I've had real good luck contacting legislators, especially on the local level. When they hear about an issue repeatedly, they can be responsive. It does take people making the time to contact them, write them, etc. I've even had some invite me for face to face meetings.

They must agree with you, then. All I've ever gotten are form replies and from Coburn, crap that doesn't even address what I wrote him about.

They must agree with you, then. All I've ever gotten are form replies and from Coburn, crap that doesn't even address what I wrote him about.

Coburn I've found to be slow. When I've emailed him, I usually get a form response in the first few days, and if I do get a reply, it's a month or longer. I will note that I received a long, like 6 paragraph email from him once, after I sent him a pretty scathing email, so he will respond to negative comments as well as positive.

The ones I've had the best luck with are the state legislators. They're usually a lot easier to get a hold of. The more local the office the easier (heck, I've had an OKC councilman help me with my water bill before).

Coburn I've found to be slow. When I've emailed him, I usually get a form response in the first few days, and if I do get a reply, it's a month or longer. I will note that I received a long, like 6 paragraph email from him once, after I sent him a pretty scathing email, so he will respond to negative comments as well as positive.

The ones I've had the best luck with are the state legislators. They're usually a lot easier to get a hold of. The more local the office the easier (heck, I've had an OKC councilman help me with my water bill before).

OK, yeah, OKC councilman has been prompt, and OKC stuff I've asked about has been replied to appropriately, but anything else to either state or US reps or senators just gets a form letter back, if anything at all, and since almost everything I write them about is to let them know I disagree with their position, that's not a surprise, I'm just a thorn in their side. Glad your record is better than mine, proves they do listen (somewhat) to at least someone out there. Oh, and I don't go ballistic or nasty on them, in case anybody was wondering if that's why they don't reply. :p

There is no way this law is going to be changed. Therefore, the location of the church is a wet blanket to the neighborhood. I'm surprised no one knew about this with enough time to protest -- but that's usually how things get screwed up in OKC.

THE CHURCH IS NOT THE DEMON. THE LAW IS. BUT THE LAW WILL NOT BE CHANGED SO THE PROPOSED LOCATION IS A MAJOR PROBLEM. And it doesn't matter how "forthright," "nice," or well-intentioned the church people are. It is a fact that by locating there they will be negating many possible uses along that important urban stretch of NW 23rd.

Furthermore, the church is taking up a big chunk of space that could be utilized for retail and other purposes. This is just a big bummer.

In the previous thread I would say there were quite a few very hostile responses (There's too many churches in OKC! This area is supposed to be cool!! The landlord is doing this on purpose to screw people over!!)
....
The first two things are very different from the third, which is a distinct possibility.

Just to restate, there is nothing to protest. There is no public process involved whatsoever. Any church can open any time in C-3 zoning, which is what the large majority of OKC's commercial properties currently possess.


The other church further west went in without anyone really even noticing.

The only reason this even came out was because I saw the building permit and started making some calls. The Tower guys were not aware the property was under contract; they knew the church had been looking in the area and had already spoken to them, but were clearly a bit stunned when I shared the plans with them.

So, when the sale closed it may have been noticed, but maybe not. Often these properties sell to LLC's that you can't track; commercial properties sell all the time in OKC and even if you connect the dots, it would be after the fact.


My point is that tomorrow someone could open a church anywhere on 23rd street; in fact one already did and nobody really knew about it until it opened.

So, given the 300 foot rule and ABC-3 permits, this situation could arise almost anywhere in OKC at any time.

Just to restate, there is nothing to protest. There is no public process involved whatsoever. Any church can open any time in C-3 zoning, which is what the large majority of OKC's commercial properties currently possess.


The other church further west went in without anyone really even noticing.

The only reason this even came out was because I saw the building permit and started making some calls. The Tower guys were not aware the property was under contract; they knew the church had been looking in the area and had already spoken to them, but were clearly a bit stunned when I shared the plans with them.

So, when the sale closed it may have been noticed, but maybe not. Often these properties sell to LLC's that you can't track; commercial properties sell all the time in OKC and even if you connect the dots, it would be after the fact.


My point is that tomorrow someone could open a church anywhere on 23rd street; in fact one already did and nobody really knew about it until it opened.

So, given the 300 foot rule and ABC-3 permits, this situation could arise almost anywhere in OKC at any time.



Man, that sucks for those guys. The Tower Theatre is going to end up being a major financial loss for them. Their best bet is to offer to purchase 421 from the church for a premium on what they paid.

According to Steve in his chat today, this church moving in throws a large wrench in what was planned for the Tower Theater.

I really think the best option for the Tower going forward, unless they can get their license before the church opens, is as a dinner theater of some sort (a kitchen would have to be added) or an indie film cinema like Circle Cinema in Tulsa.

So, people were rallying against the proposed music venue in this space, mostly due to lack of dedicated parking. Now, there is a church with possibly hundreds of people and no dedicated parking. Has there been any talk of the parking situation for the church?

So, people were rallying against the proposed music venue in this space, mostly due to lack of dedicated parking. Now, there is a church with possibly hundreds of people and no dedicated parking. Has there been any talk of the parking situation for the church?

Remember, the live music venue required re-zoning, so there was an application made to the Planning Commission, which triggered the protests.

There is no dedicated parking required in this area or most the other urban districts, so there is nothing the church has to apply for, as the property already has the necessary zoning.

So, there is nothing to protest. The neighbors might not like it but since there isn't any sort of approval process involved, there is no recourse.


Ironically, if and when the Tower Theater applies for an ABC-3 permit, that will trigger a filing with the PC and it's likely they will get some resistance, as these things always do.

This is a difficult conversation to have due to emotional undertones between the devout Christians and the non-religious people on this board. There are reasons to oppose this development that aren't attacks on the Christian faith or churches in general. Only a few people on this board have expressed opposition to having a church in the neighborhood entirely. Most people who are concerned don't have issue with the church persay but it's effect on the Tower Theater redevelopment. After all, OKC only has one Tower Theater. A church can go anywhere. If it wasn't for the 300 ft law, there would be no issue but being that changing the law is something most doubt the legislature will have the guts to address, those who want to see the Tower Theater redeveloped into a performance venue have the option of either opposing the church and crossing their fingers and hoping that the Tower Theater can get its ABC-3 permit before the church sale closes.

You didn't read the earlier posts very thoroughly. Pete quotes the church as stating this was the best fit for their budget and vision. Moving somewhere else would defeat the purpose for them.

There may very well be way too much the sky is falling mentality here. Perhaps it is time to take a breath, or two, even.

You didn't read the earlier posts very thoroughly. Pete quotes the church as stating this was the best fit for their budget and vision. Moving somewhere else would defeat the purpose for them.

I read that, but that doesn't change the fact there is only one Tower Theater and it's potential has now been handicapped until that law can be changed, which according to Steve is about as likely as wine in grocery stores or liquor stores opening on Sunday i.e. not going to happen. The new Tower Theater owners are likely going to have to come up with a concept that involves a restaurant or something that doesn't require a bar at all. The law is the bad guy here, not the church, but that doesn't change the fact this is very disappointing. Disappointment is completely justified in this case and being upset about this doesn't make one anti-Christian.

The people at the church may be nice and all, but if they move forward, they will be, perhaps unintentionally, messing things up for the neighborhood. I find it hard to believe this was the only space they could find.

There may very well be way too much the sky is falling mentality here. Perhaps it is time to take a breath, or two, even.

Nahh.

The people at the church may be nice and all, but if they move forward, they will be, perhaps unintentionally, messing things up for the neighborhood. I find it hard to believe this was the only space they could find.


agree, 100%.

Do folks want Uptown to be another nightlife/entertainment district or a truly mixed-use neighborhood center? Having an abundance of bars and restaurants without other essential entities (like churches and social services) that build social capital is not true urbanism. We must also accept the reality of how the free market works. A great many establishments have been developed that I would not consider the "highest and best use" of the land, but I cannot control how someone chooses to develop or lease their private property within the existing zoning laws.

The people at the church may be nice and all, but if they move forward, they will be, perhaps unintentionally, messing things up for the neighborhood. I find it hard to believe this was the only space they could find.

Not the only.

The best fit for their needs and budget.


And the "find it hard to believe" part insinuates they are trying to mess things up or simply don't care about the Tower and the district, and ample evidence exists -- such as them working with the Tower guys and already having a presence on 23rd -- to the contrary.

Not the only.

The best fit for their needs and budget.


And the "find it hard to believe" part insinuates they are trying to mess things up or simply don't care about the Tower and the district, and ample evidence exists -- such as them working with the Tower guys and already having a presence on 23rd -- to the contrary.

No. I made it clear they are not "intending" to mess things up. And to Krisb's point, I want a mixed us neighborhood, but this church is occupying a major retail storefront that could be utilized for, gasp, retail and other services. It is not a "higher, better" or even appropriate use of precious, scarce urban retail frontage.

Pete, you always do a great job trying to be neutral in these matters, but you seem to be going out of your way to defend the church. They may be, as you say, "working with" the Tower people, but what does that matter? With the existence of the liquor law, the church's intent to work with the Tower is nice, but meaningless.

Actually, the chruch's willingness to work with the Tower will likely make the difference between getting an ABC-3 and not getting one.


Just presenting facts in light of tons of mis-information and accusations.

Actually, the chruch's willingness to work with the Tower will likely make the difference between getting an ABC-3 and not getting one.


Just presenting facts in light of tons of mis-information and accusations.

Well that's good news. I thought the law was the law and it doesn't matter whether or not the church decides to cooperate.

There is much more to come on all this and I have even reason to believe this will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

Well that's good news. I thought the law was the law and it doesn't matter whether or not the church decides to cooperate.

The law is the law. You need to understand it though before proceeding with an argument. If you had read the whole thread, paying particular attention to Pete's and Urbanized posts (and I like to think I did a good job asking the right questions to clarify for those of us who don't' know), you would know that we need not panic just yet, and that everything *should* work out for all parties involved.

As long as the Tower Theater folks move efficiently on their project, everything should be okay.

Also, even in the worse case scenario, there may be a work around.

I'm researching something right now and will be able to post more later this week.

The law is the law. You need to understand it though before proceeding with an argument. If you had read the whole thread, paying particular attention to Pete's and Urbanized posts (and I like to think I did a good job asking the right questions to clarify for those of us who don't' know), you would know that we need not panic just yet, and that everything *should* work out for all parties involved.

As long as the Tower Theater folks move efficiently on their project, everything should be okay.

I don't think they even have to do that. If I'm not mistaken, the building just has to meet code and zoning requirements. Once they've been inspected and approved for occupancy they could receive their liquor license...and then proceed with the remodel.

Do folks want Uptown to be another nightlife/entertainment district or a truly mixed-use neighborhood center? Having an abundance of bars and restaurants without other essential entities (like churches and social services) that build social capital is not true urbanism. We must also accept the reality of how the free market works. A great many establishments have been developed that I would not consider the "highest and best use" of the land, but I cannot control how someone chooses to develop or lease their private property within the existing zoning laws.

I think that is kind of the point though. I think this situation is the opposite of "free market".

Church plans to be good neighbor on 23rd Street (http://okgazette.com/2015/01/12/church-plans-to-be-good-neighbor-on-23rd-street/)

The important bit, from senior pastor Tim Mannin:


“We have been working with the owners of Tower Theater since the beginning,” Mannin said. “We have a great relationship with them, and because we are a church that cares about the city, we are going to delay opening until Tower has their license. At the time of the first story, we could not answer questions because we were in the middle of a legal negotiation. It is now time to tell our story.”

^^^^^^

That is huuuuuuge for Tower Theatre.

Church plans to be good neighbor on 23rd Street (http://okgazette.com/2015/01/12/church-plans-to-be-good-neighbor-on-23rd-street/)

The important bit, from senior pastor Tim Mannin:

That is great news!.. I hope this goes off without a hitch and the Tower is able to move forward and get the ABC3 and be a great neighbor to the Church.

This is why I've been telling people not to worry and to stop bashing the church.

but but but that means the sky wasn't really falling. :)

Some people make up their minds before they have all the facts. Those who were wrong about this issue should ask themselves why they were wrong and then adjust their behavior in the future.

The law remains outdated, unfair and bad for business.

Some people make up their minds before they have all the facts. Those who were wrong about this issue should ask themselves why they were wrong and then adjust their behavior in the future.

I thought this was the internet. I will do no such thing!

I thought this was the internet. I will do no such thing!

:)

I'm hoping the church doesn't take a significant hit over this. I saw some of the worst vitriol over the past week on Facebook and Twitter and the lost ogle directed at this church, and at churches in general. It appears that community church's facebook page has been taken down, which considering some of the stuff I saw posted on it, doesn't surprise me. It's a shame how people were acting. Being upset at the law is one thing. Attacking the church is a whole other thing. People were better here at least, but I think Steve kept throwing gas on the fire on newsok.

I'm hoping the church doesn't take a significant hit over this. I saw some of the worst vitriol over the past week on Facebook and Twitter and the lost ogle directed at this church, and at churches in general. It appears that community church's facebook page has been taken down, which considering some of the stuff I saw posted on it, doesn't surprise me. It's a shame how people were acting. Being upset at the law is one thing. Attacking the church is a whole other thing. People were better here at least, but I think Steve kept throwing gas on the fire on newsok.

For sure, his article was a viral wild fire.

The internet can be a mean place, especially from younger people who would be the ones most upset about A.)churches and B.)the effect on night life/bars. Sometimes I'm really ashamed of my generation.

I'm hoping that gazette article helps with some of that.

^
Sadly agree.

If they are anything like the handful of urban churches I am aware of, they will do far more to aid their surrounding community than the self-righteous keyboard warriors who've been savaging them for the past 2 weeks. -

This is why I've been telling people not to worry and to stop bashing the church.

I've never seen your words so obviously ignored in a thread on this forum. It was really quite a sight to behold. I commented on the Gazette author's Facebook when he made a post sometime back about being worried about the Church coming in and hampering Tower's development that the church and Tower were working together to make sure things went well. I did so entirely on the confidence of your word that they were, and not that I was the impetus, but lo and behold, we now have an article that they're gonna work together to make sure things are good.

Man, I have seen few if any people in this thread attacking the church, yet people keep talking about it like the pitchforks and torches have been out in full force. What am I missing?

Man, I have seen few if any people in this thread attacking the church, yet people keep talking about it like the pitchforks and torches have been out in full force. What am I missing?

You posted just about the same thing further up-thread, where it was answered.

Also, we're not just talking about this thread. The church and pastor got tons of heat and hateful emails and ended up taking down their Facebook page.

Really? Which posts, in particular? I've seen lots more "bashing of the bashers" than actual bashing, if that makes any sense.

Also mentions of "mis-information and accusations" (where, exactly?) and you saying "this is why I've been telling people not to worry and to stop bashing the church", which I would assume to mean only on this board as this statement probably wouldn't apply to Facebook, the Lost Ogle, et al...

Again, just haven't seen too much animosity on here directed at the church itself. Just at the law, and at the situation.

More than one poster in this thread insinuated the church was seeking this location with the express purpose of hindering super duper awesome Alamo draft houseish entertainment consumption options for 20 somethings, which seems a lot like trashing this church, and that was a theme of the social media vitriol thrown their way but whatevs.

I know (or hope at least) that Pete was not speaking to me. When he explained that there was a work around to the law, and was specific, that's all i needed to know. Still, this is not the best use of urban retail frontage, in my opinion, whether or not the ABC-3 license is granted. Kudos to the church for working with the Tower to delay their opening.

What made me concerned were the comments in Steve's chat, which indicated the Tower people were caught off guard by this, and that the church people had not responded to requests for comment.

I can only speak for myself, but I do try to read things closely and not overreact to information. I'm sorry if I missed the specific comments made that this was all going to be AOK. That being said, residents of OKC, and I am one, have PTSD from all the "it's too late to do anything now" deals we are confronted with. The bus station is the latest example, especially when we are told by Steve and other insiders repeatedly for years that the bus station will be spared...until the deal is announced, and then it's, "Surprise! If you like the bus station you have one week to mount opposition and get this reversed."

So forgive some of us for reading information from reputable news sources and voicing our discontent. And to be fair, there have been no anti-Christian posts here. There has not been inflammatory rhetoric. Not at all.

The law remains outdated, unfair and bad for business.
I think that is one thing that almost all on here agree with.

More than one poster in this thread insinuated the church was seeking this location with the express purpose of hindering super duper awesome Alamo draft houseish entertainment consumption options for 20 somethings, which seems a lot like trashing this church, and that was a theme of the social media vitriol thrown their way but whatevs.
Really? Show me one single post (direct quote please) from ANY of the previous 105 posts in this thread that says ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about someone thinking this church was intentionally trying to kill development of the tower. One single post. Please.

When people gripe about hyperbole in this thread, it's posts like THIS ONE that should be called out. THERE HAVE BEEN NO SUCH ATTACKS ON THE CHURCH IN THIS THREAD, and few (if any) on this board.

More than one poster in this thread insinuated the church was seeking this location with the express purpose of hindering super duper awesome Alamo draft houseish entertainment consumption options for 20 somethings, which seems a lot like trashing this church, and that was a theme of the social media vitriol thrown their way but whatevs.

Oh yeah? Who?

Really? Show me one single post (direct quote please) from ANY of the previous 105 posts in this thread that says ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about someone thinking this church was intentionally trying to kill development of the tower. One single post. Please.

When people gripe about hyperbole in this thread, it's posts like THIS ONE that should be called out. THERE HAVE BEEN NO SUCH ATTACKS ON THE CHURCH IN THIS THREAD, and few (if any) on this board.

My opinion is not novel, and others have noted the same. Read more carefully.

.with the exception of people (like me) who want to see the Tower fully licensed before the church puts the neighborhood on booze lockdown.

Ok

Man, I have seen few if any people in this thread attacking the church, yet people keep talking about it like the pitchforks and torches have been out in full force. What am I missing?

The other thread.

My opinion is not novel, and others have noted the same. Read more carefully.

Perhaps YOU should read more carefully. Other than 2-3 total posters expressing disdain for religion in general (which of course they have every right to do though I think it is unfortunate for the purposes of this discussion) nobody has suggested THIS church was trying to derail development in THIS neighborhood, and certainly not in THIS thread, which is what I challenged you on.

While you dig around on other threads over the history of this board to try to find posts to support your position, be sure to dig up the ones that I made all along the way that disagreed with blaming the church or making anti-religion comments. Or, don't, because of course that won't help your argument.

And I STILL stand by my statement you quoted above; saying I want to see the Tower licensed before the opening of the church puts the neighborhood on booze lockdown. There is NOTHING negative said there against the church. NOTHING. It's simply a condition dictated by the law. You simply WANT that to be something that it is not.

Sorry if my last post in this thread was a bit terse.

I've said from the very beginning both parties were working together and there wasn't a big cause for concern. Since i was the one that broke this story and seem to be the only one who has spoken to both sides on this, and since everything seems to be working out, I'm just frustrated over the ridiculous backlash against the church.

And yes, I was talking about other places other than this site. I doubt very seriously people from OKCTalk were sending nasty messages to the pastor or posting silly things on their Facebook site, causing them to take it down.


Let's all just be happy this seems to be headed for a happy conclusion and move on.

You might want to talk with Pickles about that.

My fault for inciting this latest round of finger pointing.

Honestly, I stand by what I've said on this thread and I honestly think the feedback from this forum could have added to the church's decision to work with the Tower and possibly other owners. While I don't know for sure, surely folks do indeed peruse this site and one thing's for sure - you can and will get candid reaction to development or announcements here.

I personally, never attacked the church but only questioned their motive for wanting to open up in an emerging bar/nightclub district. I also know how churches try to force their conservative views on others in the past rather than working to be proactive and add to a district. There are, however, positive examples and I was always hopeful that this church would be an asset - and turns out they are.

But again, i say to those who want to censer (?sp) this website, I totally disagree. It is arguably the best, most informed voice of Oklahoma City and those of us who are expats but care and love our hometown and the renaissance taking place. I am totally excited about not only this development and the district; but honestly by how much OKC has grown up as a city and embraced its people and is embracing urbanity (this a great example) rather than someone behind closed doors or in a pulpit calling all of the shots contrary to what most likely would desire.

Good times, and congrats to the church and to Uptown - looks like OKC's next great urban neighborhood is developing. ...

Just to be clear, I don't think any of the hateful energy aimed at the church and it's pastor came from the people on OKCTalk who have posted on this subject.

However, I am very sure that some who did contact them read this site.


Remember that well over 90% of our views come from people who never even register; and of those registered, only a tiny portion post on any one thread.

So, what is written and discussed on a thread is read by many, many more people than post on it.

Really? Show me one single post (direct quote please) from ANY of the previous 105 posts in this thread that says ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about someone thinking this church was intentionally trying to kill development of the tower. One single post. Please.

Myself and a few others asked that question back on the day this church was announced, but those fears were put to rest very early on.

So the gazette link seems to be broken now... can anyone find a functioning one?