Is Mayor Cornett anti-growth?

[flintysooner]

I think I understand what CuatrodeMayo means. If it is planned either by government or even some large private development group then what will be built will be what that someone's idea of an urban city district should be. It will be tempered with the popular, trendy elements of the time. Some of the good elements of such things will be emphasized even to the point of caricature.

Better for the area to be developed and formed from the population and activities that are organic to it.

But just my opinion.

[CuatrodeMayo]

The best urban areas "happen". Lifestyle centers and suburbs are completely masterplanned, not the vibrant urban core. Define "blight".

Yes, I agree, a masterplan of that sort WILL set the city up for convention/tourist traffic, but not for an urban community. Do we really want downtown to be a Disneyland?

I am not against planning, It is good on a just on a grand scale. Bricktown needs this kind of plan. Mick is doing good here by proceeding with caution. But to plan an entire city like this ridiculous. The look of the city should not be determined by some "masterplan". It needs to be allowed to happen. This is not the Soviet Union, this is America.


Exactly, Flinty!

[flintysooner]

Or Southlake.

[okclee]

CuatrodeMayo............what are your thoughts for the Okc - Core to Shore "master plan"??

[Spartan]

What does Funk's stand on professional sports in OKC have to do with his involvement in development projects?

EXACTLY.

[Spartan]

And no, there is not a single 5-star hotel in either Indianapolis, St. Louis, or Kansas City.

[okclee]

And no, there is not a single 5-star hotel in either Indianapolis, St. Louis, or Kansas City.

Do you think that Funk can get a 5 star hotel to build next the the bricktown ballpark, just as he said that he would??

[Spartan]

Well, I believe he already has. I read a lot more into rhetoric from this man when he specifically names Ritz Carlton, Whole Foods, and Crate & Barrel, based on past experiences. Bob Funk is a big go-getter.

AND I am shocked that people are coming along and saying, "OH! NOW he wants to get his greasy hand in the pot. SO he finally wants in on the action after doing nothing for so long. Humph!"

Aside from owning the Redhawks, do you all not know what else this man has been up to? His largest company, Express Personnel, has been adding hundreds of jobs in OKC and expanding its corporate campus on the Northwest Expressway before you get to the West Outer Loop. He has a PUD he is working on along the east side of the West Outer Loop from Britton Rd to 63rd Street. This is a HUGE office development we will hear more about soon. And also he owns Express Ranches, HQed in Piedmont, and Express Sports, HQed in Downtown (so you could say he is already involved in Downtown). And you would hear a lot more with him except for a fight he had many years ago with his former best friend, Burns Hargis, while he was Chairman of the Board of the Greater OKC Chamber of Commerce. It was a row that led him to leave the Chamber altogether and walk away from collaborating with other men of the town in the way that Aubrey McClendon, Clay Bennett, and Co. do.

So you simply CAN NOT ostracize Bob Funk. He is very much on a level with Clay Bennett, he just has no allies. And that is money, right there.

[CuatrodeMayo]

CuatrodeMayo............what are your thoughts for the Okc - Core to Shore "master plan"??

Well since you asked...

As long as it fuctions as a framework type of plan. The City dictates the location of the civic aspects of the plan Central Park, the Boulevard, the convention center, and tranportation right-of-way. The remaining land is then zoned according to what the city and planners decide is the best use of the land. The zoning would be flexible, allowing mixed-used in most areas. This would allow a patchwork, organic type of development the happen within the civic framework. In order to prevent low-density (read: suburban) developement, limit the zoning to only dictate the use of the land, minimum height, and minimum setbacks. Nothing else. Projects that met this criteria would then go before an Urban Design Committee. This committee would consist of people who actually know what is good design and bad (i.e. planners, architects, artists, residents, etc.). This committee would need to have a high rate of turnover, and hold public, town-hall type meetings.

In planning proposed by MidTowner, the city would take posession of nearly all developable properties and then allow developers to compete for the properties. Not only would this be a terrible abuse of Eminent Domain, it would allow a group like OCURA decide what is best for the city. Many fantastic proposals would never see the light of day.

In my model, no property would be taken by the city, other than what is used for the civic projects.

[Midtowner]

Actually, there is a standard for "blight" although about 100% of the land in the core to shore area and east of Bricktown could be considered underutilized, thus blighted.

A lot of problems could be solved by simply cleaning up OCURA. I wish the mayor/council would show a little courage in that regard. That group has done more to damage this city than anything I can think of.

[Spartan]

There are people who are on OCURA that are very powerful aside from their OCURA seat.

And FYI the City of OKC is in no way interested in stirring up a Core to Shore eminent domain controversy. We actually want to keep the public on the side of urban renewal this time.

[Midtowner]

Seriously? I think it would be good for everyone if eminent domain were utilized there.

What you have are a bunch of landowners who by their own inactivity have ruined some very nice historical buildings, have allowed their property and the surrounding area to deteriorate, and who are not being good stewards of some very important land.

Perhaps it's because they can't afford to fix it.. perhaps it's because they're holding onto it hoping for a pay day.

At any rate, the city taking that land would be something I actually support. The city takes land ALL THE TIME for other purposes like drainage ditches, roads, etc. Why is it less important for the city to renew the downtown core than it is to build drainage ditches?

-- or are these owners of the blighted properties paying protection money to the right politicians?

[CuatrodeMayo]

A private developer will get a much better deal by buying out the landowners, instead of competing with other developers for the right to develop it after the city has EDed it. ED will cost more terms of money AND public support.

If I remember right, something like you are suggesting happened back in the 60s and 70s. I don't think it worked very well.

The city takes land ALL THE TIME for other purposes like drainage ditches, roads, etc. Why is it less important for the city to renew the downtown core than it is to build drainage ditches?

Because the downtown core is PRIVATE land. The city takes land for public infrastructure and buildings because it is their 5th amendment rights.

[Spartan]

The 5th amendment doesn't apply to urban renewal, it applies to armed forces. Also Cuatro, we weren't working with greenfield in the 60s, we were working with a real city. Well, that took care of any concerns we might be facing today of screwing up a real city. Now we get to rebuild a real city.

[Martin]

ehh? enlighten us how it applies only to the armed forces...

-M

[CuatrodeMayo]

Yes, we are dealing with different types of property now than we were then. However, the philosophy is the same.

I don't know where you got the armed forces thing.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[Spartan]

Mixed with the 3rd, so my apologies:

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

This applies to armed forces, not eminent domain, as it was in the context of the King quartering his soldiers in Colonial homes. I have heard it turned into an eminent domain issue before.

Amendment 5 does nothing to limit the uses of eminent domain especially in the realm of economic development, which is what a huge land grab south of downtown would be for, especially in light of the Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New Haven, CT.

[CuatrodeMayo]

It's a commonly-accepted notion that the court got it wrong and stretched the constitution. All hell will break loose if OKC tries ED there. After OSU's Athletic Village and MWC Town Center, people around here are touchy about ED. It would be wise OKC not to stir that hornet's nest.

[SoonerDave]

Agreed completely.

I think there would be a ton of righteous indignation if eminent domain were used to hand property over to a private developer.

It's one thing for the purposes of drainage, sewer, utilities, etc. It's quite another when the government starts seizing land to allow someone else to profit from it. If the current owners have held the land for an extended period of time for the hopes of selling it when the land is more commercially attractive, that is their reward for having held the investment for so long a time. The idea that the government would seize at some pittance fraction of its "newfound" value so someone else would get a free ride is galling.

I'm not naive enough to say that hasn't happened before in a more circuitous way, but for it to become standard civic practice for a city to seize land in this manner is horrific public policy.

-sd

[Midtowner]

Amendment 5 does nothing to limit the uses of eminent domain especially in the realm of economic development, which is what a huge land grab south of downtown would be for, especially in light of the Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New Haven, CT.

Oklahoma is not in lock-step with the U.S. Constitution on this aspect. In Oklahoma, economic development alone is not a public purpose to justify the exercise of eminent domain. Board of County Commissioners of Muskogee County v. Lowery, 2006 OK 31, 136 P.3d 639 (Oklahoma, 2006). In this case, Muskogee County took an easement on the Lowery's property so that a private utility company could build 3 pipelines to supply water to their proposed plant. The "public purpose" (and that's where Kelo got it wrong, btw, it was the first case EVER to say "public purpose" vs. "public use") for the taking was for "economic development.

The Court further held that We further hold that ". . . economic development alone (not in connection with the removal of blighted property) does not constitute a public use or public purpose to justify the exercise of eminent domain as a matter of Oklahoma constitutional law, nor does it satisfy the public purpose requirement of 27 O.S. 2001 § 5."

At any rate, to casually say that Oklahoma law mirrors Kelo is off-base. While Kelo held that ANY public purpose was fine, Oklahoma's Constitution says there has to be more... blight, of course can be more, but in the Lowery's case, I don't think the government can make a case that building a pipeline across a field in the middle of nowhere can cure any sort of blight.

Also, we have to look at why Urban Renewal really failed. My understanding is that the failure was largely due to the oil crash. Since that time, OKC's economy has sufficiently diversified that we could probably loose all of our energy companies and still be okay. To use what happened then as a reason for not moving forward now ignores a whole lot of important factors which went into that failure.

And as far as any condemnation of the states/cities condemnations for the MWC Town Center or the OSU Athletic Village, I don't think the public outcry is nearly as heated as some of you might suggest.

[CuatrodeMayo]

I worked for the City of Midwest City at the time they were removing houses.

I attend OSU.

Trust me...It was heated.

[Midtowner]

I worked for the City of Midwest City at the time they were removing houses.

I attend OSU.

Trust me...It was heated.

Sure it is. When you manage to piss off even .0001% of the population, your phone still rings, wackos still show up at City Council meetings, etc. If you gave the average Oklahoman all of the information, e.g., in MWC's case, here was the crime rate for the area, here's the fact that most people living there were renting, etc. Here's the great new development which will instantly get rid of all of those problems as well as increase property values for the surrounding area resulting in more money for our schools. What's not to like?

And in OSU's case???? That rent-neighborhood was a bunch of dumpy subpar shacks full of college kids. It wasn't a neighborhood at all. There may have been a couple of bona fide homeowner-residents, but they were few and far between compared to the renters.

In either case, the legality of the takings was not and cannot be disputed. In MWC's case, it's easy to show blight and "public purpose." In OSU's case, anything the school does is a public use (which is better than a public purpose), so OSU can take land for just about any purpose so long as that purpose is legitimately related to OSU's being a university.

If the public doesn't like it, they can always amend the Constitution. It really surprises me that anyone even cared about these takings considering the vast amount of good they usually mean for the surrounding community.

[CuatrodeMayo]

I know it was perfectly legal for OSU to ED the land. It just wasn't done with any delicacy and as a result, pissed off most of this town. It eliminated a large chunk of affordable student housing, making it harder for students to find affordable housing close to campus. Many of the displaced students ended up having to move some distance from campus, resulting in a increase of commuter students, straining an already tight parking stituation. And it's not like Stillwater residents are seeing any great benefit from a running track, indoor football practice facility, and baseball stadium to replace one that is rarely even half-filled. But yes. It was legal...just not popular.

My point is not to argue about ED. My point is that EDing all of the areas surrounding downtown is a great way to sterilize and suburbanize a potentially vibrant urban core. Do we want a Disneyland downtown with neatly planted flowerbeds, cute little identical rowhouses and mall stores full of white people, seas of parking, and NO individuality? Or so we want living, breathing, urban neighborhoods full of diversity of every type?

[Midtowner]

I know it was perfectly legal for OSU to ED the land. It just wasn't done with any delicacy and as a result, pissed off most of this town. It eliminated a large chunk of affordable student housing, making it harder for students to find affordable housing close to campus. Many of the displaced students ended up having to move some distance from campus, resulting in a increase of commuter students, straining an already tight parking stituation. And it's not like Stillwater residents are seeing any great benefit from a running track, indoor football practice facility, and baseball stadium to replace one that is rarely even half-filled. But yes. It was legal...just not popular.

That's the risk you run anytime you are a college town. Stillwater wouldn't be what it is without its university. As for the parking and housing situation, I think OSU has done a general piss poor job compared to OU in providing student housing and parking.

As for the benefit derived from these facilities, it's an issue of investing in the future of OSU athletics. I think the Board of Regents hopes that these facility upgrades will push OSU into the top tier of the Big XII (mostly in football). Such a situation can be extremely popular. Not only does excellent athletics programming translate in dollars in terms of ticket prices and direct profits from athletic activities, it also translates into bigtime donations. How much better has alumni financial support at OU since they hired Bob Stoops versus John Blake? I'm just guessing, but I'll conjecture that the difference is night and day.

My point is not to argue about ED. My point is that EDing all of the areas surrounding downtown is a great way to sterilize and suburbanize a potentially vibrant urban core. Do we want a Disneyland downtown with neatly planted flowerbeds, cute little identical rowhouses and mall stores full of white people, seas of parking, and NO individuality? Or so we want living, breathing, urban neighborhoods full of diversity of every type?

I think you're presenting a false dichotomy. If TAP Architecture, for example were able to plan a downtown area, or at the very least, it was zoned a certain way and TIF money was preallocated, growth could really be stimulated. The level of planning can vary as much as the city leaders think it should. ED, if used properly can be a real tool for growth, and if used by a body that doesn't have ulterior motives (sorry OCURA), it can be a really positive tool for a city to use to revitalize its urban center.

[CuatrodeMayo]

That's the risk you run anytime you are a college town. Stillwater wouldn't be what it is without its university. As for the parking and housing situation, I think OSU has done a general piss poor job compared to OU in providing student housing and parking.

As for the benefit derived from these facilities, it's an issue of investing in the future of OSU athletics. I think the Board of Regents hopes that these facility upgrades will push OSU into the top tier of the Big XII (mostly in football). Such a situation can be extremely popular. Not only does excellent athletics programming translate in dollars in terms of ticket prices and direct profits from athletic activities, it also translates into bigtime donations. How much better has alumni financial support at OU since they hired Bob Stoops versus John Blake? I'm just guessing, but I'll conjecture that the difference is night and day.

I am quite aware of the arguements supporting this situation. It's sad that athletics take such a precedence at this university.

I think you're presenting a false dichotomy. If TAP Architecture, for example were able to plan a downtown area, or at the very least, it was zoned a certain way and TIF money was preallocated, growth could really be stimulated. The level of planning can vary as much as the city leaders think it should. ED, if used properly can be a real tool for growth, and if used by a body that doesn't have ulterior motives (sorry OCURA), it can be a really positive tool for a city to use to revitalize its urban center.

That is a lot of "if"s.

ED CAN be used as a tool to fuel growth. Use ED for "public use" projects. MAPS is the perfect example of public investment spurring private investment. Why not follow the same example? Once the civic aspect of the plan has been completed, allow the market (plus TIF) to work within the framework of the plan and within guidelines simlar to the ones I presented above. I'm pretty sure you don't need to use ED to rezone.