret the investment, largely because it doesn't work at the current densities, demand, interest rates, construction costs and rents.....

I've heard countless developers say the same thing about Strawberry Fields, as I know many have been approached.

It makes me wonder what is ever going to change because they control so much important property and don't seem to have any sort of workable plan.

This board has weird expectations for development.

What the eff is a "Land Value Tax"? How is that different than property tax that is already being levied? The land is valued and taxed!

If the dirt that land owners is so valuable, then buy it from them and develop it! How is anyone stopping progress? Strawberry fields is not a good deal! Those investors regret the investment, largely because it doesn't work at the current densities, demand, interest rates, construction costs and rents.....

Property taxes assess the value of the structures/improvements on a property. Land value tax only assess the value of the land based on its location. So a vacant lot downtown would essentially pay the same amount of taxes as the Devon tower. Makes it impossible for someone to buy and hold property for long periods of time. Basically forces the owner to develop a property now or sell to someone who will.

Toronto implemented LVT-Lite in 2018. They currently have over 250 highrises being constructed. They also use TIFs but the money collected goes to mass transit in the area and not to the developers.

There is a big push in Ontario, Canada to go full LVT.

^
I agree this is the best option. Too many owners are sitting on prime property downtown for "parking". The old Ford site between Myriad Gardens and Scissortail is another example. Too many prime lots that have been sitting vacant for decades.

Property taxes assess the value of the structures/improvements on a property. Land value tax only assess the value of the land based on its location. So a vacant lot downtown would essentially pay the same amount of taxes as the Devon tower. Makes it impossible for someone to buy and hold property for long periods of time. Basically forces the owner to develop a property now or sell to someone who will.

This is insane! You want to tax real property that doesn't exist?

Profit incentive is why I develop. If there is not one, I wouldn't. Property taxes are the largest expense I have on any/all properties.

If there is an incentive to develop, it will happen. If there is none, it won't, and people will hold land.

There isn’t enough capital in OKC to develop all of these lots at once, and there isn’t enough demand to fill all of those potential offices, hotels, restaurants, and retail spaces. “Forcing to sell to someone who will” might work in an area that has no more land to develop, but the number of people who can buy and develop these lots are few relative to the number of vacant parcels. It wouldn’t work. Where is all of this money coming from?

It’s not like developers are fighting each other for land downtown. They are building at a pace that the market is absorbing.

There isn’t enough capital in OKC to develop all of these lots at once, and there isn’t enough demand to fill all of those potential offices, hotels, restaurants, and retail spaces. “Forcing to sell to someone who will” might work in an area that has no more land to develop, but the number of people who can buy and develop these lots are few relative to the number of vacant parcels. It wouldn’t work. Where is all of this money coming from?

It’s not like developers are fighting each other for land downtown. They are building at a pace that the market is absorbing.

Which is the best way to do it, at least in my opinion.

^

There is another big factor at work, at least in terms of Strawberry Fields: they paid too much for the land for any type of development to work, at least at today's construction costs, interest rates, and what the market will bear on rent for housing, office and restaurant space.

They have been trying to find local development partners for years and the same conclusion has been reached and that was mostly before the recent inflation hit.

So, because they don't owe anything on the property (I believe it was all purchased without much or any loans) I'm afraid they will just sit on it for a long time because any development would not cash flow and nobody will buy it from them because it is overpriced. I'm sure this reality is what prompted the SF investor lawsuit.

Sometimes it's better to get out of something and lose a little money than to lose all your money

Property taxes are based on an Oklahoma County Assessor valuation. If the property is vacant, it is valued as vacant. When a property is improved, the land/building are valued by Oklahoma County - not sure they break out the land value.

Property taxes are based on an Oklahoma County Assessor valuation. If the property is vacant, it is valued as vacant. When a property is improved, the land/building are valued by Oklahoma County - not sure they break out the land value.

True, but the property assessment is generally reset at the last selling price.

Since most of this property was purchased recently and for a fair amount of money, the taxes are not cheap.

There isn’t enough capital in OKC to develop all of these lots at once, and there isn’t enough demand to fill all of those potential offices, hotels, restaurants, and retail spaces. “Forcing to sell to someone who will” might work in an area that has no more land to develop, but the number of people who can buy and develop these lots are few relative to the number of vacant parcels. It wouldn’t work. Where is all of this money coming from?

It’s not like developers are fighting each other for land downtown. They are building at a pace that the market is absorbing.

You are making a lot of assumptions. If OKC did have an LVT we don't know what the land would be valued at and we don't know what the tax rate would be, and both of those are the major components in calculating the taxes. However, one thing we do know is that the owners of vacant land couldn't afford to just sit on it indefinitely. At a minimum it would have to be used to generate enough revenue to pay the taxes. Now, would that be a dog park that sells annual memberships for $100/dog or a high-rise condo with a $10 million penthouse? Who knows - the market wiil figure that out, but the result is that the property is put to the best and highest use.

In the case of Toronto, they tax the land at its highest and best use regardless of what is built on it. A 50 story condo tower gets taxed the same as the 1 story fast-food establishmeng next door, which is why Toronto is building more 50 story condo towers than 1 story fast -food restaurants.

Toronto is doing this to drive down housing prices by simply flooding the market and it is working. Condo prices have dropped from over $1,000,000 to about $500,000 and there are about 65,000 vacant condos for sale do prices will continue to drop. Which also stops the real estate investment companies from buying up all the inventory because prices will be in decline for a long long time.

You are making a lot of assumptions. If OKC did have an LVT we don't know what the land would be valued at and we don't know what the tax rate would be, and both of those are the major components in calculating the taxes. However, one thing we do know is that the owners of vacant land couldn't afford to just sit on it indefinitely. At a minimum it would have to be used to generate enough revenue to pay the taxes. Now, would that be a dog park that sells annual memberships for $100/dog or a high-rise condo with a $10 million penthouse? Who knows - the market wiil figure that out, but the result is that the property is put to the best and highest use.

In the case of Toronto, they tax the land at its highest and best use regardless of what is built on it. A 50 story condo tower gets taxed the same as the 1 story fast-food establishmeng next door, which is why Toronto is building more 50 story condo towers than 1 story fast -food restaurants.

Toronto is doing this to drive down housing prices by simply flooding the market and it is working. Condo prices have dropped from over $1,000,000 to about $500,000 and there are about 65,000 vacant condos for sale do prices will continue to drop. Which also stops the real estate investment companies from buying up all the inventory because prices will be in decline for a long long time.


None of this makes any sense.

^

There is another big factor at work, at least in terms of Strawberry Fields: they paid too much for the land for any type of development to work, at least at today's construction costs, interest rates, and what the market will bear on rent for housing, office and restaurant space.

They have been trying to find local development partners for years and the same conclusion has been reached and that was mostly before the recent inflation hit.

So, because they don't owe anything on the property (I believe it was all purchased without much or any loans) I'm afraid they will just sit on it for a long time because any development would not cash flow and nobody will buy it from them because it is overpriced. I'm sure this reality is what prompted the SF investor lawsuit.


This deal will figure itself out. If there is no clear path to distributions or profit, they will market the property for sale and admit defeat. Property tax and interest (if they borrowed on the land) will eat them alive.

This is insane! You want to tax real property that doesn't exist?

Profit incentive is why I develop. If there is not one, I wouldn't. Property taxes are the largest expense I have on any/all properties.

If there is an incentive to develop, it will happen. If there is none, it won't, and people will hold land.

This may apply for you but OKC has numerous “buy and hold” examples that refute your all-encompassing declaration. They don’t have the resources or ability to develop these key properties so they are simply hoping some bigger fish will come in and offer them stupid money for the land.

Your purity ideology is why OKC has so many empty tracts sitting undeveloped in prime, extremely developable locations. There are plenty of developers who would move forward with land along Scissortail Park, but to do so they would have to offer insane money to the land squatters.

This deal will figure itself out. If there is no clear path to distributions or profit, they will market the property for sale and admit defeat. Property tax and interest (if they borrowed on the land) will eat them alive.

They stated in their prospectus to investors that they were acquiring everything without borrowing, so my understanding there is little to no debt that has to be serviced.

Also, I totaled the most recent property tax for everything they own in this area and it is right around $200K per year, which isn't that much in the grand scheme of their total investment to date.


They have already owned most of this property for around 5 years and they seem in zero hurry to actually develop or sell and I'm sure that's why a big group of their investors is suing them.

It's just not a good situation given they control so much important land that borders on huge public investments. One of the main people involved, Fred Mazaheri, has already missed contractual deadlines that were part of his settlement with the City that resulted in him getting ownership of the most important parcel: the former Goodwill property.

I'm not sure what the solution is but giving them $16 million in TIF money (for starters) seems a little irresponsible given everything that has happened to date.

None of this makes any sense.

Just so you know, most of us feel the same.

They stated in their prospectus to investors that they were acquiring everything without borrowing, so my understanding there is little to no debt that has to be serviced.

Also, I totaled the most recent property tax for everything they own in this area and it is right around $200K per year, which isn't that much in the grand scheme of their total investment to date.


They have already owned most of this property for around 5 years and they seem in zero hurry to actually develop or sell and I'm sure that's why a big group of their investors is suing them.

It's just not a good situation given they control so much important land that borders on huge public investments. One of the main people involved, Fred Mazaheri, has already missed contractual deadlines that were part of his settlement with the City that resulted in him getting ownership of the most important parcel: the former Goodwill property.

I'm not sure what the solution is but giving them $16 million in TIF money (for starters) seems a little irresponsible given everything that has happened to date.

My only question is, was the TIF money given to them up front? Or on an "as earned" basis? I honestly don't know how it works, or if it varies from project to project.

My only question is, was the TIF money given to them up front? Or on an "as earned" basis? I honestly don't know how it works, or if it varies from project to project.

Up front because it is to be used for infrastructure.

Up front because it is to be used for infrastructure.

Ouch. I wish we could, as citizens, actually petition TIF funding to be given out on either a reimbursement or after completion basis.

This may apply for you but OKC has numerous “buy and hold” examples that refute your all-encompassing declaration. They don’t have the resources or ability to develop these key properties so they are simply hoping some bigger fish will come in and offer them stupid money for the land.

Your purity ideology is why OKC has so many empty tracts sitting undeveloped in prime, extremely developable locations. There are plenty of developers who would move forward with land along Scissortail Park, but to do so they would have to offer insane money to the land squatters.



Developable doesn't equal profitable.

Developable doesn't equal profitable.

If the market can't support a development that will make your land profitable isn't that an indication that you over-paid for the land?

If the market can't support a development that will make your land profitable isn't that an indication that you over-paid for the land?

Correct. Or it has a higher/better use, like holding it and parking cars on it.....or grazing goats.

This is insane! You want to tax real property that doesn't exist?

Profit incentive is why I develop. If there is not one, I wouldn't. Property taxes are the largest expense I have on any/all properties.

If there is an incentive to develop, it will happen. If there is none, it won't, and people will hold land.

77, Are you sure the owner's of the vacant lots aren't just afraid or lazy? Are you saying that the old Ford dealership and Strawberry Fields cannot be developed profitably? I bet someone like Pivot or the Humpries could take Strawberry Fields or the old Ford Dealership and make money while improving the City. Now of course they cannot do this if the current Owners will not sell the property or if they value the land to highly.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Want a downtown grocery store? Want this lot to be developed and cleaned up as it is contaminated? Allow for a suburban style big box development with a couple extra gimmicks that make it slightly more walkable then your typical OKC suburban development.

I know that isn’t ideal but design it to be a throwaway development that easily be redeveloped in 15-20 years. Meanwhile focus quality urbanism on the seemingly unlimited rest of the land that exists in the core. There’s tons of it.

This should clear things up.

https://youtu.be/ok2uR3btMrE

This should clear things up.

https://youtu.be/ok2uR3btMrE
Or we could all just donate a dollar every time you mention a land value tax is needed and crowdfund a development here.

Good grief. This isn't SIM City. It took 50+ years to decimate OKC's core via urban renewal and many other factors. It has been remarkable how much it has bounced back in 25 years (the first downtown MAPS project landed in 1998), and really mostly in the past 10 years on the private side. Rebuilding devastated urban fabric takes time.

While I think it is perfectly legitimate to question the development chops of the Strawberry Fields ownership - especially in light of the recent legal developments - and also to some extent the lumberyard ownership (moreso due to the lack of performance on the Goodwill property), the ownership of the old Ford dealership is among the most proven developers in OKC. Most of what has happened in Midtown - which has been just shy of stunning - has been at the hands of the same group.

The rush to have SOMETHING on some of these sites - ANYTHING - is incredibly short-sighted. Regarding the Ford site there is an amazing amount of churn likely to happen nearby soon; Paycom, PSM, a new arena, but first likely a VOTE for a new arena. All of this will likely dictate what the highest and best use becomes for that dealership spot. And many of the comments I see here are also completely detached from reality when it comes to finance, business case, materials...it is now a very different world than it was even a year ago, much less three. The office market and commercial real estate in general are also very shaky.

And by the way, just because someone CAN AFFORD to build something doesn't mean that they SHOULD, or that it is the correct time for that project. At the end of the day a project simply MUST work in a spreadsheet to justify turning dirt. The bank requires it and the balance sheet requires it. Building something that looks great on paper but which doesn't pencil is the surest route to the poorhouse.

And for some premium properties I would much rather watch them sit unimproved for a few more years than to get the wrong thing, or a thing that isn't as great as it could be, just because someone was in a rush to put up something and to not have to look at an empty lot. I would expect that we won't see or hear anything regarding the old Ford lot until - at the very least - the dust settles on what will happen to PSM, the Paycom Center, and the new arena. And honestly that's most likely the best outcome.

The Ford site has been sitting vacant for decades. Only to have other development spring up around it. You can't tell me they are waiting for the right time, when they are just using it for Paycom Center parking. The Ford site is probably the most prime real estate in all of OKC and its a parking lot.

Myriad Gardens to the north, Scissortail to the south, Paycom Center to the east. In the heart of downtown, come on, give me a bait....

The Ford site has been sitting vacant for decades. Only to have other development spring up around it. You can't tell me they are waiting for the right time, when they are just using it for Paycom Center parking. The Ford site is probably the most prime real estate in all of OKC and its a parking lot.

Myriad Gardens to the north, Scissortail to the south, Paycom Center to the east. In the heart of downtown, come on, give me a bait....

Yeah, exactly what coming adjacent development is all of a sudden going to flip the switch that makes development of the Ford site possible? A $50 million adjacent park and botanical garden? A $120 million grand park? A $250 million Convention Center? A $300 million dollar NBA Arena? A movie studio next door? A streetcar on 2 sides? What could possibly be left that pushes that property into viability?

Yeah right just scrap the suburban big box idea it’s much better the way it is for the next two decades.

Yeah right just scrap the suburban big box idea it’s much better the way it is for the next two decades.

What do you mean? Are you suggesting just throw away 20 years of urbanism because all of the remaining property owners refuse to participate in it now?

What do you mean? Are you suggesting just throw away 20 years of urbanism because all of the remaining property owners refuse to participate in it now?
I’ll elaborate in a minute

Good grief. This isn't SIM City. It took 50+ years to decimate OKC's core via urban renewal and many other factors. It has been remarkable how much it has bounced back in 25 years (the first downtown MAPS project landed in 1998), and really mostly in the past 10 years on the private side. Rebuilding devastated urban fabric takes time.

While I think it is perfectly legitimate to question the development chops of the Strawberry Fields ownership - especially in light of the recent legal developments - and also to some extent the lumberyard ownership (moreso due to the lack of performance on the Goodwill property), the ownership of the old Ford dealership is among the most proven developers in OKC. Most of what has happened in Midtown - which has been just shy of stunning - has been at the hands of the same group.

The rush to have SOMETHING on some of these sites - ANYTHING - is incredibly short-sighted. Regarding the Ford site there is an amazing amount of churn likely to happen nearby soon; Paycom, PSM, a new arena, but first likely a VOTE for a new arena. All of this will likely dictate what the highest and best use becomes for that dealership spot. And many of the comments I see here are also completely detached from reality when it comes to finance, business case, materials...it is now a very different world than it was even a year ago, much less three. The office market and commercial real estate in general are also very shaky.

And by the way, just because someone CAN AFFORD to build something doesn't mean that they SHOULD, or that it is the correct time for that project. At the end of the day a project simply MUST work in a spreadsheet to justify turning dirt. The bank requires it and the balance sheet requires it. Building something that looks great on paper but which doesn't pencil is the surest route to the poorhouse.

And for some premium properties I would much rather watch them sit unimproved for a few more years than to get the wrong thing, or a thing that isn't as great as it could be, just because someone was in a rush to put up something and to not have to look at an empty lot. I would expect that we won't see or hear anything regarding the old Ford lot until - at the very least - the dust settles on what will happen to PSM, the Paycom Center, and the new arena. And honestly that's most likely the best outcome.

PSM = Prairie Surf? I'm used to that meaning Penn Square Mall

The Fred Jones Ford real estate belong to Hall Capital (the Fred Jones family) and Bob Howard. Mayor Holt has been employed by Hall Capital for several years. I think they have been pretty clear that they see this property as key to the urban core of a mature and growing city. The next use of it is a 100 year development. I see the Incomparable Myriad Convention Center as a salvage relic of an Urban Renewal Plan that is 50 years old. And that makes me understand how important it is to wait and make sure these blocks have the best and highest use long term development.

OK basically I’m trying to understand just how much demand do you seem to think exist in OKC for urban development? Enough that there is a very interesting discussion board to speculate and keep track of ongoing developments but do you really think with every single vacant lot that exists plus these large scale projects like Wheeler and attempts at it like Strawberry Fields that is also room for this entire plot to be developed in any exciting timeframe?

Even as popular as Wheeler is it still has a long ways to go before it is even halfway finished. Strawberry Fields can’t get off the ground. For every piece of land that is getting developed there’s probably 20 other plots in the core that are vacant or don’t have anything on it at all. Lower Bricktown has masses of parking that should be developed yet you want to see this land become some urban utopia?

Generally I’m in the camp Urban Pioneer pointing out in build for the long term and not just to have something *ANYTHING* but not with this land. It is a contaminated site that needs expensive clean up and soil remediation. OKC is a car dominate city. This is also right off of the interstate. A UNP style suburban development would be wildly successful IMO and give all the amenities people on here whine and complain downtown doesn’t have.

In the mean time we can focus on fixing lower Bricktown, building out Wheeler District and Strawberry Fields, on top of the seemingly endless vacant lots in almost every other district. Focus on fixing the Bricktown Canal.

Yes what has happened in Midtown is awesome. But even with the tons of investment it has seen you’re still hard pressed to find a spot where a vacant piece of land or giant parking lot isn’t visible.

None of that is meant to be a knock on OKC but rather focus on quality development over quantity. If the demand was so great in OKC we’d should no problem with larger scale construction happening in Wheeler, Strawberry Fields, Austin/Nashville style growth with infill happening left and right, and this development should be underway. But that just isn’t the reality.

The other thing is this property is essentially boxed in by a massive interstate to the south, a very pedestrian unfriendly boulevard to the north, an essentially dead/underutilized park to the east, and a giant train track viaduct with little to no access to the west. It’s such a weird thing to focus on in terms of wanting quality urban development here when there’s so many other places something like that built here could go and make those areas better.

And given its prime location off the interstate, I’ll make an even bolder statement and say this would be one of the most successful developments in Oklahoma City. It would also give people in downtown all the amenities right at their doorstep they would have anywhere else in the city.

At the end of the day, I just don’t think it’s realistic to expect every single piece of vacant land in and around downtown OKC to be developed into something you would expect in downtown Copenhagen. It needs to be some compromise in coming down to earth with our expectations. Getting this land developed now in generating tax revenue along with the soil being remediated with the expense of the next 10 to 15 years of it being a suburban big box style development does seem like a good long-term investment.

Given the fact that the long term sees a redevelopment of quality urban land, when the time calls. I don’t know why people on this thread are so scared that if something gets built now that’s the way it’s going to be forever.

Good grief. This isn't SIM City. It took 50+ years to decimate OKC's core via urban renewal and many other factors. It has been remarkable how much it has bounced back in 25 years (the first downtown MAPS project landed in 1998), and really mostly in the past 10 years on the private side. Rebuilding devastated urban fabric takes time.

While I think it is perfectly legitimate to question the development chops of the Strawberry Fields ownership - especially in light of the recent legal developments - and also to some extent the lumberyard ownership (moreso due to the lack of performance on the Goodwill property), the ownership of the old Ford dealership is among the most proven developers in OKC. Most of what has happened in Midtown - which has been just shy of stunning - has been at the hands of the same group.

The rush to have SOMETHING on some of these sites - ANYTHING - is incredibly short-sighted. Regarding the Ford site there is an amazing amount of churn likely to happen nearby soon; Paycom, PSM, a new arena, but first likely a VOTE for a new arena. All of this will likely dictate what the highest and best use becomes for that dealership spot. And many of the comments I see here are also completely detached from reality when it comes to finance, business case, materials...it is now a very different world than it was even a year ago, much less three. The office market and commercial real estate in general are also very shaky.

And by the way, just because someone CAN AFFORD to build something doesn't mean that they SHOULD, or that it is the correct time for that project. At the end of the day a project simply MUST work in a spreadsheet to justify turning dirt. The bank requires it and the balance sheet requires it. Building something that looks great on paper but which doesn't pencil is the surest route to the poorhouse.

And for some premium properties I would much rather watch them sit unimproved for a few more years than to get the wrong thing, or a thing that isn't as great as it could be, just because someone was in a rush to put up something and to not have to look at an empty lot. I would expect that we won't see or hear anything regarding the old Ford lot until - at the very least - the dust settles on what will happen to PSM, the Paycom Center, and the new arena. And honestly that's most likely the best outcome.

Great comment. Development for development's sake isn't a great idea. I feel like that's a one way ticket to poorly executed plans like lower bricktown that can't/won't easily be fixed for decades. It's not like there's a lack of available land in the core for anyone who really wants to develop something right now...it doesn't all need to be developed immediately.

Great comment. Development for development's sake isn't a great idea. I feel like that's a one way ticket to poorly executed plans like lower bricktown that can't/won't easily be fixed for decades. It's not like there's a lack of available land in the core for anyone who really wants to develop something right now...it doesn't all need to be developed immediately.
Lower Bricktown is precisely an example of quantity over quality and that’s why I’m advocating to focus on existing urban areas and letting this one be put to use as something a little less than urban, ala cookie cutter suburban development that would bring use and revenue to the area.

This wouldn’t be development for developments sake, this is simply being a matter of realistic expectations on how many quality urban developments you think OKC is capable of supporting. Getting this developed immediately in this regard is a good thing. That isn’t always the case everywhere but in this case I believe it would be.

All that "needs" to be developed with Strawberry Fields in the next 10-15 years are the park facing properties. The rest is mostly residential, and that will depend on when we have enough demand to support the quality developments there.

The Bob Howard lots are worthy of a Billion dollar development, so it's worth the wait to see what comes together. Given it's proximity to the Convention Center, it's very likely to have prime hotel space, so the change in demand over 10 years is consequential to the development.

Also, I would be willing to bet that WFH is greatly impacting the planning of development in this area (I-40, Western, Sheridan, Shields).

It really is just this simple.

Downtown OKC was wiped clean over 50 years ago and in the past 30 years the taxpayers have spent over $1 billion in public dollars to spur redevelopment. Since then large tracts of properties have been bought up by a very small number of firms and it is the belief of some (myself included) that most of these developers aren't developing on purpose. They are simply land speculators waiting for price increases. As proof, look how many developed parcels got developed right after being sold.

As informed citizens we fall into two groups - one group is content to sit and basically do nothing. The other group wants to force action to take place and if that means the current owners lose their shirts then so be it.

If the owners of the Lumberyard were hit today with a significant tax bill that punished them for holding vacant land what do you think they would do tomorrow?

As informed citizens we fall into two groups - one group is content to sit and basically do nothing. The other group wants to force action to take place and if that means the current owners lose their shirts then so be it.
I think there’s some middle ground to be had here.

It really is just this simple.

Downtown OKC was wiped clean over 50 years ago and in the past 30 years the taxpayers have spent over $1 billion in public dollars to spur redevelopment. Since then large tracts of properties have been bought up by a very small number of firms and it is the belief of some (myself included) that most of these developers aren't developing on purpose. They are simply land speculators waiting for price increases. As proof, look how many developed parcels got developed right after being sold.

As informed citizens we fall into two groups - one group is content to sit and basically do nothing. The other group wants to force action to take place and if that means the current owners lose their shirts then so be it.

If the owners of the Lumberyard were hit today with a significant tax bill that punished them for holding vacant land what do you think they would do tomorrow?


They would be forced to pay the tax bill the same way they pay property tax bills. The property would go up for sale. If the profit incentive didn't exist to develop it, the property wouldn't sell, because now there is a new large expense to hold the property. The value of the property would drop significantly due to this holding cost. The property tax would also drop.

If developing is as low risk/high reward as you suggest, then there must be many competitive sights adjacent or nearby the lumberyard for this valuable development concepts that are awaiting eager developers.

So land cost and the related tax bill would go down. Those happen to be two of the biggest obstacles to development. Plus keep in mind that the developer wouldn't pay any taxes on the structure itself. Wouldn't those 3 things actually help the developer?

I think there’s some middle ground to be had here.

Pragmatic middle ground doesn't get you any attention on these types of boards. Dogmatic, dramatic, attacking posts get the responses, and the "look at me, I'm so smart" posts do the best. SMH The attempt is to demean anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view. Ie "one group is content to sit and basically do nothing. The other group wants to force action to take place". Always a binary choice to some. Brilliant or stupid. Good or evil. Saint or sinner.

Look, there are two hard issues with the Lumberyard and Strawberry Fields:

First, the Lumberyard owners are violating all types of well-established city codes and design ordinances by running a pay parking lot on unpaved land.

Secondly, one of the principals in SF (the same guy as the Lumberyard, Fred Mazaheri) is required by contract to develop the old Goodwill parcel on a specific timeline and has already missed key deadlines. This came to pass because Mazaheri sued the City over land they took from him through eminent domain for Scissortail Park and resulted in him being granted the Goodwill property but with those contractual deadlines to develop.


Forget pie-in-the-sky, never-going-to-happen-in-a-million-years use taxes and other nonsense. We have two very specific issues that fall under clear existing law.

The cold reality is we need to see how the City deals with both of these situations before we even talk about some crazy conceptual ideas that are 1,000 steps beyond what is already on the books. There is a decent chance they are not going to force either of these issues -- at least they haven't so far. Therefore it's beyond absurd to talk about layering on even more onerous regulations.

The cold reality is we need to see how the City deals with both of these situations before we even talk about some crazy conceptual ideas that are 1,000 steps beyond the what is already on the books.
Have you even heard of any rumblings about the city even considering taking action? What is the hold up? Why wouldn’t the city do anything?

Have you even heard of any rumblings about the city even considering taking action? What is the hold up? Why wouldn’t the city do anything?

I've asked the City about the Goodwill site and I know Mazaheri has already missed one deadline and because of that will never come close to starting and completing work on schedule either. I do not believe he has been fined even though there are specific fines outlined in his contract.

And I know he has continued to operate the parking lot even though he has been served with multiple violations.


I'm sure the City doesn't want to get into more litigation because Mazaheri is an attorney (he can do his own legal work) while this sort of thing costs the City a bunch of money.

So now we are going to add much more complicated and onerous laws? Never, ever going to happen because we can't even enforce blatant violations to striaght-forward current issues.

If/when development does happen here and the remainder of the Producer's Coop, I hope they keep the existing climbing gym in the grand plan. I am biased because I use it, but it feels like such a unique structure that will retain a bit of the area's past history. (Plus, I feel it would be an affront to OKC's art scene to tear down Sinnett's mural on the facade)

^

That building is under separate ownership so it shouldn't be affected.

To the contrary, this sounds like the perfect time to add tax violations to his list by making it so expensive parking cars won't pay bill.

Mazaheri's parking lot variance was just presented at the RDC and it passed 6-3. Mazaheri wasn't present, but his attorney was.

Points of discussion from the board were mainly pertaining to setting a precedent in the area and also Mazaheri's timeline of planning to develop property in 3 years.

No one on the board discussed the fact that there is a brand new city parking garage that would appear to be more feasible for 'Paycom employees'.

The only work that will be done is paving the required amount of ADA spaces, everything else remains dirt/gravel. The variance is in place for 3 years.

^

Yeah, and he's already owned that property for 6 years and continued to operate the pay lot illegally long after he had been repeatedly fined.

What do you bet in 3 years' time he comes back and asks for an extension?

And what is to stop everyone with an empty lot from doing the same thing? It's super trashy and reflects badly on the City, especially after billions in public funds have been used to improve these areas.

And now we can't do anything to hold him accountable. Our city council just is not very good, and they hold the city back quote a bit.