Oklahoma City Community Church (OKCCC) is planning to move to a permanent location directly east of the Tower Theater on NW 23rd, right in the middle of the surging Uptown District.

OKCCC is currently holding their services in the Civic Center and have the building at 421 NW 23rd under contract to purchase. They have also filed a $500,000 building permit to convert the 9,600 square foot space to their new home.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/okccc5.jpg

The building has been vacant for some time after being home to an art gallery. It was built in 1935 and for a good deal of it's life had been home to C.R. Anthony.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/toweranthonys1.jpg
Old C.R. Anthony location in 1963

The adjacent Tower Theater was purchased by location developers just a few months ago. Plans are on track to find tenants for the complex and the owners hope to start an extensive renovation soon.

OKCCC's future home still has a good deal of it's original art deco interior elements, and the church hopes to integrate them into their ambitious remodeling plans, which call for a sanctuary and balcony, along with ancillary meeting rooms and facilities.

For the foreseeable future, the church would only host services on Sunday. They will also continue to operate their Community House near the 23rd Street Courts about a half mile to the east on 23rd.

421 NW 23rd along with the two buildings to the east were proposed as a live music venue about a year ago, but those plans fell through after significant opposition from nearby residents.

OKCCC currently has about 200 congregants and hope their new facility will broaden their reach in the central core.

http://okccommunitychurch.com/

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/okccc1.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/okccc2.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/okccc3.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/okccc4.jpg

Not that it matters, but I'm completely against using this space as a church. There is no need nor reason to locate it next to possibly the one location that it would truly be detrimental to. As Steve mentioned in his article below...could they not have chosen a building in midtown...like the former Christ the Scientist Church, that wouldn't negatively effect everything around it?

It also bothers me (though does not surprise me) that the church won't go on the record to discuss their plans for the space and its effect on everythig around it.

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Proposed Uptown 23rd Church | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/answers-to-frequently-asked-questions-about-proposed-uptown-23rd-church/article/5382644)

like the former Christ the Scientist Church,

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID13791/images/labcoat.jpg

???

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID13791/images/labcoat.jpg

???

No words...that is exactly how I pictured it. Haha

On edit...First Church of the Scientist*

It also bothers me (though does not surprise me) that the church won't go on the record to discuss their plans for the space and its effect on everythig around it.

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Proposed Uptown 23rd Church | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/answers-to-frequently-asked-questions-about-proposed-uptown-23rd-church/article/5382644)

First of all, I spoke directly to the church pastor Tim Mannin and Judy Hatfield who called me to discuss this, and they couldn't have been more forthright.

Secondly, the Tower owners have been in dialog with the church and both sides said they were working together. I posted about both these things around the time I wrote the article two weeks ago.

And finally, this just plain silly:


Q: Couldn't the owners of the Tower Theater seek an ABC-3 before the church opens?

A: Only if the church was willing to wait for the theater to be fully renovated, which will take time, and leased with all permits obtained. ABC-3 zoning is not granted until a building renovation is completed and a certificate of occupancy is obtained.

Q: Is the church aware of these issues?

A: I don't know - they won't grant interviews and have told me they won't discuss the matter until the property purchase is completed.

Steve has clearly been talking to the Tower owners who already told me -- twice -- they have been actively working with the church and anticipate things will work out. Exact wording: "they are so far communicating a positive attitude and willingness to work with us". I'm sure they've told Steve the same.



Frankly, it's ridiculous to cast this church as some sort of bad guy in this scenario.

They are buying an empty property in a thriving district in order to be a bigger part of the community, and investing a ton of money to do so. Reminder they already have a community house near Cuppies & Joe.

The laws are archaic but the church has said -- and the owners have verified -- that there is active cooperation to work around the Tower issue.

The Tower guys have every right to be concerned but what on earth is the expectation here? That a business (church, in this case) shouldn't buy and occupy a building because it will trigger a ridiculous law, even though the church leaders have openly stated they are happy to work with the affected parties??

Not that it matters, but I'm completely against using this space as a church. There is no need nor reason to locate it next to possibly the one location that it would truly be detrimental to. As Steve mentioned in his article below...could they not have chosen a building in midtown...like the former Christ the Scientist Church, that wouldn't negatively effect everything around it?

A church would have the same exact impact as it would on 23rd.

What if someone wanted to renovate one of the buildings next to that church into something that required an ABC-3 permit?

It's the exact same issue.

A church would have the same exact impact as it would on 23rd.

What if someone wanted to renovate one of the buildings next to that church into something that required an ABC-3 permit?

It's the exact same issue.

First Baltist is already directly across the street from that former church building, so I would argue that it would have less of an effect on the development in its immediate proximity.

First Baltist is already directly across the street from that former church building, so I would argue that it would have less of an effect on the development in its immediate proximity.

And by that same token, there is already an operating church in a storefront on 23rd just two blocks to the west of this property.

Lol sorry

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9322497/Photos/Photo%20Jan%2008%2C%205%2020%2058%20AM.jpg

I think the issue with the Tower Theater is it absolutely requires an ABC-3 permit to be successful. If it was anywhere else, anybody who wanted to open a bar nearby could serve food also and qualify for ABC-2. The Tower Theater however doesn't have a kitchen. If the church goes in before they get their ABC-3 license, then any change of it being a successful performance/music venue is severely handicapped.

I agree the bad guy is NOT this church. It's the law and the extreme fundamentalist base who oppose relaxing it.

Lol sorry

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9322497/Photos/Photo%20Jan%2008%2C%205%2020%2058%20AM.jpg

I guess that's what I get for using an iPhone. The new predictive text is terrible.

Everyone agrees that the archaic law is to blame, BUT until that law is fixed the Church is absolutley hindering the possibility for the district to continue its renaissance. Deals and handshake deals at that, go south all the time. Until the Tower theatre guys have everything done to grandfather in to beat any code restrictions caused by the Church, I will be worried about this.

By the logic of some, we better hope no one opens any schools, daycares, or apartments in these urban development areas, since they can all affect the ability of places to get ABC-3 permits. I'm sure keeping out these type of community growth needs will especially help districts continue their "renaissance".

I guess that's what I get for using an iPhone. The new predictive text is terrible.
Your phone thinks "Chrurch" is a word? :tongue:

By the logic of some, we better hope no one opens any schools, daycares, or apartments in these urban development areas, since they can all affect the ability of places to get ABC-3 permits. I'm sure keeping out these type of community growth needs will especially help districts continue their "renaissance".

No. There are other options within the district to locate that will not possibly hinder any other potential businesses that are currently being pitched and negotiated. Specifically the Tower development. Pretty simple to comprehend.

Here's the better question to be asking:

How long does the Tower Theater need to be completely renovated and ready to receive an inspection for head count? Getting their ABLE license ultimately depends on a time line. If we're talking about 6 months…then I doubt we'll have a problem. If we're talking about 18 months, well the church is not going to wait forever.

When the Tower was acquired, they said they already had their financing in place for the renovation.

They told me they wanted to get started right after the first of the year.

The complicating factor is they don't have their tenants completely nailed down.

No. There are other options within the district to locate that will not possibly hinder any other potential businesses that are currently being pitched and negotiated. Specifically the Tower development. Pretty simple to comprehend.
^^^^^^^
This. Folks keep acting as if being troubled about this is tantamount to not wanting churches to locate in urban areas, or being anti-church/religion in general. Total straw man. This is a very specific issue; revival of the Tower Theater space is critical to Uptown. Few if any renovation scenarios involve a restaurant in the theater space; but many options could require a bar. Any benefit this church might bring to the district are clearly negated if they hinder or cripple efforts to renovate the Tower.

Some people just don't WANT to comprehend.

Steve has clearly been talking to the Tower owners who already told me -- twice -- they have been actively working with the church and anticipate things will work out. Exact wording: "they are so far communicating a positive attitude and willingness to work with us". I'm sure they've told Steve the same.



Frankly, it's ridiculous to cast this church as some sort of bad guy in this scenario.

They are buying an empty property in a thriving district in order to be a bigger part of the community, and investing a ton of money to do so. Reminder they already have a community house near Cuppies & Joe.

The laws are archaic but the church has said -- and the owners have verified -- that there is active cooperation to work around the Tower issue.


This needs to be said again and again. Why are developments that are being subsidized with millions of dollars in taxpayer funds given the benefit of the doubt on here, but a church that is actively trying to be as undisruptive as possible being villified?

The viciousness of the attacks on here are frankly depressing. As if these people are somehow right wing holy rollers moving in to try and shut down all those sinners drinking and fornicating on 23rd. I don't recall anyone saying these things about when UCO-ACM was first proposed, even though like this church they also lobbied (successfully I might add) to make sure they didn't affect Bricktown with ABC2 zoning.

There is a living, breathing neighborhood here. And while the Paseo area and 23rd Corridor are rapidly gentrifying, I can personally tell you there is a lot of poverty both to the immediate east and west of this location. When people back in the 70s and 80s were tripping over themselves white flighting to the suburbs, churches were all too eager to follow them, taking their community outreach services with them. In a low tax/low services state like OK, that was pretty devastating. For this fact alone, an "urban church" that is willing to move into this area and invest themselves into the community should be looked at as a positive, and not given side eye from supposedly open minded people for having the audacity to exist.

^^^^^^^
This. This is a very specific issue. Good mixed urban development.

Seriously though, I would have a very different viewpoint if the church wasn't a) already a good, involved member of the community there and b) wasn't appearing to be working and willing to do what they can do not be disruptive to the Tower development or other area development.

When I spoke with the church, they said they had been looking in the area for quite some time.

It's not like they had 10 properties to choose from that suit their needs... They were looking and looking, finally found one that works for them and were able to negotiate a price that fits their budget.

Now, they are trying to work with the Tower owners over an issue that is not their fault.


It's an unfortunate situation brought on by a ridiculous law. Seems like energy should be put into fixing that problem rather then trying to influence where a church can operate.

BTW, what do people want the church to do here?

Cancel the purchase, scrap their plans, flush the money they've already invested?

Wait until another suitable property comes along in their price range, if ever?

Who exactly is trying to influence where a church can operate?

Who exactly is trying to influence where a church can operate?

I'm addressing the people who don't want them operating in this particular spot.

BTW, what do people want the church to do here?

Cancel the purchase, scrap their plans, flush the money they've already invested?

Wait until another suitable property comes along in their price range, if ever?

Be a maverick and open a Church/Full service Bar.. with a catchy name that includes "Spirit/Spirits" in a ironic fashion..

Honestly I haven't seen too much of that here...with the exception of people (like me) who want to see the Tower fully licensed before the church puts the neighborhood on booze lockdown. Barring an (unlikely) change in state law, of course.

Does anyone know the law regarding the 300 feet rule?

Is that 300 feet from any of the property boundaries, from the front door, etc.?

Want to create a graphic that would show the affected area.

Be a maverick and open a Church/Full service Bar.. with a catchy name that includes "Spirit/Spirits" in a ironic fashion..

Wholly Spirit!!! They'll serve only Martini's straight up, no vermouth.

By the way, I'm not great at researching posts on this board, but if you search OKCTalk you can find me sounding the alarm on this and predicting this issue multiple times for the past several years, since the law change for ACM in Bricktown. I said at the time that leaving churches out of that change would probably prove to be disastrous one day. This is an instance where I wish I had been wrong.

Once the Tower gets their liquor license, can they sell the business and the license transfer, or does the business have to maintain and operate under the same flag until the day the church leaves that spot in order to keep the license?

Once the Tower gets their liquor license, can they sell the business and the license transfer, or does the business have to maintain and operate under the same flag until the day the church leaves that spot in order to keep the license?

The license is attached to the property, not the owners / proprietors.

By the way, I'm not great at researching posts on this board, but if you search OKCTalk you can find me sounding the alarm on this and predicting this issue multiple times for the past several years, since the law change for ACM in Bricktown. I said at the time that leaving churches out of that change would probably prove to be disastrous one day. This is an instance where I wish I had been wrong.

As well as regular schools. I believe the law change only affected Colleges.

Wholly Spirit!!! They'll serve only Martini's straight up, no vermouth.

Fantastic!

This issue also impacted the Life Church in Moore and a way was found to resolve it.

Does anyone know the law regarding the 300 feet rule?

Is that 300 feet from any of the property boundaries, from the front door, etc.?

Want to create a graphic that would show the affected area.

Looks like property boundary to wall.


The distance
indicated in this section shall be measured from the nearest property line of such public or
private school or church to the nearest perimeter wall of the premises of any such mixed
beverage establishment, beer and wine establishment, bottle club, or retail package store
which has been licensed to sell alcoholic beverages.

I'm in no way anti-church. I have zero issue with a church being located there. As someone who lives near by I am anti things that could halt the development of the Tower Theater. I think people have a reason to be concerned and I think it is disingenuous to lump people who are concerned as anti church. I have actually seen very, very little of that. Most people are just very pro-Tower Theater.

Looks like property boundary to wall.

Thanks!

No words...that is exactly how I pictured it. Haha

On edit...First Church of the Scientist*

To clear it up once and for all, it is correctly "First Church of Christ, Scientist"

This shows a 300 foot radius from both the proposed and existing churches:

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/9949d1420740801-okc-community-chrurch-churchradius.jpg

Between the two of those it certainly knocks out a big chunk in that area that would not be eligible for ABC3.

I'm in no way anti-church. I have zero issue with a church being located there. As someone who lives near by I am anti things that could halt the development of the Tower Theater. I think people have a reason to be concerned and I think it is disingenuous to lump people who are concerned as anti church. I have actually seen very, very little of that. Most people are just very pro-Tower Theater.

^^^^^^^^
This.

What if, despite the best efforts of the church and the Tower to work it out amongst themselves, something in the law just makes it not happen? As someone said, handshake deals and best intentions go awry all the time. I applaud the church and Tower for trying to work things out (although I'd rather not see a church go in there), but it might just *not* work out, and things go south for the Tower, as well as anybody else that wants to go in with an ABC-3 license anywhere in that purple area because the church goes in there. Hindering development in that area, through no fault of the church's, but due to that law, is a bad thing, period.

That's a pretty big area of influence. Man I hate that law.

Between the two of those it certainly knocks out a big chunk in that area that would not be eligible for ABC3.

Also makes the loss of Fedora and FlashBack from The Rise even more critical, as the whole development could have accommodated ABC-3 and in the end, there won't be one such establishment.

Also makes the loss of Fedora and FlashBack from The Rise even more critical, as the whole development could have accommodated ABC-3 and in the end, there won't be one such establishment.

That was what I was thinking was how the Rise kind of lucks out.. then thought well they may have dodged the bullet but it doesnt' appear anyone in the Rise will benefit. :/

I'm not super concerned with having ton's of ABC-3 permits in a given area... I'd prefer them to be the exception rather than the rule.

The law is definitely outdated and works against good urban development though.

I'm not super concerned with having ton's of ABC-3 permits in a given area... I'd prefer them to be the exception rather than the rule.

The law is definitely outdated and works against good urban development though.
Agree 100%. Lots of great places have emerged that have a great bar vibe, yet are ABC-2. Mule, R&J, WSKY, Fassler, etc. all come to mind. That said, some ABC-3 places are great to have (Grandad's, for example), and some spaces just don't lend themselves well to restaurant space yet need bar (Tower, specifically). That archaic law is a remnant of another time. It envisions all churches as traditional standalone places with steeples and stained glass, and it envisions all bars as seedy dens of iniquity.

By the way, I'm not great at researching posts on this board, but if you search OKCTalk you can find me sounding the alarm on this and predicting this issue multiple times for the past several years, since the law change for ACM in Bricktown. I said at the time that leaving churches out of that change would probably prove to be disastrous one day. This is an instance where I wish I had been wrong.

Happened to run across it by chance while I did a quick search on what the difference between ABC-1/2/3 were.

http://www.okctalk.com/general-food-drink-topics/35690-abc-1-2-3-a.html#post710055

Thanks.

Hopefully it all works out in the end. It's too bad the church can't sign a waiver allowing an ABC-3 to go in. An ABC-3 and a church have very little times when both are busy. Maybe the once a year Wednesday night when the bar is full (Thundy playoff game) and community groups are meeting.

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.

Just to clarify, there is nothing to oppose.

There are no permits that need to be filed, no planning process involved. The church (and any church in a C-3 zoned area) can merely open their doors for business.

So, unless you plan to somehow try to thwart the property purchase or picket the church, people need to understand this is not an issue of community activism.

It's between two property owners as they try to navigate around a crazy law.


BTW, anyone could go lease any storefront along 23rd today and open a church. There wouldn't even be any real notice unless a building permit was filed or there was a land sale. This can happen anywhere in OKC where there is C-3 zoning, which is pretty widespread.

We really need to get this law change because there is going to be only more situations like this in the future.

Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen where anyone is pitting Christians against non Christians. I think over all the tone is that its a shame that it could hinder the development of the tower. I don't have a problem with the church it just happens to be a very problematic location is all. I think most agree that its the law that is the problem not the church itself.

...

We really need to get this law change because there is going to be only more situations like this in the future.

How would "we" (ordinary citizens) even start to go about this? Anybody know?

Honestly I haven't seen too much of that here...with the exception of people (like me) who want to see the Tower fully licensed before the church puts the neighborhood on booze lockdown. Barring an (unlikely) change in state law, of course.

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 law is an obvious concern. Given that the pastor of the church and the owners are working together, I don't think its too much to ask they'd be given the benefit of the doubt before freaking out. There isn't anything legally that can stop the church from going in; and lets face it, the law isn't going to be changed anytime soon with the current crop of clowns at the legislature. So I would just let the process work out; I would bet they are probably closer to a conclusion than anyone here would know.

How would "we" (ordinary citizens) even start to go about this? Anybody know?

http://www.oksenate.gov/Senators/directory.pdf
House Members - Oklahoma House of Representatives (http://www.okhouse.gov/members/)

The best way to get this changed (as with everything else) is for the developers and big business to get behind the idea and make a concerted lobbying effort.

I would think the quickest way would for churches to actually get behind the change also.

http://www.oksenate.gov/Senators/directory.pdf
House Members - Oklahoma House of Representatives (http://www.okhouse.gov/members/)

Thanks, but have *never* had any luck with *any* of my legislators, local or national, actually giving a sh*t about my opinions and even considering thinking about possibly, maybe acting on them... I think Pete and OSUFan have the answers, and as ordinary citizens, our opinions don't matter a damn bit in American politics any longer, it's all business.

Thanks, but have *never* had any luck with *any* of my legislators, local or national, actually giving a sh*t about my opinions and even considering thinking about possibly, maybe acting on them... I think Pete and OSUFan have the answers, and as ordinary citizens, our opinions don't matter a damn bit in American politics any longer, it's all business.

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.