I saw a segment with video and interviews about this on the late KFOR news and here is Steve's story about it.

http://m.newsok.com/officials-create-urban-renewal-zone-in-northeast-oklahoma-city-after-sharp-debate/article/5380466


Creation of an urban renewal zone in northeast Oklahoma City was passed Tuesday by a split Oklahoma City Council that debated whether the effort would truly benefit the area’s residents and business owners.
Discussion was heated at times as Ward 7 Councilman John Pettis, who represents northeast Oklahoma City, reminded urban renewal opponent Ed Shadid, Ward 2 councilman, that his uncle Charlie Shadid owns two of the largest blighted commercial properties in the proposed new zone.


This is the KFOR segment.

http://kfor.com/2014/12/30/hope-that-we-can-actually-see-change-city-council-aims-to-revamp-northeast-okc/

I'm not sure if this is something new that hasn't been talked about here before.


The city also proposed more changes in the area, which could bring millions of dollars in tax revenue for Ward 7. That proposal will go before the council for a vote in January.

You know, it seems almost every single time when I see a no vote, Ed Shadid is either one of the few or the only person to vote no. He's like the Tom Coburn of OKC. No no no no.... does he ever provide in-depth explanations for what he would do better or does he just give the ol' shake n bake crap that probably suffices for most of supporters? I honestly don't know and I'm not trying to dog on him, I just find it extremely unnerving that I can not recall a single time he's voted yes on something and not a single time when there were no votes and he wasn't part of it.

BTW, what I mean with my question with Ed Shadid is he always seems to vote no, raises a question for a new answer on something and never really says what he would like to do. Not sure if that makes sense or not, but he basically just votes no and asks a bunch of questions, some of which are valid, and moves on with no real concern or plan.

TIF tiff: Council bickers over eminent domain in NE 23rd area | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2014/12/30/tif-tiff-council-bickers-over-eminent-domain-in-ne-23rd-area-real-estate/)

TIF tiff: Council bickers over eminent domain in NE 23rd area | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2014/12/30/tif-tiff-council-bickers-over-eminent-domain-in-ne-23rd-area-real-estate/)

I love that Pettis called ES out.

TIF tiff: Council bickers over eminent domain in NE 23rd area

By: Brian Brus The Journal Record December 30, 2014

OKLAHOMA CITY – A City Council argument Tuesday about a proposed new tax increment financing district to revitalize the NE 23rd Street area raised questions about the role of eminent domain.

If the proposal for the Northeast Renaissance Redevelopment Project is finally approved in mid-January, it will be Oklahoma City’s ninth TIF district. Cathy O’Connor, president of the Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City, said that over the next 25 years, the additional ad valorem tax revenue raised in the area will be worth about $28 million, and sales tax revenues will total about $30 million.

Tax increment financing districts set aside a small portion of growing taxes from a bounded area and dedicate those funds to pay for public improvements. Those improvements typically are needed ahead of development, so the city uses some of that TIF money as it is collected over time to pay off bond debt.

The council’s first review of the ordinance this week involved identifying the boundaries of new TIF district collections, how that money can be spent, and under what circumstances dilapidated properties can be taken over by the city’s Urban Renewal Authority for redevelopment.

The first points drew only a few questions for clarification, but the latter resulted in a split 7-2 vote of approval, with Councilmen Ed Shadid and James Greiner opposing the resolution after their amendments were rejected.

The district’s general boundaries are NE 50th Street to the north, NE 10th Street to the south, Interstate 35 to the west and the Oklahoma River to the east. The area in which funds can be spent is slightly smaller – one of the basic premises of the TIF district concept is that stakeholders benefit from their proximity to improvements.

The spending area follows the commercial corridors, although it is expected to also help support the nearby John F. Kennedy residential area. O’Connor said the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center is supported by a separate TIF district.

Allowed uses of the TIF revenues include land acquisition, infrastructure improvements, public parking and developer assistance. Shadid said he was concerned about the authority of the Urban Renewal Authority to take properties and proposed that each eminent domain case be approved by the council as an extra layer of checks and balances beyond approval by the board of county commissioners.

That did not sit well with councilman John Pettis Jr., who represents the area. Pettis said he was tired of seeing so many abandoned properties in his ward used for drug sales and the council didn’t need to drag down the march toward economic development.

“Back in March, we announced that we had a developer who wanted to put in a full-size grocery store – the Buy For Less corporation,” he said. “That’s a $30 (million) to $40 million development right there on 23rd and Martin Luther King (Boulevard). Sadly, just east of the proposed development, I have a crack (cocaine) prostitution motel where the owner refuses to turn his property into something that is good.”

He cited similar drug problems at a nearby car wash and gas station, and said extreme conditions require extreme measures such as eminent domain acquisition.

Pettis also accused Shadid of a conflict of interest, because one of his relatives owns properties in the area. Shadid said he took exception to the accusation and added that Pettis knew much more than he did about such matters.

“I’m very concerned with some of the language we just heard about how we might use eminent domain,” Shadid said. “Nobody’s more concerned about drug use in the city, public health and what it’s done to the city (than me). But using eminent domain as a law enforcement mechanism or a means of retribution to those who won’t play ball?”

Although his amendment was rejected, Shadid said he was interested in pursuing a change to the ordinance later.

Based on that description, I think I would have to agree with Shadid. I understand what Pettis is trying to do, but it's the type of thing that can get out of control very quickly. NO ONE wants a city to have blanket ED authority...this is NOT a dictatorship. Does anyone want a crack house or a prostitution motel? Of course not! But you do it legally. If the activity is known, then the police should already be able to clean the place up and put quite a few folks in jail, including the proprietor of the motel. But to just go in and take over because you don't like what someone is doing is a whole other nasty ball game, regardless of what horrible things they're doing. We may not like what those business owners are doing, but there's just too much authority there. There probably should be a check and balance to it, but I don't know that the council is what's required rather a committee or commission can do that.

if the residents of the Eastside want the city to come in and force slum owners out, then I don't see why Shadid would be against that.

Because of the whole post I just put in there. Yeah, we'd like to have it done, but it needs to be done legally and in an ETHICAL way. Giving someone carte blanche authority to not just evict but TAKE ownership of something is NOT something we want. It needs to have something/someone to keep it "up to snuff". I don't think Shadid was against the idea, but he's against the procedure of the practice and I really think if you stop to think about it, you would be too. Would you really want someone to have eminent domain authority with no one acting as a check to that power?

I'm curious what the failed amendment said, just not enough to look it up.

Because of the whole post I just put in there. Yeah, we'd like to have it done, but it needs to be done legally and in an ETHICAL way. Giving someone carte blanche authority to not just evict but TAKE ownership of something is NOT something we want. It needs to have something/someone to keep it "up to snuff". I don't think Shadid was against the idea, but he's against the procedure of the practice and I really think if you stop to think about it, you would be too. Would you really want someone to have eminent domain authority with no one acting as a check to that power?

Eminent domain is legal and has always been part of American common law. It is also included in the Constitution, so the concept has been thought about from the very beginning. Property can be taken for public use (broadly interpreted to mean public benefit) with just compensation. In Oklahoma, that means establishing and paying the fair market price. There is the added restriction that the taking cannot be solely for economic purposes.

As for the owner of a crack house complaining that the use of eminent domain to expropriate his property is somehow unethical... /sarcasm font/ You know I am so sorry.

Ya bomber, I dont think they are intending to force gentrification on the owners of the district. I think they are looking for a tool to go after those who DONT care or want to ride the wave of renaissance that downtown is creating. the Eastside should have already been seeing benefits from downtown's renaissance (like the other inner city districts ALL have in some way) and it really hasn't - largely due to the apathy of existing owners and the godforsaken condition of many of the properties. There is a reason why the Eastside has long been called a ghetto - it more or less looks like one and acts like one; and this is what Pettis and others who care are trying to change.

I can see positives in Shadid's intent (not wanting government to have a huge hand) but think he could have handled it better/more constructively rather than adversary; I agree with Pettis that the Eastside needs something heavy to get some of these property owners moving in the right direction; or else. ...

In an ideal world, eminent domain would never have to be used. However, it is obvious that Ward 7 is trying to make it's district a better place and it is willing to use all the tools available in the tool box to improve the quality of life for it's citizens.

Kudos to Pettis for having the initiative to negotiate with Couch to have some of the same tools we use downtown to make dramatic, positive change.

Regarding Shadid, his negative tactics with regard to other Councillor's wards are unprecedented. The "Ed knows better" perspective was old three years ago. It reeks today. How about he let the Councillor elected by it's own people actually govern.

I'm not sure if this happened on property owned by the Shadid family but it's very close if it isn't.

Three shot at teen party overnight in northeast Oklahoma City | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/three-shot-at-teen-party-overnight-in-northeast-oklahoma-city/article/5383776)

Oklahoma City Council green-lights revitalization plan | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-green-lights-revitalization-plan/article/5384419)

Oklahoma City Council green-lights revitalization plan | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-green-lights-revitalization-plan/article/5384419)

Ed Shadid Is the new Brian Walters... In our cities system of getting things done by building consensus on the horseshoe, his past actions have left him at point where he's irrelevant... It would really be nice to get a member on the council with a different slant and the ability to influence without being an obstructionist and isolating themselves.