...or, these tax dollars could be used to build downtown middle and high schools or even expand the Streetcar and pay for improvements at the Santa Fe hub (thus freeing up other dollars in the City budget to be spent elsewhere). The City estimates it will take $3 million to operate the streetcar annually, well here is $140 million. Heck, this money could even be used to help fund the Convention Hotel or even pay for cost overruns at the Convention Center.

Who would go to these schools or use the streetcar expansion?

People in OKC tend to think downtown has arrived with all the new housing complexes that have been built recently but reality is this city still has a long way to go. There are still significantly less people living in downtown OKC even now than most cities this size. People underestimate how far OKC fell behind in the 1970s and 1980s. I meet people all the time who end up moving to Edmond because they can't find a place in the core. For OKC to have the urbanist amenities many want to see, downtown has to be a place where people, lots of people, LIVE, not just visit. High-rise residential towers of this scale are a great way to make that happen. Tourists won't make the streetcar a success but people living in all the different districts on a large scale definitely will. OKC is rapidly improving but isn't there yet and still needs the MAPS model.

Plus, Kerry, you are still stuck on this idea that a TIF subsidy is like a loan which is isn't. That money won't exist if the complex doesn't get built. I can understand the point of view that the amount they are asking for is too high and I think the city will try to talk them down, but its absurd to suggest there shouldn't be a TIF granted at all. Face it, you dislike this project because it doesn't conform to your standard of perfect urbanism.

I have never once said no TIF funding - I just want the TIF funding to be used how it was intended - for public facilities. When Clayco shows what public facilities they plan to construct/fund with $142 million I'll shut up about it.

Now I 100% agree with people need to live downtown and not just visit from 9 to 5 - which is exactly why residential should front the park and not the office space. For the life of me I don't understand the mentality that puts companies over people. Could you imagine any other city that claims to want to encourage walkability/downtown living and then would build an iconic park and surround it with non-residential uses? Not even suburban subdivision developers do that.

That's not true, Hoya. If a project came along and built without requesting TIF funding - which is unlikely and certainly would be nothing of this scale or type if so - it would still generate incremental dollars that go into the TIF fund instead of to schools. They would just be spent on other TIF projects instead.

The only way to divert TIF district incremental money to schools/county would be to dismantle the TIF entirely.

Well okay, you got me there. It won't go to schools, because the TIF isn't set up to finance schools anyway. But a different development without $147 million in TIF funding will absolutely add more to the city's coffers.


Who would go to these schools or use the streetcar expansion?

People in OKC tend to think downtown has arrived with all the new housing complexes that have been built recently but reality is this city still has a long way to go. There are still significantly less people living in downtown OKC even now than most cities this size. People underestimate how far OKC fell behind in the 1970s and 1980s. I meet people all the time who end up moving to Edmond because they can't find a place in the core. For OKC to have the urbanist amenities many want to see, downtown has to be a place where people, lots of people, LIVE, not just visit. High-rise residential towers of this scale are a great way to make that happen. Tourists won't make the streetcar a success but people living in all the different districts on a large scale definitely will. OKC is rapidly improving but isn't there yet and still needs the MAPS model.

Plus, Kerry, you are still stuck on this idea that a TIF subsidy is like a loan which is isn't. That money won't exist if the complex doesn't get built. I can understand the point of view that the amount they are asking for is too high and I think the city will try to talk them down, but its absurd to suggest there shouldn't be a TIF granted at all. Face it, you dislike this project because it doesn't conform to your standard of perfect urbanism.

I want there to be more downtown housing. I think this is a great location for it. I think this is a cool design. I hope the city does talk them down. But in all negotiations, there has to be a point at which you are willing to walk away.

When I was in law school I met a very attractive girl (for a law student anyway). We hung out a few times, we flirted a bit. Then I found out what it cost to date her. She made an off-hand comment about some guy who had invited her to go snow skiing with him, and he'd pay for everything else, but he expected her to buy her own plane ticket (shock! horror!). The nerve of that guy! Her tastes were way too expensive for a poor old Del City boy. Some things aren't worth their price tag.

But in all negotiations, there has to be a point at which you are willing to walk away.


There is no doubt Clayco has a dollar amount they would walk away from. We need to find out what that amount is.

There is no doubt Clayco has a dollar amount they would walk away from. We need to find out what that amount is.

And bid one dollar more.

I'm not against the proposed towers at all. I just don't want the city to get taken to the cleaners. This is the first time I know of where a developer has requested such a large amount of TIF help.

That's not true, Hoya. If a project came along and built without requesting TIF funding - which is unlikely and certainly would be nothing of this scale or type if so - it would still generate incremental dollars that go into the TIF fund instead of to schools. They would just be spent on other TIF projects instead.

The only way to divert TIF district incremental money to schools/county would be to dismantle the TIF entirely.

I don't think that's true; I believe only a percentage of property tax goes to TIF #2, not all of it.

But frankly, the fact that very well-informed and extremely interested people are discussing this and still don't even know these answers (and I'm including myself in this group!) shows how difficult it is to get even basic reporting information for these huge projects being managed by the City. They do a horrible job in this area and it's something that needs to change.


I hope to have some time over the weekend to get more data because there is still a lot to this to understand before any decisions are made.

Now I 100% agree with people need to live downtown and not just visit from 9 to 5 - which is exactly why residential should front the park and not the office space. For the life of me I don't understand the mentality that puts companies over people. Could you imagine any other city that claims to want to encourage walkability/downtown living and then would build an iconic park and surround it with non-residential uses? Not even suburban subdivision developers do that.

Would you oppose the existing proposal as strongly on the current terms if the residential was fronting the park?

Are the TIF amounts requested in Clayco's proposal simply line item amounts, or are there specific objective set forth for the money. I've seen assertions that all this money/tax relief will just offset Clayco's expenditures entirely within the site boundaries. Yet, I've seen others argue that it will be used for off-site improvements much like the Devon TIF. Anyone have any hard information? Are the proposals on-line anywhere?

I don't think that's true; I believe only a percentage of property tax goes to TIF #2, not all of it.

But frankly, the fact that very well-informed and extremely interested people are discussing this and still don't even know these answers (and I'm including myself in this group!) shows how difficult it is to get even basic reporting information for these huge projects being managed by the City. They do a horrible job in this area and it's something that needs to change.


I hope to have some time over the weekend to get more data because there is still a lot to this to understand before any decisions are made.

Lots of money involved I'm sure. Take that block and the block the bus station sits on and you are talking over a 1/2 billion dollars in future developments. That bids the land values up in the surrounding area also. The land the Peacock restaurant sits on is sold.

Would you oppose the existing proposal as strongly on the current terms if the residential was fronting the park?

I am for good urbanism AND responsible government. I'll be happy when both are done. If 'tax and spend' doesn't work why would we think 'untax and spend' will work?

That's not true, Hoya. If a project came along and built without requesting TIF funding - which is unlikely and certainly would be nothing of this scale or type if so - it would still generate incremental dollars that go into the TIF fund instead of to schools. They would just be spent on other TIF projects instead.

The only way to divert TIF district incremental money to schools/county would be to dismantle the TIF entirely.

What are the boundaries of the present TIF district that includes this site? What is the millage? Where do loan repayments go (is it a revolving loan program, is OKC actually collecting?)

Does OKC keep or maintain any kind of public information on the TIF program?

Lots of money involved I'm sure. Take that block and the block the bus station sits on and you are talking over a 1/2 billion dollars in future developments. That bids the land values up in the surrounding area also. The land the Peacock restaurant sits on is sold.

Clayco's proposal is over 1/2 Billion Dollars by itself.

What are the boundaries of the present TIF district that includes this site? What is the millage? Where do loan repayments go (is it a revolving loan program, is OKC actually collecting?)

Does OKC keep or maintain any kind of public information on the TIF program?

I can answer some of these questions:

Boundaries of TIF #2: 13th, Western, I-235, old I-40


Also, keep in mind this TIF started in 2000 and expires in 2025. So, it only has 11 more years to run and since this project won't start generating increased property tax for at least three years (two years to build, then on more year before assessed -- took Devon 5 years) that means only about 8 years would remain.

That's a huge part of this math, because we are comparing 20-25 years of a new TIF vs. only about 8 years of the existing TIF, plus I'm quite sure the existing does not divert all property only a percentage.


I'll do a full analysis with several different scenarios, then confirm my assumptions/numbers are right with Brent Bryant who coordinates all this for the City.

Clayco's proposal is over 1/2 Billion Dollars by itself.

Yes is a lot of money, no doubt. I hope oil prices don't stay flat. Did the incentives for BASS PRO work? I think it is a chance we might have to take, but it is a little scary.


BTW I don't have the answers about BASS PRO.........just sending it out. Maybe some knows the ROI on it.

Yes is a lot of money, no doubt. I hope oil prices don't stay flat. Did the incentives for BASS PRO work? I think it is a chance we might have to take, but it is a little scary.


BTW I don't have the answers about BASS PRO.........just sending it out. Maybe some knows the ROI on it.

Whether Bass Pro made money for the city or not really wasn't the goal of the Bass Pro deal. The purpose was to act as a magnet to attract retail to Lower Bricktown. In that regards it was a great big failure.

Whether Bass Pro made money for the city or not really wasn't the goal of the Bass Pro deal. The purpose was to act as a magnet to attract retail to Lower Bricktown. In that regards it was a great big failure.

Bass Pro brought lots of PEOPLE to lower BT. It is up to businesses and developers to actually further take the chance and develop the retail. In that sense Hogan failed. Apparently retailers were looking for additional things, like rooftops. That has been slow to develop. Given the Clayco development wants to also bring high density population along with its development it is a way different thing. Perhaps it should have been "Bass Pro Village" to earn the assistance. But, one of the big "what if" questions for a tif is whether the development raises the value in the area above and beyond what would develop normally without the project. I think adding lots of above average income population in a concentrated area certainly makes the area more valuable to retailers, etc. than just adding a building to put a store in, or even an office where people go home 10 miles away.

I keep ready 140 plus million dollars. At this point a dollar figure has not been negotiated, so why use this number as a reference case argument ?

Like

Lots of sausage making going on here that should be done by the city and OCURA. Is there a lack of faith in them that makes people believe the funding for this project will be botched? I believe there is a 90 day period for negotiations, so unless our city officials are inept, they will feel out Clayco and see what is possible with the best use of TIF money. It could be there is ample parking in the plan to assist in the cc and arena; maybe the development will extend the gardens and create more public space, who knows, but I have faith the city will not just roll over and get nothing in return for the money.

Yes is a lot of money, no doubt. I hope oil prices don't stay flat. Did the incentives for BASS PRO work? I think it is a chance we might have to take, but it is a little scary.


BTW I don't have the answers about BASS PRO.........just sending it out. Maybe some knows the ROI on it.

Kind of breathtaking to consider that as the level of development we used to incentivize.

It's very healthy when people care enough about a community to get involved.

And the way this works is that the negotiations happen in private, then are presented to the City Council for approval. Most often, there is less than a week notice when it comes to the agenda items and even then the details aren't always revealed until the meeting itself.

So, it's wise to get up to speed and talk to your councilman with an informed opinion.

This is not only a ton of money, it will definitely set a precedent for much more development to come.

It's every bit as important as MAPS, just without the public vote.

This analysis by Steve is probably the best I've seen, for those who are able to see all of it.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5370467?embargo=1

Removed a renegade semicolon to appease the code gods.

Dr. Aldini, I presume.

Lots of sausage making going on here that should be done by the city and OCURA. Is there a lack of faith in them that makes people believe the funding for this project will be botched? I believe there is a 90 day period for negotiations, so unless our city officials are inept, they will feel out Clayco and see what is possible with the best use of TIF money. It could be there is ample parking in the plan to assist in the cc and arena; maybe the development will extend the gardens and create more public space, who knows, but I have faith the city will not just roll over and get nothing in return for the money.

Maybe, but this is the discussion we are having. Some people right now on OKCTalk would fork over the $140 million no questions asked for no other reason than they want the development and Clayco asked for the money.

I think most people, if not all, assume that questions are being asked. We're just not the ones asking them. I personally know the people asking these questions. They're not idiots. So I know they're doing their job in a competent way. While I may not agree with decisions they make, I know they're not asleep at the wheel. I think everyone on OKCTalk knows that.

Completely agree.

I absolutely trust Cathy O'Connor & Co. Cathy is probably the sharpest person in all of OKC government and she's done a great job with the Alliance and OCURA.


But of course, it's always good to understand all this stuff and get involved in the process.

And I think the MAPS comparison is a good one as this one project alone is about half the size of the original MAPS and also involves public tax dollars.

But since there is no public vote on this or any other TIF grants, the public has to get involved in another way; namely fully understanding all the complexities of the TIF's and also comparing different scenarios rather that assuming an all-or-nothing proposition.

You know, democracy, checks-and-balances and all that fun stuff. :)

Really?

I think most people, if not all, assume that questions are being asked. We're just not the ones asking them. I personally know the people asking these questions. They're not idiots. So I know they're doing their job in a competent way. While I may not agree with decisions they make, I know they're not asleep at the wheel. I think everyone on OKCTalk knows that.

I have faith that City leaders know what they are doing, but to my knowledge they aren't posting in this thread, and thus engaging in the this conversation. If you read through this thread it isn't hard to pick out the ones who would have already signed on the dotted line. How many times have we already read that if the City doesn't give the requested TIF amount this project isn't happening? Even Steve in his article yesterday about TIFs laid out the assumption that if Clayco doesn't build this project right now the lots will go undeveloped for 25 years.

Really?

I think most people, if not all, assume that questions are being asked. We're just not the ones asking them. I personally know the people asking these questions. They're not idiots. So I know they're doing their job in a competent way. While I may not agree with decisions they make, I know they're not asleep at the wheel. I think everyone on OKCTalk knows that.

Agree, lots of questions need to be asked, but would hate to see us lose this too. I bet a lot of this $ is coming from REIT. Could dry up later.

I'm not suggesting that they are posting here. I guess I'm seeing some pretty strong conclusions on the part of taxpayers being made in a vacuum. I love the discussion. Just caution against getting too worked up knowing that there are conversations that we're just not privy to.

I'm with you Pete. I'm a fan of transparency. But you know how some of this stuff is. It's all confidential during negotiations for obvious reasons. I'm holding out to see what the TIF proposals look like.Sorry if this has already been addressed, but does anyone know when that will be?

Part of the transparency should be the economic assumptions regarding growth with and without the project, and how those assumptions were arrived at. Often people ignore the impact of early start vs. late start. If you can move the growth angle/curve early then the impact in just a few years is substantially improved. So, while Steve may be wrong that this kind of development might be 25 years away using normal economic growth standards, the difference between this project and one half the investment still may be exponential in upcoming years.

OKC is a hot topic right now among developers, but can lose that momentum. I sat in a meeting in Texas last week with a mixed use developer active in the DFW and Houston area who said that their investors are asking them to turn from Dallas to other fast growing or currently hot cities...first among them OKC. However, this developer is very unsure of what the actual risks are as we have little real direct experience to indicate. If they could assess the risk and it is appropriate, they will come in. But no one wants to be the guinea pig in a high stakes game. A $530 Million risk is a HIGH stakes game, especially in OKC.

I'm holding out to see what the TIF proposals look like.

Will there be time to express concern and raise objections AFTER they reach a deal? If so, I'll wait.

(My edits)

This is key. This is why I'd be willing to pay a premium for residential projects in the CBD. Retailers are still counting households and expendable dollars and right now, just about any way you slice it, downtown comes up short. That leads to pure speculation plays and very little to no retail stability.

Any new residential lowers the risk threshold for other things and that alone is worth a pretty significant amount of money. What's the ratio: $ᵗᶦᶠ to -%ʳ?

Agree with this completely. As far as downtown has come there is still a long way to go and part of that is that there still aren't enough people in the core to be attractive to retailers. If you live in downtown OKC you still need to drive to the suburbs for basic living necessities. That should not be and every residential project gets downtown closer and closer to being able to have the kind of retail it needs to be a more self sustaining neighborhood. A development on this scale that will be mostly high income will be a great intangible benefit for everyone who lives downtown. I can't believe there is so much opposition to this on this board.

I'm with you Pete. I'm a fan of transparency. But you know how some of this stuff is. It's all confidential during negotiations for obvious reasons. I'm holding out to see what the TIF proposals look like.

The biggest issues I have with the process is that the information is almost never presented in a way that is easy to understand (as this thread demonstrates), the few people involved have their own biases (as all humans do) and then when it does come time to make the info public, there is usually a very short timeframe -- often only a few days -- between that and when a final vote is cast by the council.

And keep in mind, the Alliance is still relatively new and one of the huge concerns was that it is not subject to open meeting and open records laws. It was purposely formed the way it was (as a non-government nonprofit) to get around these requirements.

So, I think it's necessary to be especially diligent because we are venturing into uncharted waters in many ways and I'm a bit suspicious of anyone who tries to cast this situation as in any way 'typical' because it absolutely is not.

And having followed the Project 180 stuff closer than probably anyone, I have good, documented reasons to be less than completely trusting of how some of this stuff gets done.

They did choose the Clacyo proposal, though, with this specific TIF request.

So, there is at least a chance something near that amount will be granted. And since we won't know the final amount until a few days before it actually goes to a council vote (which is the usual way) you can't assume anything.

I can already see evidence of trying to portray their request as somewhat typical and "within range".

Don't forget though that Milhaus actually had a higher TIF ask...

Don't forget though that Milhaus actually had a higher TIF ask...

Doesn't mean either should be approved as is.

:iagree:

Milhaus asked for $21 million on a $80 million investment.

That's 26% and pretty much what Clacyo is asking for BOTH parcels and a total of $143 million.

I just mean that as a matter of fact, not to argue that Clayco should push the envelope on subsidy when they've been awarded our best development site. I agree that there should and will be negotiation, with OKC having the upper hand given the site and that we don't need excessive "public realm improvements" to succeed here.

I just can't help but think it funny that we balked at $15-20M for Stage Center (who knows what that negotiation would have yielded), and now here we are, and oh wait Milhaus is still a go for a residential high-rise, and this is what kind of public assistance they have in mind. There exists the potential to lose control of this potentially great economic development tool..

This is what we get by not connecting the demo and building permit processes. This is insane and if we don't fix this tomorrow, this could happen a lot more times in the next two years (every time a big project pops up). The divide and conquer of priorities is how developers get us to keep subsidizing mediocre projects.

For the record, if the City declines to provide TIF assistance to this project it won't mean a single additional penny would somehow makes its way magically to the schools instead.

You did read my post, right? I didn't say "all or nothing."

They shouldn't need any TIF funds for the OG&E tower. They have a tenant. I'm fine with the city giving them a lot of low interest loans. That would be fine. And I understand there needs to be some amount of public funding here. Let's say 50 or 60 million. But 147 is crazy.

Milhaus asked for $21 million on a $80 million investment.

That's 26% and pretty much what Clacyo is asking for BOTH parcels and a total of $143 million.

Higher %

$80M is not out of place for a development right now - most of the whole-block developments we have are in that range (Edge, Steelyard, FNC, Metropolitan, LIFT, GE, 21c, MidtownR). They typically get $5-10M in TIF help, usually loans is my understanding.

My gut feeling is that the grant will be somewhere north of $100 million.

Closer to the Clayco ask ($143 million) vs. the more typical 10% ($53 million).

My gut feeling is that the grant will be somewhere north of $100 million.

Closer to the Clayco ask ($143 million) vs. the more typical 10% ($53 million).

Right, that's fine as long as we keep talking in ranges. As soon as we publicly identify a specific amount other than $143 million, that's a counter. Right now the counter offer needs to be 10%, and then as you go up from there, the city gains more assurances over design and completion timeline. Most developers will do that trade every time, because they want financing and to finish the job.

If we're going to subsidize them to the tune of 26%, let's demand they make them for-sale units. Also, let's subsidize quality downtown retail and a grocery store. If we're going to make it happen, let's make it happen.

Exactly. I'm fine with us crossing a line into major subsidy, but if we go there we had better get something good for it.

If we're going to subsidize them to the tune of 26%, let's demand they make them for-sale units. Also, let's subsidize quality downtown retail and a grocery store. If we're going to make it happen, let's make it happen.

Problem with "for sale" properties in OKC is how hard it is to get loans for condos here.

what is the issue with condos in OKC? I was surprised they weren't condos when this was announced.

Problem with "for sale" properties in OKC is how hard it is to get loans for condos here.Why is that?

The condo market is very thin and hasn't historically done well. Banks are very slow to change their views. I had this discussion with a deep deuce developer just a few weeks ago regarding building flats vs. townhomes.

I would say negotiate them to a lower amount and go forward. We need to remember it's a period of tax relief. We're not writing a check. No buildings, no money. Or we can have a vacant lot. Someone noted what this development could do for the area. And that's something to look at. It could really drive up property values and pull more people into downtown.

I would say negotiate them to a lower amount and go forward. We need to remember it's a period of tax relief. We're not writing a check. No buildings, no money. Or we can have a vacant lot. Someone noted what this development could do for the area. And that's something to look at. It could really drive up property values and pull more people into downtown.

"Or we can have a vacant lot."

If only we'd been told that a year ago.

They shouldn't need any TIF funds for the OG&E tower. They have a tenant. I'm fine with the city giving them a lot of low interest loans. That would be fine. And I understand there needs to be some amount of public funding here. Let's say 50 or 60 million. But 147 is crazy.

^ I tend to agree with this. The OGE Tower is NOT speculative since there is a ready tenant, so there hsouldn't be a need for TIF for that building unless the funds would be tied to overall public investment (utilities overall, sewer/water, underground parking covering the entire site, retail podium, etc). I would agree that a significant TIF might be necessary for the second Office Tower which is totally speculative at the moment, along with both Residentials; but I'd only approve the TIF as long as the towers are BUILT to the approved designs (or better). Scale back and Pay back!

Wouldn't removing OGE bring us closer to the magical 10% 'rubber stamp' mark?

Are we even sure that this plan does not include a substantial public component? Looking closely at the design, I see CA St, becoming a meandering pathway with a glass sky bridge over it. There appears to be a large plaza directly across from the park. Maybe those coupled with parking, and ongoing maintenance of these things amount to a good bit of the TIF. I know the pedestrian bridge from the Hilton to Petco park in downtown S.D. costs $30million dollars alone and was funded by the city/state. Hilton refused to pay for it and said the $350 million for the hotel was their part and the city could fund the bridge.

Yes, that's my point - I'd be more comfortable with TIF if it was for additional public improvements to the site vs. discounting construction costs of the towers. ...

I'd be in favor of grant type of TIF for the Office Tower but low interest loans for the Residentials. Surely it all will be a success, so it isn't fair for OKC to subsidize the residential without some sort of equitable return. Clayco will make $$ on the residential that WILL sell, so there shouldn't be as much TIF and what's granted should be paid back. Office? well, I could stomach a grant just because of the influx of jobs such a speculative tower will bring. This would be a true 'seed' that when sprouted will have significant benefit far beyond the TIF to all involved.

This is why I would not support TIF for OGE Tower because this is an upgrade for them and they are already downtown and already a tenant, so it should be more of a Devon situation with regard to OGE Tower IMO vs. the other towers htat are new and truly spec.

^ I tend to agree with this. The OGE Tower is NOT speculative since there is a ready tenant, so there hsouldn't be a need for TIF for that building unless the funds would be tied to overall public investment (utilities overall, sewer/water, underground parking covering the entire site, retail podium, etc). I would agree that a significant TIF might be necessary for the second Office Tower which is totally speculative at the moment, along with both Residentials; but I'd only approve the TIF as long as the towers are BUILT to the approved designs (or better). Scale back and Pay back!

Wouldn't removing OGE bring us closer to the magical 10% 'rubber stamp' mark?

OCURA doesn't do clawback. Look at Deep Deuce and Lower Bricktown.

I could imagine parking with an underground link to the new cc since the cc is partly underground. I am sure they are aligning utilities to work with it as well. Some of the TIF may be used to offset the cost of dramatic lighting and architecture that would be scaled back but will provide an overall improvement in the look of downtown. I am sure Clayco has a list of improvements that justify the TIF and then another justification for risk in a test case for the city. I mean if banks are hesitant to loan money for condos, it tells you the thought of residential towers in OKC is risky beyond most investor/lenders.

Problem with "for sale" properties in OKC is how hard it is to get loans for condos here.


what is the issue with condos in OKC? I was surprised they weren't condos when this was announced.


Why is that?

When you are buying a house for yourself or family, it is going to be 100% percent occupied by you and they can rely on you and your income to make the payments.

When you are buying one condo in a building of 20 condos, the bank is relying on you to make the payments on your condo, but the developers only have so much money for basic upkeep.

So, if there are only five out of 20 condos sold, there is less money to the developer for basic maintenance in the common areas, not to mention their P&I payment plus taxes, insurance, etc.

This, could decrease the value of the condo since the quality of the common areas have gone down.

Also, it is more likely that the developer will drop the price of remaining condos if not sold in a reasonable amount of time, which would decrease values of the condos already sold as they become comparables.

All that being said, banks are willing to finance condos, but not at 95% LTV like regular homes. Probably more like 80% or less. So, if these condos were $500k, a normal home loan would be $475,000 with $25,000 down. These condos would be $400,000 with $100,000 down. Not everyone has $100,000 lying around.

But, once it is built as apartments and filled, it can be converted to for sale units as rent contracts expire.

When you are buying a house for yourself or family, it is going to be 100% percent occupied by you and they can rely on you and your income to make the payments.

When you are buying one condo in a building of 20 condos, the bank is relying on you to make the payments on your condo, but the developers only have so much money for basic upkeep.

So, if there are only five out of 20 condos sold, there is less money to the developer for basic maintenance in the common areas, not to mention their P&I payment plus taxes, insurance, etc.

This, could decrease the value of the condo since the quality of the common areas have gone down.

Also, it is more likely that the developer will drop the price of remaining condos if not sold in a reasonable amount of time, which would decrease values of the condos already sold as they become comparables.

All that being said, banks are willing to finance condos, but not at 95% LTV like regular homes. Probably more like 80% or less. So, if these condos were $500k, a normal home loan would be $475,000 with $25,000 down. These condos would be $400,000 with $100,000 down. Not everyone has $100,000 lying around.

80/20 is pretty common for home loans now.

That's why townhomes are easier than true condos.

OCURA doesn't do clawback. Look at Deep Deuce and Lower Bricktown.

I think it would be more accurate to say "in the past, OCURA didn't do clawback."