SandRidge Center & Commons

[Midtowner]

Would the standard on appeal be the same as the standard of review on appeal from a body governed by the OAPA? (I'm guessing that's the same as the APA) in that the board's decision must be arbitrary and capricious and not supported by the evidence on the record at least as to the findings of fact to be subject to modification or remand by the District Court?

[Doug Loudenback]

Would the standard on appeal be the same as the standard of review on appeal from a body governed by the OAPA? (I'm guessing that's the same as the APA) in that the board's decision must be arbitrary and capricious and not supported by the evidence on the record at least as to the findings of fact to be subject to modification or remand by the District Court?

Midtowner, I obviously haven't got a clue, given my lengthy post above. Maybe DirtLaw knows.

[DirtLaw]

I am fairly certain it is tried de novo (meaning basically a new trial) . . . it is in Title 11 section 44 I think. A lot of them are bench trials and the Judge gives a lot of deference to the decision made by the BOA. A lot of Judges think that, minus some sort of gross negligence on the part of the BOA, that the BOA was in the best position to handle the issue and most likely decided it correctly. The one BOA appeal that I had was won on demurer (which means that when the plaintiff rested, i.e. the person appealing the BOA decision, I moved for a verdict in my favor basically saying that the Plaintiff has not made out a case and I should win without even putting on my case).

BOA appeals are tough to win at the trial court level. Once a trial court decision is appealed to the supreme court there is no telling what you will get, but at this point the cost of this thing will be so far out of control.

[rcjunkie]

If it is true that he has future plans to build a new tower on those empty sites left from these buildings then why didn't he say that in the first place. Most people are angry at the misconception that the replacing landscape was to become permanent and not open to future development.

This has been the plan/direction since day one.

[Midtowner]

BOA appeals are tough to win at the trial court level. Once a trial court decision is appealed to the supreme court there is no telling what you will get, but at this point the cost of this thing will be so far out of control.

Why do you think the cost will be so high? The attorneys running the show can control costs to some extent. Discovery has essentially already been done, I can't see how depositions would lead to a huge amount of new information or be all that helpful. What are the material issues of fact? It seems like we're talking about facts for which we already have an ample record.

[OKCMallen]

Mid, I just completed an appeal of a Corporation Commission order through the OK CIV APP up to requesting cert. Believe me, LOTS of hours are put into just briefing even though many of the arguments have been substantially fleshed out. It won't be astronomical, but it would be expensive.

[OKCisOK4me]

So glad to have seen the story on the news last night that they approved this project. Those buildings were ugly anyway and there wasn't anything restoration could do for them (ex. the India Building looked much better way back when until they concreted all the windows up and squared the building out). They were beautiful in their heyday but it's time to see them go. Oh, nevermind, I won't be downtown to see them go. I'm shedding a tear. Seriously?

[betts]

So glad to have seen the story on the news last night that they approved this project. Those buildings were ugly anyway and there wasn't anything restoration could do for them (ex. the India Building looked much better way back when until they concreted all the windows up and squared the building out). They were beautiful in their heyday but it's time to see them go. Oh, nevermind, I won't be downtown to see them go. I'm shedding a tear. Seriously?

Actually, I'm not sure you're correct. The India Temple had a facade, and frequently facades can be removed when the building is restored.

I just spent the last 4 days in Chicago, and must say it made me sadder than ever to think about those buildings going. There are older buildings intermingled with new ones all over downtown Chicago, and it adds to the interest of the place.

I also noticed that we usually walked a half mile or so to catch public transportation and didn't mind the walk a bit, because there was always something interesting to look at: a window to look in, architecture to admire, etc., but no plazas.

[OKCisOK4me]

Hey, I don't know if that can be done. I was just referring to the pictures between how the building looked when it was brand new and how it currently looks today. I'm gonna go frolic barefoot through the grass as soon as that plaza is open! lol

[Midtowner]

Mid, I just completed an appeal of a Corporation Commission order through the OK CIV APP up to requesting cert. Believe me, LOTS of hours are put into just briefing even though many of the arguments have been substantially fleshed out. It won't be astronomical, but it would be expensive.

Oh I know, through I haven't yet worked on my own appeal, during my law school days, I did a lot of appellate work. I know what it costs, but for an organization which can probably get some pro-bono work or at least do some fundraising (the members of the Preservation Society are fairly well heeled), a District Court action and whatever appellate work isn't totally out of reach financially.

[OKCMallen]

Which is what I said. It won't be astronomical, but it would be expensive. Only 66.67 hours of work at $150/hour puts you in the five-figure range. Which isn't cheap when you're not getting anything out of it in the end other than "your way."

[BDP]

It seems to me that the result of this process and the comments by those who have supported Sandridge's plan has provided a very good picture about where Oklahoma City and downtown stands in terms of development and its viability for the immediate future. It has served as a wake up call to me and I no longer really have hopes for Oklahoma City to achieve a real viable and functioning downtown with a true and complete urban atmosphere as a way to diversify itself and attract businesses that would create an economic portfolio which provides consistent gains. This is mainly due to Sandridge's reasoning for why they want to do this and how that reasoning was found to be sound, as it ultimately convinced to board to approve destruction of the block.

Contrary to most typical urban areas across the nation, we do not have an area of densely configured functioning buildings of varying design and use, both historical and modern. According to Sandridge it seems that our economy is not viable for such a district to exist and won't be for a very long time:

"When you look at the details of this, the merits, the numbers don't work,” Price said. "There is no chance any of these buildings will be developed in my lifetime, your lifetime or our children's lifetimes.”

Although this has happened and does happen all over the country, it seems it will be generations or more before it will be viable in Oklahoma City. This is not good a sign.

Lingo, meanwhile, estimated each building would cost about $9 million to turn into offices and housing.

$9 million? How much are they spending to tear it all down? The fact that Sandridge and the city feels that prime downtown real estate in our core is worth more as empty space than $9 million dollar renovations screams that we have a serious problem and that core to shore should be placed on immediate and indefinite hold. We can't afford to blindly develop more downtown real estate that competes with our current portfolio that is already worth more as empty space than the $9 million it would take to renovate and restore buildings that create density and character.

"We know from 2006 to 2010 we've grown fairly dramatically,” Ward said. "I learned by watching Aubrey we need to be prepared for future growth because you don't know when that will come. … I have to look forward to where that future growth can go and how we can move forward with it.”

Again, this is another tip that our economy can not support a true urban downtown. Tom Ward is talking campus here, not urban core. Chesapeake is his blueprint and it is anything but urban. Clearly, at $9 million, renovation of these buildings would be cheaper than building new towers, but Ford Price, who knows our real estate market as well as anyone I've met, has stated that this will not be viable for generations. So, Sandridge is saying they think they will have to build new towers in place of the $100 million plazas they're going to build now, while the same properties are not worth a $9 million investment that would take generations before its justified? That's either a lie or they are more misguided than I thought.

I was as bullish on OKC and downtown as anyone, but this is a real sell indicator. Not so much because they are doing it, but because of the justification for doing it that has been placed on the record and accepted as justification for demolition. Basically, OKC's downtown is not viable enough for $9 million restorations, when in many markets these types of renovations are actually necessitated by the market itself. According to these qualified experts, it seems Oklahoma City is only viable for disposable short term development rather than a long term focus of diversification and reallocation. I beginning to think this is true, especially now that the city will only consider action that reinforces this state of our city, rather than taking action to solidify and strengthen the value of our urban assets, and in turn, our city's competitive advantage.

Bottom line is that this has shown that if our downtown is not viable enough for $9 million renovations of some of our historic structures, then it sure as hell isn't viable enough for anything that has been proposed for core to shore until at least 2 generations from now.

Quotes taken from: http://www.newsok.com/sandridge-comm...ad_story_title

[Rover]

Wow. Talk about a "I'm going to take my ball and go home" response.

The sky is falling....the sky is falling.

[kevinpate]

In the information presented, did anyone announce the camping rates for the plaza?
Be a shame to have all that open space and not permit camping.
8^)

[Platemaker]

Again, this is another tip that our economy can not support a true urban downtown. Tom Ward is talking campus here, not urban core.

I disagree. Why couldn't he be suggesting that 'future growth' could mean that a plaza is not forever. They might eventually build another building in the spots the demolished building were.

Chesapeake is his blueprint and it is anything but urban.

I might have agreed with you at one time, but the more and more 'Chesapeake City' expands (to include all they have helped develop ... Classen Curve... Whole Foods) that area is becoming ENTIRELY urban. If you think about it, it is sort of 'Downtown Nichols Hills' anyway.

[Spartan]

I'm beginning to wonder if I'm alone on the preservationist side in wanting to get along now that the heavy ordeal is past. Granted, SRers are still making moronic and inaccurate comments, but that's what one the day. Can we stop bickering now that the matter is inevitably settled?

[Steve]

No Spartan, you're not alone on this... but there are some very raw emotions out there still as well, partially due to some hardball allegedly played before the vote. Time will tell how things go from here.

[Popsy]

I'm beginning to wonder if I'm alone on the preservationist side in wanting to get along now that the heavy ordeal is past. Granted, SRers are still making moronic and inaccurate comments, but that's what one the day. Can we stop bickering now that the matter is inevitably settled?

How typical of you. You ask if the bickering can stop, but in the previous sentence you claim that the SRers are still making moronic and inaccurate comments. This is laughable in my opinion as I see you as the master of moronic and inaccurate comments. You should take that as a compliment as at least one person has recognized your mastery of something. Also what is it that "one" the day means? Did you mean won the day?

[Kerry]

It seems to me that the result of this process and the comments by those who have supported Sandridge's plan has provided a very good picture about where Oklahoma City and downtown stands in terms of development and its viability for the immediate future. It has served as a wake up call to me and I no longer really have hopes for Oklahoma City to achieve a real viable and functioning downtown with a true and complete urban atmosphere as a way to diversify itself and attract businesses that would create an economic portfolio which provides consistent gains. This is mainly due to Sandridge's reasoning for why they want to do this and how that reasoning was found to be sound, as it ultimately convinced to board to approve destruction of the block.

Contrary to most typical urban areas across the nation, we do not have an area of densely configured functioning buildings of varying design and use, both historical and modern. According to Sandridge it seems that our economy is not viable for such a district to exist and won't be for a very long time:



Although this has happened and does happen all over the country, it seems it will be generations or more before it will be viable in Oklahoma City. This is not good a sign.



$9 million? How much are they spending to tear it all down? The fact that Sandridge and the city feels that prime downtown real estate in our core is worth more as empty space than $9 million dollar renovations screams that we have a serious problem and that core to shore should be placed on immediate and indefinite hold. We can't afford to blindly develop more downtown real estate that competes with our current portfolio that is already worth more as empty space than the $9 million it would take to renovate and restore buildings that create density and character.



Again, this is another tip that our economy can not support a true urban downtown. Tom Ward is talking campus here, not urban core. Chesapeake is his blueprint and it is anything but urban. Clearly, at $9 million, renovation of these buildings would be cheaper than building new towers, but Ford Price, who knows our real estate market as well as anyone I've met, has stated that this will not be viable for generations. So, Sandridge is saying they think they will have to build new towers in place of the $100 million plazas they're going to build now, while the same properties are not worth a $9 million investment that would take generations before its justified? That's either a lie or they are more misguided than I thought.

I was as bullish on OKC and downtown as anyone, but this is a real sell indicator. Not so much because they are doing it, but because of the justification for doing it that has been placed on the record and accepted as justification for demolition. Basically, OKC's downtown is not viable enough for $9 million restorations, when in many markets these types of renovations are actually necessitated by the market itself. According to these qualified experts, it seems Oklahoma City is only viable for disposable short term development rather than a long term focus of diversification and reallocation. I beginning to think this is true, especially now that the city will only consider action that reinforces this state of our city, rather than taking action to solidify and strengthen the value of our urban assets, and in turn, our city's competitive advantage.

Bottom line is that this has shown that if our downtown is not viable enough for $9 million renovations of some of our historic structures, then it sure as hell isn't viable enough for anything that has been proposed for core to shore until at least 2 generations from now.

Quotes taken from: http://www.newsok.com/sandridge-comm...ad_story_title

I feel the exct same way and it is very depressing. Sandridge essentially said that creating a high-density downtown isn't worth the effort and far too many people bought that line of thinking. I can understand Sandridge making the claim because they wanted to build their plaza, but why so many people in Oklahoma City agreed to it is what concerns me. OKC has passed MAPS1 and MAPS3 to help rebuild downtown, while at the same time supporting a plan whose main argument is that downtown OKC isn't worth the investment. Sad sad sad. I really question whether C2S is now a good idea.

[Of Sound Mind]

OH. MY. GAWD.

All this "doom-and-gloom" lamenting in the wake of this decision is truly unbelievable. I wasn't excited about the Sandridge plan and frankly didn't understand the thought process. But the bitter, hyperbolic, "sky-is-falling" overreaction to its approval is even more mind-boggling. Seriously. This is not the end of the world nor the death knell of downtown OKC development.

Take a cue from Spartan. This battle is (essentially) over. Let's see how we can move past this controversy and continue to move Oklahoma City forward rather than forecasting its demise.

[okcpulse]

I feel the exct same way and it is very depressing. Sandridge essentially said that creating a high-density downtown isn't worth the effort and far too many people bought that line of thinking. I can understand Sandridge making the claim because they wanted to build their plaza, but why so many people in Oklahoma City agreed to it is what concerns me. OKC has passed MAPS1 and MAPS3 to help rebuild downtown, while at the same time supporting a plan whose main argument is that downtown OKC isn't worth the investment. Sad sad sad. I really question whether C2S is now a good idea.

I disagree. No one is saying that downtown OKC as a whole isn't worth the investment. The concern is centered around the adjoining properties to their tower which most were fugly to begin with. If I were a property investor, I wouldn't put my money into those buildings. I would go for First National, City Place, The Oklahoman's former home, and many of the buildings on the northwestern quadrant of downtown, but not those near Sandridge.

In fact, anytime I am in Oklahoma City, that part of downtown has become my LEAST favorite area to stroll. It's just out of date. There is no life. Nothing. Oftentimes I avoid that area by walking the Park Avenue corridor (the TRUE urban garden, IMO) and then turn north on Harvey for the Memorial. (Okay, getting homesick again).

Not all of us agree with Sandridge's plans, but I believe that feelings will change once Devon, Project 180, Sandridge Commons and Ford Center renovations are complete.

[Kerry]

I disagree. No one is saying that downtown OKC as a whole isn't worth the investment. The concern is centered around the adjoining properties to their tower which most were fugly to begin with. If I were a property investor, I wouldn't put my money into those buildings. I would go for First National, City Place, The Oklahoman's former home, and many of the buildings on the northwestern quadrant of downtown, but not those near Sandridge.

In fact, anytime I am in Oklahoma City, that part of downtown has become my LEAST favorite area to stroll. It's just out of date. There is no life. Nothing. Oftentimes I avoid that area by walking the Park Avenue corridor (the TRUE urban garden, IMO) and then turn north on Harvey for the Memorial. (Okay, getting homesick again).

Not all of us agree with Sandridge's plans, but I believe that feelings will change once Devon, Project 180, Sandridge Commons and Ford Center renovations are complete.

I hope you are right but if you watched the meeting you would have seen that the main subject of Sandridges defense was that downtown OKC couldn't support ANY redevelopment, and by a vote of 3 to 1 the BofA agreed. By that I mean that every vacant downtown building is in the exact same condition KerrMack and India Temple are in. Oddly enough, Braniff has the same primary problem - no parking - but Sandridge is going to renovate that building. I wonder if Sandridge is going to get a 4% return on the Braniff investment? If so, how and why couldn't they do the same thing for the other 2 buildings.

[bombermwc]

Wow, I didn't think so many people would go jump off a cliff when the decision came down.

I was against the demo of the buildings from day 1, but not just because I wanted to keep the buildings. I still don't feel like there was enough effort put into analyzing the buildings to accurately determine their sustainability. SR could have sold the things if they wanted to get rid of them....ugh. India Temple is a perfect example of a huge screw up. Under that facade....is the old building still there? No one will say if the old facade still exists under the new one. If it does, then we just lost a priceless gem. If it doesn't exist, then it really is just another box.

I'm not a preservationist for the purpose of keeping things just to keep them. I feel there really does need to be something special about the place to make it significant. The current state of these buildings are such that they aren't special. BUUUUUUUT, what about original facades? Why can we not get a straight answer on that, it's always cryptic.

I do feel that should someone wish to buy the land later, they can now build something with less work to be done. So that does open a door for the future. But at the same time, I feel like even $20 million to restore the buildings would have been worth it, and the ROI would have come back. If those buildings had been wiped clean to the structure, new Class A facilities could have gone in. There's absolutely nothing stopping that from happening. Even if you wait 10 years and watch the market downtown, class A is something that is always going to be good. And being that close to the courthouse with class A....uh how many law firms and the associated stuff do you think would be looking that way? Turn ground floor into some shopping. There are too many possibilities.

Right now, the point I get from SR is that they didn't want to do the work and didn't want to become a landlord. It's unfortunate, and I feel like the decision was made for the wrong reasons. But I'm also not going to say it's all SR's fault and they are evil or anything. And I ABSOULTELY would NOT say downtown is doomed because of this either. If anything, our occupancy rates will look better now...duh.

[betts]

I feel the exct same way and it is very depressing. Sandridge essentially said that creating a high-density downtown isn't worth the effort and far too many people bought that line of thinking. I can understand Sandridge making the claim because they wanted to build their plaza, but why so many people in Oklahoma City agreed to it is what concerns me. OKC has passed MAPS1 and MAPS3 to help rebuild downtown, while at the same time supporting a plan whose main argument is that downtown OKC isn't worth the investment. Sad sad sad. I really question whether C2S is now a good idea.

I understand why people agreed. Partly it happened because Tom Ward is part of "the group", which includes a bunch of major players in Oklahoma City, and the city sees benefit in keeping those major players happy. But also, by threatening to leave, he frightened those in charge into giving him what he wanted. People are hopeful, not certain, that downtown development will occur, and so to some, the thought of Sandridge leaving was too terrible to entertain.

MAPS1 and MAPS3 are all new construction. That's what people around here primarily understand, and I see tearing down these buildings, while extremely shortsighted and sad, as being completely unrelated to many people's hopes and plans for downtown OKC.

[metro]

Wow, I didn't think so many people would go jump off a cliff when the decision came down.

I was against the demo of the buildings from day 1, but not just because I wanted to keep the buildings. I still don't feel like there was enough effort put into analyzing the buildings to accurately determine their sustainability. SR could have sold the things if they wanted to get rid of them....ugh. India Temple is a perfect example of a huge screw up. Under that facade....is the old building still there? No one will say if the old facade still exists under the new one. If it does, then we just lost a priceless gem. If it doesn't exist, then it really is just another box.

I'm not a preservationist for the purpose of keeping things just to keep them. I feel there really does need to be something special about the place to make it significant. The current state of these buildings are such that they aren't special. BUUUUUUUT, what about original facades? Why can we not get a straight answer on that, it's always cryptic.

I do feel that should someone wish to buy the land later, they can now build something with less work to be done. So that does open a door for the future. But at the same time, I feel like even $20 million to restore the buildings would have been worth it, and the ROI would have come back. If those buildings had been wiped clean to the structure, new Class A facilities could have gone in. There's absolutely nothing stopping that from happening. Even if you wait 10 years and watch the market downtown, class A is something that is always going to be good. And being that close to the courthouse with class A....uh how many law firms and the associated stuff do you think would be looking that way? Turn ground floor into some shopping. There are too many possibilities.

Right now, the point I get from SR is that they didn't want to do the work and didn't want to become a landlord. It's unfortunate, and I feel like the decision was made for the wrong reasons. But I'm also not going to say it's all SR's fault and they are evil or anything. And I ABSOULTELY would NOT say downtown is doomed because of this either. If anything, our occupancy rates will look better now...duh.

The occupancy rates for these buildings were never on the rolls, so actually it won't affect DTOKC's occupancy/vacancy rates...... #fail