Glad to see the Oklahoman was able to give Salame some good PR:


In an interview with The Oklahoman, Salame said she is complying with the terms of an agreement with securities investigators with the refund offer and added the development remains on track and that an update on construction plans will follow within the next few weeks.

In a letter sent to investors earlier this month, Salame said she has fully cooperated with investigators and that the $55,000 property purchase in 2015 resulted from erroneously drawing payment from the Strawberry Fields bank account instead of her personal account.

None of this is credible. We all know no construction plans are coming. Lackmeyer could have at least mentioned she's completely whiffed on every supposed deadline.

Strawberry Fields (development is going to take) Forever

It's also important to note that the City backed out of a $16 million TIF grant for infrastructure improvements. Also, the splashy partnership with national developer JLL seems to be completely defunct. The Oklahoman had a big article about that when announced but has somehow not followed up at all. The SF development is not on the JLL website and I've emailed the partner the Oklahoman quoted and have received no response.

This whole thing looks like a cluster with no forward movement in sight.


BTW, how do you accidentally embezzle $55,000 and then turn around and sell the property you bought with those funds for $412,000 to the same investors a year later?

And she'll pay back her investors "when" she has the money??

Good grief.

The fact that the article was as sympathetic to Salame as it was is astounding. Her behavior is criminal.

The fact that the article was as sympathetic to Salame as it was is astounding. Her behavior is criminal.

It's the latest in a long series by Steve Lackmeyer, and they are all the same.

Disappointing to see this article ^. Was in OKC a couple of weeks ago visiting. This area is screaming for development, such an unbelievable location. Could completely change the feel of OKC's downtown.

What a hot mess

It's the latest in a long series by Steve Lackmeyer, and they are all the same.

Someone has to comfort the comfortable.

Whoa, just catching up on all this!! " There are no accidents!" I know several of the plaintiffs and apparently they don't believe Pat Salame"s lies, either. They are pressing forward with their lawsuit and criminal charges. In fact, several of them think she should serve some jail time. The best thing they ever did was file complaints with the ODS. The ODS protects the public! Looks like they protected this group that invested in the first year. These poor investors that have waited for over 8 years to see lots cleared and developed into a huge eye sore on the west side of the Park!

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/strawberry041624a.jpg

So the old Goodwill site is now just a parking lot, not surprised at all. Mazaheri at his finest.

He is the worst.

So the old Goodwill site is now just a parking lot, not surprised at all. Mazaheri at his finest.

He is the worst.

Blame the city for not holding him accountable. People will generally choose the laziest option available, unless held to a higher standard that is enforced. OKC letting him get away with it is the problem.

"Change happens when the pain of staying the same is greater than the pain of change."

OKC absolutely needs to hold him accountable, and has needed to for years and years.

There is so much potential for this land and that picture is sad to look at.

I will say that a ton of people love parking there. When there is a large, crowded event, people take advantage of that parking. I hate that no development is moving right there, but the parking lot is used by a ton of people who drive a long distance to get to it.

Which speaks to the fundamental problem with urban development patterns for the past several decades......

The average Oklahoman being a lazy fat ass has more to do with the state or urbanism here than anything else. The concept of walking from downtown to midtown or bricktown is unfathomable to many of the locals I have gone out on the town with. It is honestly kind of pathetic. Walking from uptown to the plaza is treated like sailing across the Atlantic in the 1400s.

^^lmao

While I agree that a lot of people are lazy and don't want to walk more than 10 feet if they don't have to, there's a reality that the bulk of the people don't live within walking distance of downtown, midtown, or uptown. So, parking is pretty essential in the core. That being said, I would love to see something a lot more meaningful than a parking lot on this plot of land.

While I agree that a lot of people are lazy and don't want to walk more than 10 feet if they don't have to, there's a reality that the bulk of the people don't live within walking distance of downtown, midtown, or uptown. So, parking is pretty essential in the core. That being said, I would love to see something a lot more meaningful than a parking lot on this plot of land.

Fred might just be the wrong guy for that particular tract. He seems to do really well with the suburban/cookie cutter pieces in NW OKC and Edmond, but it’s very possible that he’s just not cut out for urban development in the core.

^

He's a speculator, pure and simple.

He bought and flipped the old Bank of America parking lot to the OKCMOA. He proposed hotels for the big lot east of Oklahoma Ranch years ago, and it's nothing but weeds and mud and is currently for sale. He bought the old lumberyard property and operated an out-of-compliance parking lot before the City forced him to conform. The Goodwill lot is also out of compliance but someone would have to turn him in before anything would be done (you have to adhere to Downtown Design Review and regulations if you convert use). And of course, he is well past several deadlines for developing Goodwill, a property he only got (along with a specific development timeline) because he sued the City over a property of his they took for Scissortail Park; he said in that lawsuit he was planning high-rise housing there and that was about 15 years ago.

He also owns a bunch of frontage along the park south of Social Capital.

^

He is one of far too many land squatters in this area. Norman and OKC have several high profile properties in the hands of people with like that......but it's probably asking too much for all developers to be like Gary Brooks.

The city would have been far better off with numerous land owners and developers with a stake in the area west of Scissortail Park than the monolithic entity that is either incompetent or uninterested in anything other than flipping the properties.

nm

^

He is one of far too many land squatters in this area. Norman and OKC have several high profile properties in the hands of people with like that......but it's probably asking too much for all developers to be like Gary Brooks.

The city would have been far better off with numerous land owners and developers with a stake in the area west of Scissortail Park than the monolithic entity that is either incompetent or uninterested in anything other than flipping the properties.

The city needs to develop a tax that escalates based on your total property holdings in the urban core. If you are actively developing a good percentage of your properties like Midtown Renaissance you pay no additional tax. If you are just holding on to abandoned buildings and illegal parking lots you get taxed out the ass.

The city needs to develop a tax that escalates based on your total property holdings in the urban core. If you are actively developing a good percentage of your properties like Midtown Renaissance you pay no additional tax. If you are just holding on to abandoned buildings and illegal parking lots you get taxed out the ass.

lol no

lol no

There needs to be some incentive to actively either develop prime land or sell it to someone who will.

Reminder, Mazaheri has firm, elaborate, and binding agreements that have hard deadlines for submitting plans and then starting and finishing construction on the Goodwill site.

And absolutely nothing has happened nor has he been fined.

Forcing someone to build anything is fraught with all types of challenges.

There needs to be some incentive to actively either develop prime land or sell it to someone who will.That would not be smart. Adopting an "If you build it, they will come" strategy to develop ANY part of Oklahoma City, or any city for that matter, is a recipe for disaster. This has been proven time and time again.

That would not be smart. Adopting an "If you build it, they will come" strategy to develop ANY part of Oklahoma City, or any city for that matter, is a recipe for disaster. This has been proven time and time again.

But constantly allowing prime lots to be left vacant for years isn't helpful or a recipe for success, either.

But constantly allowing prime lots to be left vacant for years isn't helpful or a recipe for success, either.

The free market always works its magic.

But constantly allowing prime lots to be left vacant for years isn't helpful or a recipe for success, either.

You are going to not only force private developers to build, but demand a development cost at a high level before the market can bear it? Im with Pete. The market will ultimately provide at a level investors will be comfortable with.

That would not be smart. Adopting an "If you build it, they will come" strategy to develop ANY part of Oklahoma City, or any city for that matter, is a recipe for disaster. This has been proven time and time again.

But, isn't that essentially how every MAPS and TIF initiative has been justified?

Obviously, there has been disappointments and there's plenty of examples of things going wrong, but OKC's successes as it is now is very much a result of multiple initiatives that distill down to "if the government builds this, they will come".

It may be uncomfortable for a lot of people in OKC to acknowledge, but the "free market" decimated the city in 1982 and then it was resurrected by a public initiative in 1993.

I am sure that there are countless examples of how adopting an "if you build it, they will come" strategy has resulted in failure. But OKC, as a whole, really is just not one of them.

But, isn't that essentially how every MAPS and TIF initiative has been justified?

Obviously, there has been disappointments and there's plenty of examples of things going wrong, but OKC's successes as it is now is very much a result of multiple initiatives that distill down to "if the government builds this, they will come".

It may be uncomfortable for a lot of people in OKC to acknowledge, but the "free market" decimated the city in 1982 and then it was resurrected by a public initiative in 1993.

I am sure that there are countless examples of how adopting an "if you build it, they will come" strategy has resulted in failure. But OKC, as a whole, really is just not one of them.
I guess people don't really understand how private enterprise works and how public investment works. If the build it they will come advocates invested as they espouse, they would find reality very quickly.

I guess people don't really understand how private enterprise works and how public investment works.

Exactly. Especially in regards to how they are related.

There needs to be some incentive to actively either develop prime land or sell it to someone who will.

Several cities have adjusted property taxes to increase rates on vacant lots, I believe mostly in downtown areas, and its to make it more costly to let something sit undeveloped for so long. It nudges owners to sell or develop it and reduces speculation that happens. Its not unusual in OKC to see a vacant or run down property that has been that way for years, sell to someone, then they sit on it and put it up for sale for higher than they paid.


The free market always works its magic.

Hard to say the free market does its thing in downtown OKC when you have TIF money thrown at every proposed project from a developer who is buying a vacant but high priced lot. I have no doubt that if TIFs weren't a thing, land prices in the core would come down. The only way many lots are ever sold is because the city has to give TIF money to the prospective buyer and developer.

Several cities have adjusted property taxes to increase rates on vacant lots, I believe mostly in downtown areas, and its to make it more costly to let something sit undeveloped for so long. It nudges owners to sell or develop it and reduces speculation that happens. Its not unusual in OKC to see a vacant or run down property that has been that way for years, sell to someone, then they sit on it and put it up for sale for higher than they paid.



Hard to say the free market does its thing in downtown OKC when you have TIF money thrown at every proposed project from a developer who is buying a vacant but high priced lot. I have no doubt that if TIFs weren't a thing, land prices in the core would come down. The only way many lots are ever sold is because the city has to give TIF money to the prospective buyer and developer.

If you start forcing development, you will often force them into cheap, place holder development. Need to have strong enforceable design codes in place and beyond building codes, design criteria can get very political.

Strawberry Fields for never

But...but...it had such a great mood board!

The lawsuit by the majority of the investors is still moving forward.

If you start forcing development, you will often force them into cheap, place holder development. Need to have strong enforceable design codes in place and beyond building codes, design criteria can get very political.

I didnt say forcing development, you just make it a bit more expensive through ad valorem taxes to sit on vacant land or properties. All you are doing is incentivizing action through a sale or developing the property.

I didnt say forcing development, you just make it a bit more expensive through ad valorem taxes to sit on vacant land or properties. All you are doing is incentivizing action through a sale or developing the property.

Several people upthread have absolutely **** on this concept, disregarding the fact it has worked in other cities. If you want to speculate and reap the benefits of both public and private investment in the community, you need to contribute more to the community. Personally, I would much rather see a lot be developed into something positive for the community rather than left vacant for 30 years. I understand that the real world is not Sim City/City Skylines, things have to be developed and expanded at a rate that the market allows. If property owners like Mazaheri are allowed to simply disregard the terms of their agreements with the city what is the point of all of this? He is sitting on some of the most desirable real estate in the entire state. Can any of you honestly say that an outside group would not develop his holdings on the West side of the park? The entire point of MAPS was to increase the quality of life of the residents of this city and to make it more marketable. Many of the projects we have all voted for have been passed because the citizens of this city have in good faith believed if they are willing to invest in this city so would private investors.

It may be uncomfortable for a lot of people in OKC to acknowledge, but the "free market" decimated the city in 1982 and then it was resurrected by a public initiative in 1993.

It seems to me you are confusing private development with public development.

Until and unless a significant private project appears financially feasible, it will be extremely rare to see that project go forward. Yes, there are exceptions such as a multi-billionaire doing something that is a pet project.

Public development, such as MAPS doesn't have the "financially viable" roadblock.

The developers of Strawberry Fields clearly feel the time for it to be what it CAN be has not yet come.

There needs to be some incentive to actively either develop prime land or sell it to someone who will.

If it were that financially feasible to develop the property with the type we all hope goes there, it would be done.

It seems to me you are confusing private development with public development.

Just saying that the two don't exist in separate vacuums. Not really even trying to make a qualitative point, just that an absolute separation between the two doesn't really exist, especially in downtown Oklahoma City.

But admittedly, that simple observation may not really serve the discussion.

Your point that the basis for evaluating a primarily public venture vs a primarily private venture is different is certainly valid, especially from a "financially viable" standpoint. But even then, many public developments are justified by the promise of helping private ventures be more "financially viable", at least in rhetoric supporting the public development.

Your point that the basis for evaluating a primarily public venture vs a primarily private venture is different is certainly valid, especially from a "financially viable" standpoint. But even then, many public developments are justified by the promise of helping private ventures be more "financially viable", at least in rhetoric supporting the public development.

Even with public developments hoping to spur private development, until the financials fall into place, the type of development we all want won't happen. Sure they could always put in a strip center or the demonized parking lot, but thays not what we want. I'd rather it sit until the right development comes along.

TBH, the city needs to vocalize what they envision the way other cities do which, given the mayor's relationships with other mayors, could get more national attention and development. Once the pioneer has built a profitable structure, others are sure to follow.

Even with public developments hoping to spur private development, until the financials fall into place, the type of development we all want won't happen. Sure they could always put in a strip center or the demonized parking lot, but thays not what we want. I'd rather it sit until the right development comes along.

TBH, the city needs to vocalize what they envision the way other cities do which, given the mayor's relationships with other mayors, could get more national attention and development. Once the pioneer has built a profitable structure, others are sure to follow.

Everyone in this thread for the most part agrees that any development needs to be done in a way that is financially sound and matches the needs of the city. I think the main point of contention is if speculators should be incentivized to either sell or pay a premium to continue holding. I do not think a premium on undeveloped land holdings in a limited area around the core is a bad thing. I really like your idea of the city taking the lead to help paint the picture of what the core looks like. We all don't want development simply for development's sake.

TBH, the city needs to vocalize what they envision the way other cities do which, given the mayor's relationships with other mayors, could get more national attention and development. Once the pioneer has built a profitable structure, others are sure to follow.

Agree, the city needs a world-class chief architect who can envision how to transform it into an elegant urban space. I don't think our city leaders have that world-class vision. OKC still has a lot of undeveloped land in prime locations, and it's a waste that these areas are being used for short-sighted or unattractive projects like Robert Square and Broadway Park. Even projects like the Hub and the Muse are just fill-in-the-blank developments (projects that nobody would care if they would be demolished to make space for something better). Copenhagen, for example, is beautiful not only because of its old buildings but also due to its creative and aesthetically pleasing new developments. This is because their city leaders and residents have good taste. I've watched many OKC city council meetings, btw, so I can tell.

Agree, the city needs a world-class chief architect who can envision how to transform it into an elegant urban space. I don't think our city leaders have that world-class vision. OKC still has a lot of undeveloped land in prime locations, and it's a waste that these areas are being used for short-sighted or unattractive projects like Robert Square and Broadway Park. Even projects like the Hub and the Muse are just fill-in-the-blank developments (projects that nobody would care if they would be demolished to make space for something better). Copenhagen, for example, is beautiful not only because of its old buildings but also due to its creative and aesthetically pleasing new developments. This is because their city leaders and residents have good taste.

We also need a culture that accepts and PAYS FOR creatively forward and riskier designs and development. We have one architect here that has a national reputation for creative designs and he gets a lot of flack on this board for his designs and for him trying to exercise some design influence. You need private developers who will back forward thinking architects who they believe the community will embrace and populate their properties. If the community as a whole understands , embraces advanced concepts and designs, and support them with their $, they will take more risks. Comparing the citizens of Copenhagen to OKCitians is unrealistic.

^^^ I agree. I wish we had several developers with deep pockets and a strong desire to make this city look elegant and "enforce" their vision. MR is one of those, and I've been very vocal about their use of one architect for everything, which makes their projects start to look similar. It's time to raise the bar. I hope they'll start hiring nationally acclaimed architects or local architects striving for national acclaim.

Agree, the city needs a world-class chief architect who can envision how to transform it into an elegant urban space. I don't think our city leaders have that world-class vision. OKC still has a lot of undeveloped land in prime locations, and it's a waste that these areas are being used for short-sighted or unattractive projects like Robert Square and Broadway Park. Even projects like the Hub and the Muse are just fill-in-the-blank developments (projects that nobody would care if they would be demolished to make space for something better). Copenhagen, for example, is beautiful not only because of its old buildings but also due to its creative and aesthetically pleasing new developments. This is because their city leaders and residents have good taste. I've watched many OKC city council meetings, btw, so I can tell.
Sounds like The Pei Plan of the 1960s. We complain about it, but it made for a large amount of developable space in the core. Which people have complained about how long the development is taking every single day since.

Not every starchitect is the right architect for the job, and cities with visionary leaders know how to select the right one.

Several people upthread have absolutely **** on this concept, disregarding the fact it has worked in other cities. If you want to speculate and reap the benefits of both public and private investment in the community, you need to contribute more to the community. Personally, I would much rather see a lot be developed into something positive for the community rather than left vacant for 30 years. I understand that the real world is not Sim City/City Skylines, things have to be developed and expanded at a rate that the market allows. If property owners like Mazaheri are allowed to simply disregard the terms of their agreements with the city what is the point of all of this? He is sitting on some of the most desirable real estate in the entire state. Can any of you honestly say that an outside group would not develop his holdings on the West side of the park? The entire point of MAPS was to increase the quality of life of the residents of this city and to make it more marketable. Many of the projects we have all voted for have been passed because the citizens of this city have in good faith believed if they are willing to invest in this city so would private investors.

Agree 100% - Good post.

Not every starchitect is the right architect for the job, and cities with visionary leaders know how to select the right one.
Cities don't select everyone’s architect for private jobs. They don’t even do that in China.

^^^ You don't get my point. The 'right' architect lays out the guidelines for architectural designs submitted and helps make a city beautiful or not. Not every starchitect is the right choice for every city. For example, I wouldn't wish for OKC to hire Bjarke Ingels for the job, but I would be super happy if they chose Robert A.M. Stern. Btw, beautiful cities have only ever been created when governments impose strict and ambitious regulations to keep the rich, dull, and greedy developers in check. Actually, I don't think we should call those guys developers, destroyers may be more appropriate.

Agree, the city needs a world-class chief architect who can envision how to transform it into an elegant urban space. I don't think our city leaders have that world-class vision. OKC still has a lot of undeveloped land in prime locations, and it's a waste that these areas are being used for short-sighted or unattractive projects like Robert Square and Broadway Park. Even projects like the Hub and the Muse are just fill-in-the-blank developments (projects that nobody would care if they would be demolished to make space for something better). Copenhagen, for example, is beautiful not only because of its old buildings but also due to its creative and aesthetically pleasing new developments. This is because their city leaders and residents have good taste. I've watched many OKC city council meetings, btw, so I can tell.

If only we had taken this exact approach a long time ago…….

^^^ You don't get my point. The 'right' architect lays out the guidelines for architectural designs submitted and helps make a city beautiful or not. Not every starchitect is the right choice for every city. For example, I wouldn't wish for OKC to hire Bjarke Ingels for the job, but I would be super happy if they chose Robert A.M. Stern. Btw, beautiful cities have only ever been created when governments impose strict and ambitious regulations to keep the rich, dull, and greedy developers in check. Actually, I don't think we should call those guys developers, destroyers may be more appropriate.
You want another architect to create a master plan for OKC like Pei did? And, by the way, the master plan doesn't dictate design on all the buildings, just creates aspirational drawings. And, you want to eliminate developers and replace them with the city government? Who do you think takes financial responsibility for all these great designs? The city doesnt do the work of developers. Wheeler wasn't created by city starchitects… but by private developers with profit as a motive.

The city has a chance to influence design in the city with the new arena and other public edifices. We will see how they do and how much support for cool designs and big budgets we get.

I M Pei

U R not

O S I R
C M wings

L I B
U R Pei

Please no more Pei plans but yes, l do believe a city can make a point of the type of development the city would like to see on important parcels. For example, mid and hi-rise residential along Scissortail Park, multi-family or brownstone type single family, etc..... then work with the developer to make it happen.

Strawberry Fields for never

Dammit I came here to say this LOL.

Dammit I came here to say this LOL.

I personally prefer "Strawberry Fields; Forever (Undeveloped)" but this will do. It's sad that a few wealthy oligarchs can hinder the progress of an entire city, much less one single development.

So we do like or we don't like tifs and government incentives? I get confused. We do like zoning, or we don't? We do like influential architects to hold sway over other architects’’ designs, or we don’t? We like eminent domain, or we don’t? We like planned communities, or we don’t? We like government spending, or we don’t? We like central planning, or we don’t?