OKC has plans for blighted area...

[warreng88]

Oklahoma City has plans for blighted area
Urban renewal designation will allow use of eminent domain to buy land for MAPS 3 projects
BY BRYAN DEAN The Oklahoman
Published: February 10, 2010

The Oklahoma City Council voted 7-1 Tuesday to declare a 692-acre area south of downtown blighted and subject to urban renewal.

The move allows the city to use eminent domain to buy land for MAPS 3 projects, including a $130 million, 70-acre downtown park and a $280 million convention center. The city also could buy land in the area and turn it over for private redevelopment, a controversial urban renewal tool that drew the lone no vote from Ward 5 Councilman Brian Walters.

The area is part of the city’s Core to Shore program, an idea for developing the area between the current Interstate 40 Crosstown Expressway and the Oklahoma River as I-40 is moved south. The new I-40 will be just north of the river and is expected to be complete by 2012.

Louis Morgan, a resident and business owner in the area, said he agrees dilapidated properties in the area should be torn down. But Morgan worried that legitimate business owners also will be forced out by urban renewal.

"We were assured this wasn’t going to happen,” Morgan said. "There are a lot of landowners down there that if you start taking this property for public development, a lot of us will have to be closed. You all won’t pay me the money it will take me to relocate my business.”

Assistant City Manager Cathy O’Connor tried to quell fears that the city would push out all landowners in the area.

"This process does not mean we are going to acquire all the land in the Core to Shore area through eminent domain or urban renewal,” O’Connor said. "That’s not possible. There isn’t enough public money to do that.”

Officials likely will use eminent domain to purchase the 70 acres needed for the park. The proposed boundaries of the park are Robinson Avenue on the east, Hudson Avenue on the west, the river on the south and a new boulevard on the north, which will replace the existing I-40 after it is moved.

Officials have not chosen a site for the new convention center, but several of the possible locations are within the urban renewal area.

O’Connor said eminent domain could also be used for other properties, though it would be done sparingly.

"We may select some sites for private redevelopment that help protect the public investment and make the most of it,” O’Connor said. "The park is the best example of that. You might want to buy the property on either side of the park to help protect the development of that park and make sure that it feels safe to people.”

Property for the park and convention center could be purchased with funds from the $777 million MAPS 3 sales tax proposal passed by voters in December. Other sources, such as tax increment financing, would be used to buy land around the MAPS 3 projects.

"We will not use MAPS 3 money for sites that could be used for private redevelopment,” she said.

Before voting, council members watched a slide show of photos from the area showing run-down properties.

"These buildings are very deteriorated,” Planning Director Russell Claus said.

Council members were easily convinced the area is run-down, with several council members questioning how the city ever let such a large area go downhill so severely.

Walters was less enthusiastic about the idea of the city forcing property owners to sell so someone else can redevelop their land.

"We’re supposed to have private property rights in this country,” Walters said.

The Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority will develop a plan for the area, including which properties should be purchased. The rest of the plan will help property owners understand the kind of development the city wants to see in the area as improvements are made, officials said.

Leslie Batchelor, attorney for the Urban Renewal Authority, said the vast majority of property owners in the area will reap the rewards of the increased public investment.

"It will give the private landowner a reason to invest in their property,” Batchelor said.

Several council members expressed reluctance to put a negative designation on the entire area because of the few remaining property owners who are surviving. Batchelor said declaring the area blighted isn’t a negative judgment. It allows the city to use new tools to help the area come back to life.

NewsOK

[OKCMallen]

Interesting to consider the private property rights v. OKC's acquisition then turning over the land to private developers.

[Midtowner]

Oklahoma has some pretty strong protections for private property rights. The Oklahoma Supreme Court bucked the national trend of merely requiring a 'public purpose' for takings -- there has to be an actual public USE component, meaning that sans blight, the city can't take your land and then hand it over to another private interest. That came in the wake of Kelo v. Rhode Island, the famous case where several folks' homes were taken to build a condo development and a pharmaceutical plant (neither of which was ever built).

I've worked on several eminent domain cases where there was an absolute public use and the taking was going to happen. If the landowner is unhappy with the amount he receives in the commissioner's award, he can ask for a jury trial. If at the end of the jury trial, the jury awards just 10% over and above the commissioner's award, the condemning entity gets to pay the landowner's attorney's fees.

[Kerry]

Eminent domain for the park - Yes.
Eminent domain so someone can build condos on someone else’s property - Not just No, but HELL NO.

Were they out of their minds when they approved this? I think the City Council better revist this decision. Otherwise, we will lose all the MAPS money to lawyers when all the lawsuits are filed.

[Midtowner]

Otherwise, we will lose all the MAPS money to lawyers when all the lawsuits are filed.

If the commissioner's awards are decent, that's fairly unlikely. Then again, if they handle their business like ODOT does, you're right. MAPS may damn well pay for my student loans.

[workman45]

Eminent domain for the park - Yes.
Eminent domain so someone can build condos on someone else’s property - Not just No, but HELL NO.

Were they out of their minds when they approved this? I think the City Council better revist this decision. Otherwise, we will lose all the MAPS money to lawyers when all the lawsuits are filed.

I have to agree with you Kerry. I don't like the direction this is taking us at all!

[progressiveboy]

I have to agree with you Kerry. I don't like the direction this is taking us at all!

I am sure the City Council and the City Attorneys have already researched this before they make any so called " illegal" purchases through eminent domain. I think you all should give your city council a little more credit as they have been consulted by attorneys. It clearly states in the article that there is not enough money to buy out all the property/business owners. Also, Brian Waters, South Side council member seems to be the most unprogressive, unexciting council member. He really makes the Southside look bad as their elected official. I do not see a promising future for this man as a city leader or councilman, imho.

[Larry OKC]

I am sure the City Council and the City Attorneys have already researched this before they make any so called " illegal" purchases through eminent domain. I think you all should give your city council a little more credit as they have been consulted by attorneys.

Have agreed with most of the posts so far and I am sure the Council did indeed consult the legal staff. Sometimes legal advice is not accurate. They are called legal "opinions" for a reason. Often rulings are split in their decision.

Legal staff was consulted and we had (according to their own people) the original MAPS ballot that was "probably unconstitutional" (but no one challenged it). The most recent MAPS 3 seems even more unconstitutional as mid has explained before on a couple of counts, yet the legal advice said, "sure, not a problem"

One has to read carefully what is said and isn't said be "officials". True they don't have enough public money to buy ALL of the property in the area. At least not right now (remember Core to Shore is a 30 to 50 year plan so they have plenty of time to get more public money). Also you don't have to acquire ALL of the land through eminent domain, as many property owners are more than willing to sell for a fair price. The only areas they have to have the money for right now are the City Park and where ever the Convention Center ends up. Not only will they have access to the MAPS 3 money, but they also have bond money from the 2007 G.O. bond issue available (spent $6M of the authorized $26M so far). MAPS 3 sales tax money not available yet? No problem as the Ordinance authorizes them "for cash flow purposes" to use any sort of debt incurring vehicles. So really, not having enough public money isn't really an issue.

Obviously you don't set things up like this unless you intend to do it.

All of that said, there are definite areas that would qualify as being blighted I am sure but hundreds of acres? Hard to believe that every parcel fits the definition (am sure the legal definition is different than what most think of).

Eminent domain for actual public use (like the Park), while not preferred, am OK with that, but to take the property surrounding the Park to turn over to private developers, absolutely not.

[Spartan]

Eminent domain for the park - Yes.
Eminent domain so someone can build condos on someone else’s property - Not just No, but HELL NO.

Were they out of their minds when they approved this? I think the City Council better revist this decision. Otherwise, we will lose all the MAPS money to lawyers when all the lawsuits are filed.

Well the reality in today's legal environment is that you can use eminent domain, not just for public acquisition like a park or a school, but you can also use it for private development too. Like Midtowner alluded to, Kelo v. New Haven (although he mistakenly refers to Kelo v. Rhode Island) is going to have to be reversed before they can actually fight eminent domain because the entire C2S area was declared as blighted.

Which it is. Can anyone literally tell us that C2S is not blighted?

Louis Morgan, a resident and business owner in the area, said he agrees dilapidated properties in the area should be torn down. But Morgan worried that legitimate business owners also will be forced out by urban renewal.

Uh... what legitimate businesses? I'm confused. Where are they finding these people? Who the hell is Louis Morgan--I'm guessing a junk yard owner or a flop house landlord?

[circuitboard]

Which it is. Can anyone literally tell us that C2S is not blighted?
flop house landlord?

When I do a Google view of that area, all I see is nothing but dilapidated homes, junk yards, and sloppy zoning.

[bkm645]

Uh... what legitimate businesses? I'm confused. Where are they finding these people? Who the hell is Louis Morgan--I'm guessing a junk yard owner or a flop house landlord?

His property is at the SW corner 4th and Hudson. It looks like he has inherited the land from his father. He owns "CITY CARBONIC SALES & SERVICE CO." and it looks like they do something with tanker trucks.

[Spartan]

His property is at the SW corner 4th and Hudson. It looks like he has inherited the land from his father. He owns "CITY CARBONIC SALES & SERVICE CO." and it looks like they do something with tanker trucks.

Doesn't sound like anything I want to have next to an area of mixed-development with lofts, coffee shops, retail, etc. And a park. You've got to protect that public investment, first and foremost, and then the resulting development the city could incentivize in this regard is just an added benefit. The bottom line is you just can't have "City Carbonic Sales & Service Co" and tanker trucks and industrial uses next to a $120 million park that the people are paying for. That's the public's environment and the public has the right to assurance that the environment around it will be tip-top.

[Rover]

I think years of neglect and contribution to continual DEvaluation of the city should be considered too. There are many property owners who negatively affect their neighbors and the entire city by not only not investing in their properties, but letting them accumulate trash, to dilapidate and to not maintain any aspect of their property, generally accelerating the deterioration of value of the entire neighborhood and city. Where is the right of the citizens to fight back and insist that their actions do not continue to negatively affect OUR rights and values? In celebrating the rights of individuals, it has always been held that your right does not extend to negatively affect my right.

[Midtowner]

Doesn't sound like anything I want to have next to an area of mixed-development with lofts, coffee shops, retail, etc. And a park. You've got to protect that public investment, first and foremost, and then the resulting development the city could incentivize in this regard is just an added benefit. The bottom line is you just can't have "City Carbonic Sales & Service Co" and tanker trucks and industrial uses next to a $120 million park that the people are paying for. That's the public's environment and the public has the right to assurance that the environment around it will be tip-top.

Speaking of environmental liability, the city and future developers need to be dayum careful about which land they buy and the current landowners are likely terrified as to what sort of consequences will be in store for them when future owners start to do environmental surveys of this land. Just guessing, but due to the nature of many of these businesses, we're going to probably see a lot of environmental litigation down the road.

[kevinpate]

Doesn't sound like anything I want to have next to an area of mixed-development with lofts, coffee shops, retail, etc. And a park. You've got to protect that public investment, first and foremost, and then the resulting development the city could incentivize in this regard is just an added benefit. The bottom line is you just can't have "City Carbonic Sales & Service Co" and tanker trucks and industrial uses next to a $120 million park that the people are paying for. That's the public's environment and the public has the right to assurance that the environment around it will be tip-top.

You can if it is in existence prior to the nearby purchase, a fully functional and on-going concern, and not for sale. Carbonics is the same as a vacant or run down or abandoned property. I don't know the chap, but unless I'm thinking of the wrong spot, the business doesn't look the least bit blighted.

Might prove interesting if the chap was a no intention to sell sort. I could be wrong, but I don't think Kelo provides near as much ground grab support here as some other places, stubborn lil' populist nature of our history and all that.

[theparkman81]

And guess who was the only no vote for this, you guess it Mr. I vote No for everything Brian Walters.

[circuitboard]

Thank you OKC for taking care of this horrible eyesore of land. I don't give a damn who gets rich off the land. As long as it looks nice, and brings new light to this trashy area!

[OKCisOK4me]

Thank you OKC for taking care of this horrible eyesore of land. I don't give a damn who gets rich off the land. As long as it looks nice, and brings new light to this trashy area!

AMEN!

[metro]

Brian Walters - The Anti-City Councilman Councilman

[BigD Misey]

I wonder what would have happened had Dallas not protected the Cadillac Hieghts area here in Dallas? If Jerry World would have been built, the Trinity river Grand Park would have already been built, West end would still be a player, DART rail would be considered a huge success and South Dallas properties would be worth 30% more than they are now. Now, true this is just speculative, but it would have been likely. But, it is a mute point because the council didn't want to force a change for the people. Downtown is no better now that 10 years ago, in fact it is worse in some ways. Ahh, what might have been.

Having said that, objectively a few points come to mind with 'Eminent domain'.

1. Yes, the city may give what the market value is for the property, but the whole flaw to that thinking is, the property IS OLD and therefore not worth much. So, if they force the owner to move, likely they won’t be able to afford a new property. The City should assist with this process too, be it tax breaks for a while, providing the land to build on, acquiring unsold properties that these companies affected can buy at a more than reasonable rate, forcing the owners of UNSOLD properties to be proactive in Building City revenue even if it means giving the seller of that property tax incentives on new developments. If the city is in the mode of forcing change, it should be more prolific in its affect.

2. Since the properties ARE that old and dilapidated, owners of these properties should realize that the amount of time for those properties to be declared unfit is short. The cost for these properties to be maintained is substantial. Should the business be a legit business, they should be considering beautification and improvements anyway so they can be a part of this whole improvement, because in the end, winning more citizens should mean more business for them. But, from what I can see, most owners immediately affected by the Park are taking after the 'salvage yard' look instead.

3. How much will it really cost to move the likes of a Hub Cap shop, an auto parts store or a salvage yard? Seems the costs would be mostly for transportation, inventory and data entry. We're not talking factories and corporations for the most part. Minimal costs involved, can the city have independent contractors bid on the move, and establish a percentage of that to be paid to the company affected?
That leaves the citizens. Unfortunately the low-income citizens usually finish last in these situations. Wouldn't it be nice if OKC could revolutionize 'eminent domain' by going out of its way to set an example for other cities in how it handles relocating low income families? If OKC is thinking in a forward fashion...environmentally and in promoting a healthy lifestyle, they can shine to the nation in this instance with ethics. Not a lot of families would be moved. Spending a little more in this case would elevate the city’s ethics in the eyes of others.

I'm not really in the know about politics or hostile take overs, but I can see how the companies in this zone and the city can work together on this for the betterment of both. Granted, there will always be a few snags and feelings hurt. But, again I go to my stand-by: The city is a business. It must act and think like a business. Businesses go through periods where changes are a must for progress. Out with the old 486 computers and dot matrix printers, in with the speedy new ones. Trim off 5% of the work force to stay afloat and rehire later. Businesses are always in flux, adapting to demand. This situation is not much different.

[HOT ROD]

.... .....

Having said that, objectively a few points come to mind with 'Eminent domain'.

1. Yes, the city may give what the market value is for the property, but the whole flaw to that thinking is, the property IS OLD and therefore not worth much. So, if they force the owner to move, likely they won’t be able to afford a new property. The City should assist with this process too, be it tax breaks for a while, providing the land to build on, acquiring unsold properties that these companies affected can buy at a more than reasonable rate, forcing the owners of UNSOLD properties to be proactive in Building City revenue even if it means giving the seller of that property tax incentives on new developments. If the city is in the mode of forcing change, it should be more prolific in its affect.

2. Since the properties ARE that old and dilapidated, owners of these properties should realize that the amount of time for those properties to be declared unfit is short. The cost for these properties to be maintained is substantial. Should the business be a legit business, they should be considering beautification and improvements anyway so they can be a part of this whole improvement, because in the end, winning more citizens should mean more business for them. But, from what I can see, most owners immediately affected by the Park are taking after the 'salvage yard' look instead.

3. .... .....
That leaves the citizens. Unfortunately the low-income citizens usually finish last in these situations. Wouldn't it be nice if OKC could revolutionize 'eminent domain' by going out of its way to set an example for other cities in how it handles relocating low income families? If OKC is thinking in a forward fashion...environmentally and in promoting a healthy lifestyle, they can shine to the nation in this instance with ethics. Not a lot of families would be moved. Spending a little more in this case would elevate the city’s ethics in the eyes of others.

Great ideas BigD.

If OKC takes your suggestions (and I hope the city does), it will lend a LOT of credibility to the city and show that the city is progressive and also really cares about it citizens AND BUSINESSES, regardless of size or content. Even if the city isn't successful in every case, adopting these ideals as a mission and 'trying' to be as honest and fair as possible should minimize any legal confrontation and also put the city on very good light nationally.

As much as I hate blight that exists in the area, maybe we should be able to help move legitimate businesses by excusing some of the taxes of the 'new' location for a time period. These could be thought of as incentives that actually could be factored into the buyout offers and help spread around those funds. Nobody should plan on getting rich off of the new Central Park BUT we as a city should encourage our businesses to relocate and not contribute additional blight to new areas.

I hope we also assist homeowners in the blighted area into new housing in "say" Paseo or Midtown or other areas that we are trying to build up. These existing homes aren't the biggest nor best nor are they in the best of shape - BUT they are citizens of this city and should be taken care of FAIRLY. We could also give them first option for new housing (of same sq ft) that comes onboard. ..

This goodwill would go a long way and would truly show OKC as pro-business and also a very pro-gressive city!!!

[mugofbeer]

I can't believe any of you thought the process would move forward WITHOUT this action. Did you really think that there wouldn't be landowners who were going to hold out for every penny and slow the process down as much as possible - like that one landowner who holds out so the office building has to be built around his house?

[bombermwc]

You know you only have to look over at Midwest City to see how this plays out. The exact same thing happened, MWC just tried to be a bit more sneaky about it.

Look back to about 1995, Midwest City Regional Hospital is sold by the City of Midwest City for some millions of dollars. The city holds on to this money for a grand plan they have to help revitalize the economy of the city. Target = 29th st, the "front doors" of the city. For years, the shopping centers had been declining and along with it, tax revenue in what was once a mecca of shopping.

The city puts the money from the sale into a Hospital Authority Trust. It cooks there for several years until the grand plan is developed and earns some interest. Fast forward and the city decides to use eminent domain to take the land. Through some interesting trickery, the funds change hands and eventually Town Center (a private development) is created with public funds.

Now there were countless lawsuits, and eventually the city actually lost. But by then the houses were gone and construction was well underway. It just ended up costing the city some cash.

Look into your future OKC...only you're being clear about it from the beginning.

[andy157]

Quote of the day... "declaring the area blighted isn’t a negative judgment"

[muzique808]

"This process does not mean we are going to acquire all the land in the Core to Shore area through eminent domain or urban renewal,” O’Connor said. "That’s not possible. There isn’t enough public money to do that.”

Does this mean that if they had the money, that's what they would prefer to do?

That's just the way I read it on the first pass anyway.