View Full Version : Lexford Park (formerly First Christian Church)



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10

Urban Pioneer
04-09-2019, 09:03 PM
What happened on this today at City Council? I was there but had to leave.

BoulderSooner
04-10-2019, 07:33 AM
What happened on this today at City Council? I was there but had to leave.

council met in exec session because of the very real possiblity that this could end up in court and then took no action

there has not been a suit filed yet but the attorney say that is an option

Urban Pioneer
04-10-2019, 07:39 AM
Thanks. I saw the pastor John Malget there and wondered. Looking back on the video, I guess he left. Under "Items from Council" it has the agenda item for the historic status stricken and then the Executive Session you mention. Yesterday's meeting was interesting but long.

Pete
04-10-2019, 07:49 AM
council met in exec session because of the very real possiblity that this could end up in court and then took no action

there has not been a suit filed yet but the attorney say that is an option

Those are completely unrelated.

The council had tabled the historic landmark resolution from the previous meeting, but during the interim the Historic Preservation Committee and already voted to pass the commencement of the historic landmark process. Therefore, there was nothing for the council upon yesterday in this matter.

The city had already received the letter from the church threatening to sue by the time the HPC met. And in fact, they had a similar executive session in the same meeting where they passed the resolution.

Pete
04-21-2019, 10:25 AM
Word is that at Easter service today, Crossings Church announced their plans to purchase the iconic First Christian Church, preserve it, and do some updating for a satellite campus.

Plutonic Panda
04-21-2019, 10:26 AM
That’s not the most exciting proposal but it sure is better than any proposal to demolish it. This is good news!

Pete
04-21-2019, 10:33 AM
That’s not the most exciting proposal but it sure is better than any proposal to demolish it. This is good news!

It's freaking fantastic!

I can see this building from my offices at the Gazette. I'm very, very happy.

Plutonic Panda
04-21-2019, 10:40 AM
It's freaking fantastic!

I can see this building from my offices at the Gazette. I'm very, very happy.The only reason I worded my post like that is the fact that I was hoping for a mixed use but I agree with you. I am very happy to hear this building will be preserved.

Do you know if they plan on pumping more money to renovate the place?

Pete
04-21-2019, 11:12 AM
Do you know if they plan on pumping more money to renovate the place?

Yes, plan to renovate and preserve.

Pete
04-21-2019, 11:16 AM
Just took these:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/firstchristian042119a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/firstchristian042119b.jpg

Bill Robertson
04-21-2019, 11:22 AM
They did in fact announce this. One great thing about Crossings doing it is that it will be done well!

mugofbeer
04-21-2019, 11:40 AM
Thank you for the information and to OKCTalk and members for, I'm sure, being greatly responsible for what seems like a great outcome.

PhiAlpha
04-21-2019, 11:42 AM
Yes, plan to renovate and preserve.

If their current campus is any indication, they’ll dump a ton of money into this campus. I can’t think of a much better scenario for that property. Between the investment and all the people it will draw to the area this is major win for everyone involved if it goes through.

mugofbeer
04-21-2019, 11:48 AM
Any idea on the inclusion of the old youth center (now a charter school)?

Bill Robertson
04-21-2019, 12:14 PM
I don’t think they’re anywhere near actual plans for anything except that they felt it was important to the community save the building. From being at Crossings since we were Belle Isle I can say with certainty that anything they do will be after lots of input from the community.

5alive
04-21-2019, 12:46 PM
https://crossings.church/news/

Pete
04-21-2019, 12:49 PM
^

From that link:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/crossings042119a.jpg

barrettd
04-21-2019, 06:30 PM
It would be very cool to see that property revitalized. This is promising news, and I'm very optimistic about what they'll do with the property.

rezman
04-21-2019, 07:41 PM
This is wonderful!. Crossings has a great history and community outreach.

Martin
04-21-2019, 08:01 PM
if this also saves the jewel box, then it sounds like a perfect win...

David
04-22-2019, 12:40 AM
What a fantastic development. Major kudos to Crossings for stepping up like this.

Given their current campus locations, it really does seem like a good choice for their own potential growth and ministry reach in addition to preserving such an important OKC landmark.

Urban Pioneer
04-22-2019, 07:54 AM
Thank you for the information and to OKCTalk and members for, I'm sure, being greatly responsible for what seems like a great outcome.


One has to wonder if the public dialogue on here about Crossings helped put the concept back in front of them

barrettd
04-22-2019, 09:39 AM
if this also saves the jewel box, then it sounds like a perfect win...

They just announced part 1 of a 2-part season for 2019-2020, so they're optimistic about being able to stay in the space. Big question is who will take over running the theatre, if it stays, as the man who ran it for the last 30+ years just retired.

Bill Robertson
04-22-2019, 10:57 AM
They just announced part 1 of a 2-part season for 2019-2020, so they're optimistic about being able to stay in the space. Big question is who will take over running the theatre, if it stays, as the man who ran it for the last 30+ years just retired.Tgat could be another benefit of Crossings taking ownership. They have a lot very talented, artistic and organized people.

Midtowner
04-22-2019, 11:25 AM
Any idea on the inclusion of the old youth center (now a charter school)?

Since Crossings already operates a school on its main campus, it doesn't seem a stretch to think they might open their own school in that building. I'm surprised that a school could operate out of that building at all. Back in the 90s, I was in the Oklahoma Youth Symphony, which rehearsed there. It was in pretty bad shape then.

barrettd
04-22-2019, 05:08 PM
Since Crossings already operates a school on its main campus, it doesn't seem a stretch to think they might open their own school in that building. I'm surprised that a school could operate out of that building at all. Back in the 90s, I was in the Oklahoma Youth Symphony, which rehearsed there. It was in pretty bad shape then.

I understood the article to say the sale would only include property West of the creek, which would exclude the youth center.

Bill Robertson
04-23-2019, 06:01 AM
I understood the article to say the sale would only include property West of the creek, which would exclude the youth center.I hadn’t read the article on NewsOK until just now but it does say that. It also says that all the undeveloped land zoned residential isn’t in the sale. So the possibility of something being done with that land later is also a possibility. This could be a win-win.

bombermwc
04-23-2019, 07:52 AM
Note that the land east of the creek also includes the DoC Regional office. So i would imagine that the eastern chunk will be maintained by the denomination as well as the current endowment.

David
05-06-2019, 05:38 PM
Four councilmen want to reverse a decision taken by Historic Preservation Commission to protect First Christian Church (https://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/action-item/Content?oid=6152421)

Partial quote of the article, in particular the bits that pissed me off.


Despite the fact that First Christian Church lies in his ward, Ward 2 councilman James Cooper said he did not know about the resolution until Friday.

“The unfortunate consequence of me learning about this proposal the Friday before the vote is that I don't know the particular details why each one of those council folk put forth this resolution,” he said “I've spoken very briefly with people involved with the [potential] purchase of the church, and they were concerned about the historic preservation component of this. I was looking forward to being a part of that conversation. … I was looking forward to being a part of that process. I learned about all of this instead on Friday evening.”

----

The resolution is sponsored by Ward 1 councilman James Greiner, Ward 4 councilman Todd Stone, Ward 5 councilman David Greenwell and Ward 8 councilman Mark Stonecipher. They could not be reached for comment.

Pete
05-06-2019, 05:46 PM
My understanding is the resolution will be delayed until May 21st.

But the issues in that article are the same. This was handled very, very badly and may signal a new era on the council.

mkjeeves
05-06-2019, 05:58 PM
he said (Cooper) “I've spoken very briefly with people involved with the [potential] purchase of the church, and they were concerned about the historic preservation component of this.


Am I understanding Crossings is concerned about buying the property with the designation as opposed to without where they would have more freedom to do whatever in the future?

(Reading between the lines...that's probably what is driving the resolution to drop the move towards designation?)

Pete
05-06-2019, 06:49 PM
^

Yes and remember Stonecipher is a member of Crossings.

mkjeeves
05-06-2019, 07:19 PM
^

Yes and remember Stonecipher is a member of Crossings.

Yeah, I picked up in that. Nice to have people in high places. I get as a potential property buyer of a distressed property why they would be concerned. They are probably going to want to change it and possibly at some point want to exit it if it doesn't work out. It's good they are interested but that's a sleazy approach.

Pete
05-06-2019, 07:21 PM
Keep in mind the council is looking to rescind the entire process, which amounts to a 6-month moratorium (already one month in) before city council has the final say.

Waiting another 5 months to do anything is not going to hurt Crossings or anyone else.

It's just a lousy power play, especially not even discussing this with Cooper. And they seem to have violated state open meeting laws in the process.

mkjeeves
05-06-2019, 07:23 PM
Keep in mind the council is looking to rescind the entire process, which amounts to a 6-month moratorium (already one month in) before city council has the final say.

Waiting another 5 months to do anything is not going to hurt Crossings or anyone else.

It's just a lousy power play, especially not even discussing this with Cooper. And they seem to have violated state open meeting laws in the process.

So it seems.

d-usa
05-06-2019, 08:14 PM
That’s par for the course on the council though.

soonerguru
05-06-2019, 08:14 PM
I've been told that this vote has been delayed for a future council meeting.

Jersey Boss
05-06-2019, 09:14 PM
Curious as to how the historic preservation designation would hold in a court challenge based on separation of church and state arguement.

BoulderSooner
05-07-2019, 05:40 AM
it what way does it look like they violated the open meetings process??

and the ones that over stepped here was the historic preservation commission stepping in when the council and the property owner where is discussion to resolve this issue

Pete
05-07-2019, 07:12 AM
it what way does it look like they violated the open meetings process??

and the ones that over stepped here was the historic preservation commission stepping in when the council and the property owner where is discussion to resolve this issue

No city business is to be conducted in private. 4 council members agreeing to sponsor a resolution is a clear violation of that.

BoulderSooner
05-07-2019, 07:28 AM
No city business is to be conducted in private. 4 council members agreeing to sponsor a resolution is a clear violation of that.

not really that "clear"

David
05-07-2019, 08:45 AM
Hey, maybe they just independently decided to submit the same resolution and it's all a big coincidence. That's believable, right?

jerrywall
05-07-2019, 09:03 AM
No city business is to be conducted in private. 4 council members agreeing to sponsor a resolution is a clear violation of that.

Out of curiosity - does this just apply to a quorum discussing a topic, or if any two members discuss business outside of the meeting, it that automatically a violation?

BoulderSooner
05-07-2019, 09:17 AM
Out of curiosity - does this just apply to a quorum discussing a topic, or if any two members discuss business outside of the meeting, it that automatically a violation?

it depends on who's opinion you go with which is why it is not "clear"

Pete
05-07-2019, 09:23 AM
it depends on who's opinion you go with which is why it is not "clear"

The Attorney General makes those decisions -- and they are binding for everyone in the state -- and has already done so in this matter.

We've discussed this extensively in other threads.

BoulderSooner
05-07-2019, 09:28 AM
The Attorney General makes those decisions -- and they are binding for everyone in the state -- and has already done so in this matter.

We've discussed this extensively in other threads.

and yet the OKC city attorney doesn't agree with you

Pete
05-07-2019, 09:30 AM
and yet the OKC city attorney doesn't agree with you

His opinion was directly challenged and the city immediately agreed to settle and stop the practice.

I was a party to those meetings and negotiations.


Much more to this still to come.

Of Sound Mind
05-07-2019, 09:31 AM
and yet the OKC city attorney doesn't agree with you
Because the city attorney is NEVER wrong...

BoulderSooner
05-07-2019, 09:53 AM
Because the city attorney is NEVER wrong...

didn't say that he was correct ... but it does show that there is not a "clear" opinion ....

Of Sound Mind
05-07-2019, 11:23 AM
didn't say that he was correct ... but it does show that there is not a "clear" opinion ....
Or it shows that perhaps the city attorney is not as objective/impartial as they should be and/or they are influenced by the politics/shenanigans happening behind closed doors.

jerrywall
05-07-2019, 11:34 AM
I asked my question, because I'm not an expert. However, I served on a board that was subject to open meetings, and was told that it was clearly spelled out in the laws that it pertains to a quorum. So we were told we could have a one on one discussion with another member of the board outside of the meeting, without violating the open meetings act. The minimum required for a quorum was defined in our bylaws. If we had one of our scheduled meetings, and didn't have enough for a quorum, the chair announced that no official business would take place, and the meeting would be rescheduled, but people often had conversations, so not sure if those conversations were actually violating the law. Probably could have been murky ground if anyone had brought any action against the board, I guess.

Pete
05-07-2019, 11:37 AM
It's important to note the Municipal Counselor and his office are there to serve the mayor and city council, not the people of OKC.

In this particular case, these dubious closed-door meetings had been happening for a while and only when they were challenged did Kenny Jordan provide an opinion that the letter of the statute was not being violated.

When I contacted their office for further background and explanation as to how they arrived at that conclusion, they didn't reply. When I called to follow up, I was treated very rudely and basically told to go fly a kite.


Subsequently, then council member Ed Shadid threatened litigation over this matter during a council meeting.

Immediately thereafter, the city called Shadid and his attorney to their office and proffered a settlement, even though nothing had been filed. No justification for the previous practices was offered.


Additionally, there is now a pending matter before the Attorney General asking for him to make a formal determination whether such closed-door meetings comply with the state's interpretation of the open meetings statute. I actually drafted several specific questions that he will answer as they were submitted through state representative Colin Walke.

An answer is expected in the next few months and will affect ALL public bodies in the state.

BoulderSooner
05-07-2019, 11:49 AM
His opinion was directly challenged and the city immediately agreed to settle and stop the practice.

I was a party to those meetings and negotiations.


Much more to this still to come.

https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=44411&page=6&p=1048385#post1048385

actually what was changed only had to do with city economic development officials meeting with 4 or less council people which is still allowed by the way .. (just they passed some new rules for the city to follow)


"Shadid’s resolution also calls for specific rules that would be incorporated in the event that a small group of city council members (between two and four) meet with economic developers in private."

The rules outlined in Jordan’s letter to council members are that the city clerk or city attorney attend each meeting unless a representative attends on their behalf and voting does not take place within meetings.

and this happend over 2 months after a threat of a lawsuit ...

nothing about council member talking about a resolution with eachother was even discussed or changed

Pete
05-07-2019, 12:03 PM
^

I'm directly involved in all of this and I'm not going to argue with you any further other than to say you keep posting things that are incorrect on many points.

BDP
05-07-2019, 12:08 PM
^

Yes and remember Stonecipher is a member of Crossings.

Do state recusal provisions (specifically Const. Art. 5, § 24) apply to municipalities?

BoulderSooner
05-07-2019, 12:18 PM
^

I'm directly involved in all of this and I'm not going to argue with you any further other than to say you keep posting things that are incorrect on many points.

i just quoted your paper directly from the link i posted

Mr. Blue Sky
05-07-2019, 02:03 PM
i just quoted your paper directly from the link i posted

Boulder, Just give it up. Pete told you he’s very much involved in this and knows of which he speaks. You too often just want to argue.

BoulderSooner
05-07-2019, 09:48 PM
Boulder, Just give it up. Pete told you he’s very much involved in this and knows of which he speaks. You too often just want to argue.

I’m fine thanks

soonerguru
05-09-2019, 02:32 AM
James got screwed on this deal, although Stonecipher realized he made a mistake after the fact. James will certainly remember this going forward. The "four old white guys" club has shown their hand. Moderately hopeful that my councilman, McAtee, had the good sense not to join the insurrection. Pretty crappy move that they did this behind James's back on an issue that directly impacts his ward. It doesn't pass any smell test. I hope Stonecipher learned his lesson.

BoulderSooner
05-09-2019, 05:24 AM
James got screwed on this deal, although Stonecipher realized he made a mistake after the fact. James will certainly remember this going forward. The "four old white guys" club has shown their hand. Moderately hopeful that my councilman, McAtee, had the good sense not to join the insurrection. Pretty crappy move that they did this behind James's back on an issue that directly impacts his ward. It doesn't pass any smell test. I hope Stonecipher learned his lesson.

this will likely pass 7-2 or 6-3 in a few weeks