Wow, that sounds like a mess. I wonder if the City is trying to annoy and make life difficult for Uhaul by basically putting them in the middle of a roundabout.

I think they, and bricktown owners, just want that intersection open asap. They are tired of waiting around on Uhaul.

I think they, and bricktown owners, just want that intersection open asap. They are tired of waiting around on Uhaul.

Its better than nothing I guess. It will be interesting to see how they merged these one way roads back onto Oklahoma while also dealing with the the parking lot entrances.

They haven't come to an agreement with Uhaul, so they are building roads in the surrounding parking lots. Northbound on the east side of Uhaul and Southbound on the west side..

That's exactly what I thought and why I went to go take photos.

The reason for the new alignment is there are existing street easements they can use.

It would be amazing to see Uhaul go and have the building be restored to its former glory! I could definitely see it become some cool apartments but I'm just dreaming. Will Uhaul ever leave?

14040

Roads being built around U-Haul in Bricktown after failing to obtain right-of-way (http://www.okctalk.com/content.php?r=412-Roads-being-built-around-U-Haul-in-Bricktown-after-failing-to-obtain-right-of-way)

The eastern section of the new OKC Boulevard opened earlier this year, with direct entrances to and from the neighboring freeways.

The segment dead-ends at Shields Boulevard until the remainder of the roadway ultimately follows the entire footprint of the old I-40 corridor, and the only existing exit isn't an exit at all.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/boulevard0801176.jpg


The traffic light and full intersection at Oklahoma Avenue is currently barricaded and motorists are blocked from using what would be direct access to Bricktown.

After failing to obtain the required property to connect the intersection in a direct line to Oklahoma Ave., work has now started to circumnavigate a property currently owned by U-Haul.

As seen from above, U-Haul currently uses the area directly west of Harkins Theater for vehicles and parking.


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

The Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) is building the boulevard but it was the responsibility of the City of Oklahoma City to obtain the right-of-way to connect to Oklahoma Avenue.

After months of failed negotiations, work has now started to build access that would take motorists west then up Compress Avenue on the west side of U-Haul, then back east to Oklahoma, or to the east and directly into a parking area behind Harkins.

A spokesperson for the City said they still hope to acquire the U-Haul right-of-way. The work-around -- which may be temporary or permanent -- should be complete in the fall.

Before the boulevard construction, access roads under the old I-40 followed the Compress alignment but a decision was made to move the intersection to Oklahoma Avenue under the assumption a deal could be reached with the U-Haul owners.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/boulevard080117c2.jpg


Preliminary work has already started on the center section of the boulevard which will run directly north of the under-construction MAPS 3 Scissortail Park and the proposed convention center and Omni hotel. Contracts for full construction are set to let this November with the entire remainder of the project taking about 1.5 years.

For full plans for the boulevard, see our summary here (http://www.okctalk.com/content.php?r=338-Update-on-downtown-OKC-boulevard-project).

Tune in to KFOR-TV tonight at 5PM for more information and footage on this story from our news partners at Channel 4. KFOR reporter Lacey Lett contributed to this story.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/boulevard080117b2.jpg


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

We use eminent domain for projects that are controversial uses of the tool, but we can't use it here?

I've been in that area a lot recently on account of certain legendary birds, and I had a feeling this was what was developing.

What a shame, but also not a surprise. At least there'll be an immediate entrance into the parking behind Harkins.

I simply don't understand how the City allowed this to happen.

They participated in the plans for the boulevard and could have requested the intersection be built at the old Compress crossing just to the west of the U-Haul.

Yet, it was decided to do it at Oklahoma and the City had YEARS to deal with this. They could have easily used eminent domain or swapped for land/parking on the other side of U-Haul or something.

How on earth do you get to the point the boulevard is finished for a year and you still don't have one exit off it and then decide to create this crazy work around just so the darn intersection has some value? And spend money on something you hope becomes a temporary solution?

If this happened at the state level you'd have an army of reporters on the steps of the capitol demanding answers and heads. But with the city, the local press is so in bed with them all they do is act as their PR arm instead of holding anyone accountable.

I was wondering why they didn't try to do a land swap also, give them the compress street for parking. But they likely have loading areas on the current lot site and it would require entire structure redesign, which would only further hinder getting this building to be repurposed in the future.

I feel this is going to create chaos on Oklahoma Ave. and the Harkins lot.

We use eminent domain for projects that are controversial uses of the tool, but we can't use it here?

No joke. Time to get nasty with Uhual

I simply don't understand how the City allowed this to happen.

They participated in the plans for the boulevard and could have requested the intersection be built at the old Compress crossing just to the west of the U-Haul.

Yet, it was decided to do it at Oklahoma and the City had YEARS to deal with this. They could have easily used eminent domain or swapped for land/parking on the other side of U-Haul or something.

How on earth do you get to the point the boulevard is finished for a year and you still don't have one exit off it and then decide to create this crazy work around just so the darn intersection has some value? And spend money on something you hope becomes a temporary solution?

If this happened at the state level you'd have an army of reporters on the steps of the capitol demanding answers and heads. But with the city, the local press is so in bed with them all they do is act as their PR arm instead of holding anyone accountable.
+111 and 1

You cannot FORCE someone to make a deal. It appears the city has now approved using eminant domain to resolve this. We tend to criticize when government doesn't do everything they can to resolve private property issues through negotiations and traditional business procedures. If the other side doesn't want to deal in good faith, then use alternate tools as last resort. Seems like the city is doing that now. Uhaul doesn't seem to be concerned. If people are upset with them, then quit renting there and make them pay economically.

IIRC, the ownership of UHaul and its land is fragmented across maybe dozens of family members. During eminent domain, they all have to participate in the process. I could be remembering wrong, but if my memory is right, it's definitely not an easy way to work the issue.

The only way to know if the city is solely to blame would involve obtaining correspondence from ODOT to the city making the request for them to obtain the property. The original environmental documents had the Compress connection. After the new environmental review FBB forced, the public process demonstrated that a direct connection was desired on Oklahoma.

U-Haul told FBB that their issue was that they simply wanted to remain operational and that they would have to be compensated and helped reorient the entrances to their building from the east side to the west side. This would involve renovating the ground floor of the building to flip things from the east to the west.

Obtaining documents related to this issue would be the only way to determine who is at blame here. I can't personally blame a business for being resistant to their entire facility being disrupted without a solution to keep them operational. If people can't get in and out of the building to move stuff in and out of storage, that seems like a significant reason for them to demand comprehensive solutions and compensation.

^

The issue is why this was not resolved years ago as all involved knew about this need for quite some time.

The only way to know if the city is solely to blame would involve obtaining correspondence from ODOT to the city making the request for them to obtain the property. The original environmental documents had the Compress connection. After the new environmental review FBB forced, the public process demonstrated that a direct connection was desired on Oklahoma.

U-Haul told FBB that their issue was that they simply wanted to remain operational and that they would have to be compensated and helped reorient the entrances to their building from the east side to the west side. This would involve renovating the ground floor of the building to flip things from the east to the west.

Obtaining documents related to this issue would be the only way to determine who is at blame here. I can't personally blame a business for being resistant to their entire facility being disrupted without a solution to keep them operational. If people can't get in and out of the building to move stuff in and out of storage, that seems like a significant reason for them to demand comprehensive solutions and compensation.

BTW, in an email yesterday, a rep for ODOT said it was always the City's responsibility to obtain anything beyond the intersection.

IIRC, the ownership of UHaul and its land is fragmented across maybe dozens of family members. During eminent domain, they all have to participate in the process. I could be remembering wrong, but if my memory is right, it's definitely not an easy way to work the issue.

We specifically asked the City about eminent domain yesterday and they said they did not want to go that route.

After our story comes out, Wenger told the Oklahoman it had been approved by City Council.

Reading between the lines, I would say the City still doesn't want to go down that road (so to speak) and merely mentioned that to the Oklahoman to deflect criticism and/or as a bargaining chip with U-Haul.

Even if this gets worked out, the City will have spent taxpayer money on a temporary solution for a problem they should have handled years ago. And of course, the work-around is completely silly and likely to be a big mess.

It looks like you have exposed some major incompetence. The Compress idea was incompetent to begin with. The fact they are suggesting that it will actually be installed is quite ridiculous. That adds three unnecessary vehicular turns to get in and out of Bricktown.

Who is doing the actual work right now? The city or ODOT? Just wondering. I'm presuming city.

Who is doing the actual work right now? The city or ODOT? Just wondering. I'm presuming city.

It's all on the City now because ODOT was supposed to connect the intersection but couldn't because the City had not done their part.

BTW, after pressing the City for clarification today on this eminent domain issue, here is the response, which is very different than what they told us yesterday when they were directly asked about this:

"We are proceeding with land acquisition and have submitted our final offer. We have worked diligently to negotiate the purchase, but so far, have not been able to reach an agreement. We expect to have a response in the next couple of weeks on the final offer, and if no agreement, we will most likely proceed with condemnation of the property."

BTW, after pressing the City for clarification today on this eminent domain issue, here is the response, which is very different than what they told us yesterday when they were directly asked about this:

"We are proceeding with land acquisition and have submitted our final offer. We have worked diligently to negotiate the purchase, but so far, have not been able to reach an agreement. We expect to have a response in the next couple of weeks on the final offer, and if no agreement, we will most likely proceed with condemnation of the property."

Why not just wait a little bit longer at this point and hold off on building the temporary road. They waited this long.

Hmn. Does condemnation of the property mean just the needed parking lot, or the entire site?

It would be interesting if this ended up pushing U-Haul out of the building entirely.

Hmn. Does condemnation of the property mean just the needed parking lot, or the entire site?

It would be interesting if this ended up pushing U-Haul out of the building entirely.

Just the parking lot.

From this week's city council notes:


The Council voted Tuesday to approve about $43 million in tax increment finance (TIF) district fund allocations -- $40 million for the First National Center redevelopment project, $2.6 million for Oklahoma City Boulevard land acquisition and $165,000 for a housing project at 631 W California Ave. The First National Center project funds come from TIF No. 10, and the funds for the other two projects come from TIF No. 2.

From today.

They are almost ready to open this intersection.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/uhaul090317.jpg

That's another great picture! Switched railcars on the elevation for a career, I hope there's a reason for the 4 track bridge as I don't think the unconnected tracks ( they where 602 and 603 and they were out of service before the bridge was built) will be used again. The switch north of the bridge was the old Dawson track were pullman cars were swapped between ATSF passenger trains.

Is there more landscaping, trees, etc going in? That looks awful. Just a de facto highway for cars passing through OKC.

Temporary solution. Still working on a solution through the U-Haul parking lot on the original Oklahoma Ave alignment. Some new information I learned on this a couple of weeks ago is that Hogan apparently approached the city and offered temporary use of their property to facilitate this solution.

If you are coming from say Yukon going eastbound on 40 is it possible to loop back around and end up on this end of the boulevard since it's not connected to the other section currently?

If you are coming from say Yukon going eastbound on 40 is it possible to loop back around and end up on this end of the boulevard since it's not connected to the other section currently?

No. You can either go east to the Eastern/MLK exit and return west on 40 or you can take south 35 to SE 15th and double back.

If you are coming from say Yukon going eastbound on 40 is it possible to loop back around and end up on this end of the boulevard since it's not connected to the other section currently?

No and their is not anything from ODOT that indicates that will change, either the exit onto Shields/Gaylord or get onto 235 and take the Sheridan exit are the closest exits from the going eastbound on i40 to the area.

If this goes the Eminent Domain route, it will be really interesting to see how this plays out in court. If the taking of the parking lot renders Uhaul's improvements functional obsolete, the City will have to pay the cost to cure the functional obsolescence. In the event that the cost to cure is greater than the value of the total property, the City is required to purchase the total property. It's not extraordinarily likely that this will happen, but if Uhaul drags this out to a jury trial, and has good lawyers, who really know what a jury will decide Just Compensation is. It will take a few years until Just Compensation to Uhaul will be determined, but I would not be surprised if the City ends up over budget on Boulevard acquisitions. The longer they wait to acquire the property, the more expensive the property becomes. Especially with the rise of speculators paying increasingly higher amounts for land, i.e Strawberry Fields.

That's another great picture! Switched railcars on the elevation for a career, I hope there's a reason for the 4 track bridge as I don't think the unconnected tracks ( they where 602 and 603 and they were out of service before the bridge was built) will be used again. The switch north of the bridge was the old Dawson track were pullman cars were swapped between ATSF passenger trains.

There's a very good reason for the 4-track bridge. Those extra tracks and space will be necessary for future commuter rail operations through the Santa Fe Station terminal. Here's Jacobs Engineering's original 3-platform design from the Intermodal Hub Study:

14110

Here's a more recent detailed engineering design by URS:

14112

When commuter rail operations commence, the two eastern tracks will serve those operations into the Santa Fe Station terminal. Two new set of tracks will be laid to the west to provide through service for freight trains and Amtrak service into the hub.

It was critical that the BNSF Boulevard bridge be constructed with enough track capacity to meet these future operational requirements. ODOT, OKC and BNSF deserve a lot of credit for working together to make this happen.

That's another great picture! Switched railcars on the elevation for a career, I hope there's a reason for the 4 track bridge as I don't think the unconnected tracks ( they where 602 and 603 and they were out of service before the bridge was built) will be used again. The switch north of the bridge was the old Dawson track were pullman cars were swapped between ATSF passenger trains.

There's a very good reason for the 4-track bridge. Those extra tracks and space will be necessary for future commuter rail operations through the Santa Fe Station terminal. Here's Jacobs Engineering's original 3-platform design from the Intermodal Hub Study:

14110

Here's a more recent detailed engineering design by URS:

14112

When commuter rail operations commence, the two eastern tracks will serve those operations into the Santa Fe Station terminal. Two new set of tracks will be laid to the west to provide through service for freight trains and Amtrak service into the hub.

It was critical that the BNSF Boulevard bridge be constructed with enough track capacity to meet these future operational requirements. ODOT, OKC and BNSF deserve a lot of credit for working together to make this happen.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/uhaul090317b.jpg

I was just about to go down there and get some updated ground photos. Looks like you beat me.

I must say, this solution is pretty hilarious. Like what is that, parking spaces directly in front after you turn in there? This little area is going to be a nightmare for Thunder games. I can already envision the stacks of cars idling in the Harkins lot while others are still trying to back out of their spaces.

This intersection is now open.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/uhaul092117b.jpg

Drove through it yesterday. After driving through from the Boulevard side it became apparent to me that the intuitive thing is to turn right, which puts you into the Harkins parking lot and which becomes awkward/congested/weird very quickly. The correct move for through traffic would be to turn left and go around the U-Haul, but I suspect most will turn right. Hopefully Hogan will put up some signage and/or other features that make the entrance to the lot seem more like an entrance to a lot and less like a street.

What a mess. I can't tell from the photo is there any way to punch straight through without any jogs even if U-Haul allowed it, or is their building in the way?

What a mess. I can't tell from the photo is there any way to punch straight through without any jogs even if U-Haul allowed it, or is their building in the way?

If the City was to acquire the Uhaul parking / storage to the east, then Oklahoma could go straight through although there would be a small bend to the west while heading north.

The intersection and existing OK Ave. to the north of UHaul don't completely align.

They need a big sign with a left arrow pointing to Oklahoma Avenue and a right arrow pointing to the movie theater and restaurants.

^^^^^^
I don't disagree with this, BUT will point out that in general people don't read signs. They just don't. They rely on the environment to tell them what to do. So making the right turn FEEL like a turn into a private parking lot and making the left turn FEEL like the way into Bricktown is the best bet.

OKC to buy part of McDonald’s parking lot for boulevard

By: Brian Brus The Journal Record September 25, 2017

OKLAHOMA CITY – The final two construction phases for the new Oklahoma Boulevard into downtown will be put out for bid in November after the acquisition of a portion of the McDonald’s property at W. Sheridan and N. Western avenues, officials confirmed.

Oklahoma City Council is expected to approve the nearly $1 million purchase of the restaurant parking lot Tuesday to expand the boulevard’s right of way at the intersection. The acquisition will allow the Oklahoma Department of Transportation to award contracts for the final two phases at the same time, Oklahoma City Public Works Director Eric Wenger said, with construction to begin in early 2018.

Work on the I-40 crosstown realignment began in 1995 at a total cost of $700 million. In May this year, ODOT and state Transportation Commission officials announced highway construction projects were being deferred due to budget cuts by the Legislature, which meant long-term schedule disruptions. Of the two final Oklahoma Boulevard phases remaining at the time, one was planned for contract letting in August and the other set for some time during the fiscal year that ends July 31.

Because the new road closely follows the old Interstate 40 footprint, other necessary rights of way are already under government ownership. Only one other privately held parcel – the U-Haul trailer parking lot in Bricktown – is being considered for acquisition, sources confirmed, but Wenger would not discuss the matter because negotiations are ongoing. Requests for comment by local management were referred to the U-Haul corporation, which could not be reached for comment Monday.

Wenger said only part of the McDonald’s parking lot is needed. The restaurant will remain operational. He said the deal was complicated because it involved both a local franchise owner and multinational corporation. The negotiated purchase price listed on City Council’s meeting agenda is $984,000 plus closing costs of $4,000. By comparison, the entire restaurant property of 1.55 acres has a market value of $1.23 million, according to the Oklahoma County Assessor’s website.

“We were able to acquire a small portion of their south parking lot to make the plan work, realigning Classen Boulevard adjacent to McDonald’s, merging it into Western Avenue,” Wenger said. “It will dramatically improve the traffic congestion we see in that area.”

After completion, the state will turn over the thoroughfare to the city for continued maintenance.

Doesnt McDonalds own the land of all the stores, and lease it to the franchisees?

Doesnt McDonalds own the land of all the stores, and lease it to the franchisees?

Nope. Lot's of long term leases and franchisee owned property.

OKC to buy part of McDonald’s parking lot for boulevard

By: Brian Brus The Journal Record September 25, 2017

. . .The negotiated purchase price listed on City Council’s meeting agenda is $984,000 plus closing costs of $4,000. By comparison, the entire restaurant property of 1.55 acres has a market value of $1.23 million, according to the Oklahoma County Assessor’s website.

It should be noted that the $984,000 price also includes compensation for the temporary right-of-way, as well as the acquisition of the permanent right-of-way. Probably 75% is to the perm, and 25% is to the temp. Also, assessor market value is not a credible indicator of true market value and utilizing assessor market value as a value indicator can be misleading. I don't want to be a stickler, but that is a pet peeve of mine.

Here is what is being acquired.

14144

^

Thanks!

Wow, what a windfall for that McDonald's. Amost a cool million for a parking area that is never used.

Judging by the shape of the acquisition, this leads me to believe this is for a dedicated yielding lane onto the Boulevard from southbound Classen?

*eyeroll*

The connection of Film Row to Farmers Market area is basically impossible.

I can't find the final plans for the boulevard for some reason. Help?

Judging by the shape of the acquisition, this leads me to believe this is for a dedicated yielding lane onto the Boulevard from southbound Classen?

*eyeroll*

The connection of Film Row to Farmers Market area is basically impossible.

The plan closes Western at Sheridan and has Classen merge into Western with the Blvd going over Classen. Classen is going through the McDonald's parking lot.

I don't believe there are any ramps coming to and from Classen, just the at grade intersection at Reno.

UHaul has started a petition to fight the City on taking their property.

From a press release:

*******************

Oklahoma City Department of Public Works
420 West Main, Suite 700
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-4406
ATTN: Eric Wenger, Director of Public Works, City Engineer; Debbie Miller, Public Works, Assistant City Engineer; Dennis Clowers, City Manager’s Office; Jim Lewellyn, Public Works; Amanda Carpenter, Municipal Counselor’s Office

Open Letter to the Oklahoma City Department of Public Works

OKC is near and dear to each of us. Its distinct communities represent the best of Oklahoma life: good people, progressive business and flourishing culture. This is our home.

Our home is growing. We accept and embrace this. Anytime people are on the move – which is all the time – it’s beneficial for U-Haul because our products and services are in demand. The growth of OKC also requires development and infrastructure. That’s where our admirable city officials come into play. The actions proposed by our municipal leaders often have major ramifications on private and corporate citizens. Considering the positive and negative impacts on our private and corporate citizens is a great responsibility, and yet it is the essence of many government jobs.

OKC has traditionally been pro-business. U-Haul, in turn, has been a leading proponent of OKC. This is especially so of our Bricktown store. Serving the community since 1977, U-Haul Moving & Storage of Bricktown at 100 SE 2nd St. has been a neighborhood tenant for more than 40 years. U-Haul preserved the historical structure, once home of the Snow White Bakery, by applying its adaptive reuse policies to promote infill development and reduce the emissions, materials and wastes linked to new construction.

Through the decades, our Bricktown store has repeatedly obliged city requests. This included spending hundreds of thousands of U-Haul dollars in the 1990s when the city requested a new store façade to fit its vision for an entertainment district, masking the area’s industrial roots.

Now the city has chosen to target our Bricktown store as a potential answer for its oft-delayed and muchdebated OKC Boulevard project. The city is considering bringing an eminent domain case against U-Haul of Bricktown in the name of a more direct connection to Oklahoma Avenue.

Eminent domain – the government exercising its power to seize private property for public use – is a very intrusive and unpopular action. When the need is absolutely irrefutable and there are no other options to consider, perhaps it makes sense. In this case, it makes absolutely no sense.

When the city first approached U-Haul of Bricktown, proposing a land swap for our parking lot, it was not in our best interest. Such a project would turn our store and property around, back to front and front to back. It would be impossible to best serve DIY moving customers with extensive renovations taking place. Yet despite our interests, we came to the negotiating table as a good neighbor, willing to listen to the city’s needs once more.

We soon realized how unaware the city is of the costs that accompany a project of this size. It’s more complex than removing the doors from the west wall and sticking them on the east wall. There are new building codes to meet; permits to attain; big changes to utilities and the water system; showroom relocation; elevator relocation; elevation variations; and so much more.

Construction costs for what the city is asking of our store will approach $5 million. In response, the city offered us just over $1 million. Essentially asking a business to spend its own money – let alone almost $4 million – to accommodate a city-requested project that would hurt business and inconvenience U-Haul customers is mindboggling. And wrong.

There are a variety of opinions about the OKC Boulevard project and whether it’s actually needed, how it’s being handled, and the delays and costs involved. A workaround is being constructed along the border of the U-Haul property to provide a path for drivers to reach Oklahoma Avenue at an additional cost to the taxpayers. If the city now opts to declare eminent domain, it would mean delays of another 1-2 years while the case plays out while putting taxpayers on the hook for the complete cost of the U-Haul property reconfiguration, not to mention the city’s legal fees.

That’s not a productive path for the city, U-Haul, the business community or the citizens of OKC.

If our municipal leaders are pro-business as they claim to be, let it be reflected in the way they handle this project by not threatening an honorable business that has served Bricktown for 40 years. We are often the first representatives that people meet when they move to our city and return their truck or trailer. We’re proud to put a positive face on OKC.

We respect our local officials and the jobs they do. We ask that our local officials respect a good neighbor and one of OKC’s strongest proponents in the business community.

U-Haul of Bricktown has started a change.org and in-store petition to let the people of OKC be heard on this topic: https://www.change.org/p/oklahoma-city-council-save-our-u-haul-location-in-oklahoma-city. Please consider its merit, and thank you for considering our stance.


Sincerely,
Brett M. Hogan
U-Haul Area District Vice President

We should start another petition requesting that UHaul leave Bricktown and permit the restoration of a historic building to higher use by the community. With all due thanks for their previous service to the district of course.


See who gets more votes.

$5 million seems exorbitant. If they really want the public to pay it, I think they should show how they arrived at those numbers. If the numbers are real, why don't both sides commit to binding arbitration using a recognized and fair arbiter. If that is the actual number to make them whole, so be it. But, OKC shouldn't pay for any improvement in their condition. I also think that as much as they like to plead the case that they are helping the city, they ignore the windfall that is the result of all the development paid for and spurred on by MAPS, paid by the citizens of this city. They conveniently leave out the fact their property has been made many times more valuable because of public expenditures.

$5 million seems exorbitant. If they really want the public to pay it, I think they should show how they arrived at those numbers. If the numbers are real, why don't both sides commit to binding arbitration using a recognized and fair arbiter. If that is the actual number to make them whole, so be it. But, OKC shouldn't pay for any improvement in their condition. I also think that as much as they like to plead the case that they are helping the city, they ignore the windfall that is the result of all the development paid for and spurred on by MAPS, paid by the citizens of this city. They conveniently leave out the fact their property has been made many times more valuable because of public expenditures.

The process is that this all goes to an arbitrator and both sides submit comparables and other information to help support the value from their perspective (high for the seller, low for the buyer).

So, at this stage both sides are posturing but in the end the courts will decide the fair market value. Remember, we went through something similar with the Brewers and Santa Fe Station.


I think the better question here is if the City knew that Uhaul was going to fight them tooth and nail, why didn't they stick with the original intersection at Compress instead of having ODOT build it at Oklahoma when they knew it would be way more expensive and time-consuming?

I think the better question here is if the City knew that Uhaul was going to fight them tooth and nail, why didn't they stick with the original intersection at Compress instead of having ODOT build it at Oklahoma when they knew it would be way more expensive and time-consuming?

This is a VERY good question, and one I've been wondering myself.

I'm not qualified to decide if the $5 million number is fair and accurate, but one must admit Uhaul makes some excellent points. Once you start factoring in having to build to current codes, the cost does indeed start rising. All because the city made a bad decision, knowing it was a bad decision at the time. Claiming Uhaul is making out like a bandit is a bit of a stretch...it really doesn't matter if their property has been made 'more valuable' if they have no intention of selling. All it really does is increase their taxes.

Either the City didn't consider it, or they thought U-Haul would just roll over for them. I say cudos to U-Haul for standing their ground.

U-Haul just doesn't seem to fit in that area. The city needs to take control and pay them what it's worth and ask them to move out of downtown/bricktown IMO.

Are we certain that the change came from the city and not from ODOT? It could be that the city knew this would happen, favored the Compress intersection...and ODOT built the intersection at Oklahoma anyway. I suspect that there may be some engineering criteria that said that was better to build at Oklahoma rather than Compress, possibly the closer distance to EKG or potential line-of-sight issues involving the bridge. ODOT did build the boulevard for a higher design speed than a typical city street, and with that comes restrictions on how close intersections can be to one another.

Are we certain that the change came from the city and not from ODOT? It could be that the city knew this would happen, favored the Compress intersection...and ODOT built the intersection at Oklahoma anyway. I suspect that there may be some engineering criteria that said that was better to build at Oklahoma rather than Compress, possibly the closer distance to EKG or potential line-of-sight issues involving the bridge. ODOT did build the boulevard for a higher design speed than a typical city street, and with that comes restrictions on how close intersections can be to one another.

Yes, we do know this was the choice by the City... All ODOT did was build the intersection where they specified and were to connect it to Oklahoma but the City didn't do its part in procuring the right of way, so now the City will ultimately have to pay twice; once for the temporary work around and again for finishing the connection if and when this mess gets resolved with UHaul.

I need to talk to Uhaul and determine when the City first approached them because this should have been resolved long before that intersection was ever constructed.