data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7391d/7391d462a4d422628be24131959d1f1ff0c4bf48" alt="Quote"
Originally Posted by
SoonerDave
I had posted a reply earlier on this but somehow managed to post it to the wrong thread #sigh.
I'm not a Norman resident, so I don't have a dog in this particular fight *directly*, I just hope to see something positive for OU.
I was curious about the ruling by the judge, so I read it, which basically just said he agreed with the arguments from the petitioner that the "gist" of the petition to bring it to a vote was invalid....
...so I ended up reading the arguments of the petitioner.
Bottom line, it appears there were/are several built in "balances" in the TIF regarding duration, use of funds, and city liability for shortfalls (there is none), but none of these limits were mentioned in the "gist" of the petition. The way the petition was apparently worded (which I did not see) left an impression that the TIF plan was essentially unchecked. That certainly leaned into the concerns of those who opposed the project.
It seems to me that those opposed to the project may have fumbled the ball by not adding a few simple sentences to their petition outlining those limitations. Since one of their leaders/focals asserted that they believe everyone who signed the petition knew what it was about, adding those few sentences would have been an easy "failsafe."
I was also very surprised to learn that even amid the media coverage, there were only 325 signatures on that petition. The city felt they could challenge the validity of many of those, but waived their option to argue on those grounds and argue exclusively on the validity of the petition as it was written. And that basis was good enough, apparently.
My understanding is that this is an 80/20 private/public funding split, and with the duration limits and essentially no risk to the city of Norman, this seems a pretty decent package to put forward. In a very, very small way, it reminds me of what Jerry Jones wanted the city of Dallas to do to keep the Dallas Cowboys and put them back in the old Cotton Bowl after throwing something like $1B in renovations and a huge retail shopping district, but there was intense local sentiment against helping a billionaire fund a sports franchise, so they nixed it, and the Cowboys moved to Arlington.
I understand the concerns of the opposition here, but this seems a pretty reasonable package IMO. I think an appeal is going to have tough sledding going upstream.
Bookmarks