Nice column today by Steve

[LakeEffect]

Steve, that sounds great, but what about the blocks and blocks of vacant lots?

Midtown doesn't actually have too many vacant lots - many are owned by St. Anthony's or Micky Clagg, amongst others. I've heard bits and pieces of rumors regarding the future development of many of these. Also, the Overholser Green is actually Urban Redevelopment property... which is a whole other issue related to vacant land and development.

[Steve]

Dead on, cafe

[soonerguru]

OK, then maybe we're talking about different areas. I'm talking about the expanse of several blocks immediately north of the new Federal complex, and westward. There are literally entire blocks of empty space -- not even parking lots, and, in a few cases, parking lots.

This is literally hundreds of acres of undeveloped infill space.

Perhaps there are many plans I'm unaware of.

Also, I'm not discriminating between Urban Renewal vacant land and other vacant land. To me it's all just vacant land.

[Pete]

This is an interesting thread with lots of different tangents but I think a very important subject is being touched upon and needs to be fully explored before MAPS 3: Should we concentrate on building critical mass in key areas like Midtown and Bricktown before spreading our resources to yet another area that is likely to take decades to fill in?

My quick response to this is a resounding YES, and I've made this point several times.

The whole idea behind MAPS and these urban districts is to create a THERE to OKC. Before MAPS there simply wasn't one and now we have a good start on several (Bricktown, Midtown, Arts District, Film Row, The Triangle, Auto Alley, The Paseo, 23rd Street Corridor, etc., etc.) but NONE of them are close to being fully fleshed out in a way that creates even ONE true urban district.

I agree with guru about the emptiness of the area between Midtown (and much of that area, too) and the CBD / Arts District. I created this aerial overlay a couple of years ago to illustrate the vast amount of un- or under-developed properties in that area. I did this after a visit to town and being somewhat shocked by it after being away for some time. It effectively cuts off the residential from everything else:



Most of you know I'm very excited about Core to Shore, the prospect of a grand new convention center, a beautiful gateway boulevard and a park that will feature the jewel that is Union Station.

But I think this may be a case of trying to ride too many horses with one behind. I'd rather see the initiatives go towards getting one or two areas to the point of being able to live, work, play, eat and shop all by walking. We simply don't have that now and until we do, I'm not sure we should be plowing our resources into yet another vast new urban frontier.

I really want to see the business people that have taken the risks (like Tuck) be rewarded with success rather than diluting their market.

All the districts I listed have fantastic yet largely unrealized potential. I think mass transit, sidewalks, streetscaping, bike lanes and the like in the existing areas might be a better way to go then biting off yet another big chunk before we have come close to digesting what has already been started.

[Kerry]

Why isn't midtown more developed? Because owners are thinking that if they sit on their property, they'll make out better. I agree that certain districts should be targeted and that fees and taxes could be assessed to encourage these speculators to either s*** or get off the pot.

Instead of punishing people with high taxes for literally doing nothing, why not reward developers for building projects. We could encourage development by freezing property taxes for a number of years based on the number of housing units built. As people develope their property, their tax will remain consistant while surrounding property taxes will go up due to the natural increase in property value.

The city will see an off-set in the reduced property tax because the new housing units will tie into exisiting infrastrucutre that the city won't have to build and maintain on the suburban fringe. In other words, the city might lose a few hundred thousand in defered property tax (at some point the freeze will be released) but they won't have to spend $3 million widening or repaving some rural road.

[Midtowner]

I suppose that'd work..

But I'm admittedly a bit of a fascist, so I prefer the stick to the carrot. Also, my method would have the added benefit of actually increasing tax revenue for the city, at least in the short term. That revenue goes to the schools mostly, so we could call my proposal the "Raise Ad Valorem Taxes on Deadbeat Property Owners to Educate the Children" bill.

[Urban Pioneer]

I suppose that'd work..

"we could call my proposal the "Raise Ad Valorem Taxes on Deadbeat Property Owners to Educate the Children" bill.

That is hilarious.

[Urban Pioneer]

So, it's "greedy" for a land owner to exercise his property rights?

I think that it is greedy when people think that they are sitting on Goldmines and have absolutely no vision of their own- therefore it sits there. There real problem with most development in downtown is the super-inflation of property values because of this greed. Some of it is just arrogance too.

A property is overvalued by someone down the line or "flipped" so many times that no type of development with exception of a skyscraper could ever have a enough rental space to "cost-justify the development. Then there is the whole "mom and pop" situation. Quality downtown environments are derived from mix use and mom and pop, not chains. When rents are to high (such as in Bricktown) mom and pop can't even make a stand and therefore it sterilizes the property. Only commercial conglomerates and box restaurants can afford it.

And regarding Midtown Renaissance, I have a friend who tried to buy a few of their vacant lots at their initial asking price. He was willing pay what they wanted. After some weeks of deliberation, they decided to hold on to the property because they were concerned of competition. I am sure that some of their properties will be gems, but they have too much land that will not be developed simply to be a security blanket.

[Luke]

I think that it is greedy when people think that they are sitting on Goldmines and have absolutely no vision of their own- therefore it sits there.

But, it's their land, not yours. If you think you can do better, buy it from them.

Some would consider you imposing your will onto land you don't even own even more greedy.

Let the market figure it out.

[metro]

If the market figures it out, we'll be waiting a much longer time for progress .......

[Luke]

If the market figures it out, we'll be waiting a much longer time for progress .......

Time is money. And if the property has the potential to make money, someone with no time and lots of money will make an offer.

What's the alternative? Strong arm a private property owner out for what you think is a better use of their property?

[BPD]

If the market figures it out, we'll be waiting a much longer time for progress .......

Then, so be it. It seems to me you want to force "progress."

[soonerguru]

Luke,

The market is a joke. Look around. Planned developments require planning.

OKC had no zoning laws for years. Being a free market advocate does not mean you fail to see the value of covenants, zoning and planning.

The fact is that most of these people are clueless, many don't live here, and many more couldn't care less if the city improves.

Your laissez faire approach was tried in Oklahoma City for many generations, and it's a proven disaster.

[Midtowner]

Laissez-faire doesn't really work with land and urban planning. You're talking about a finite, in fact, unique and expensive resource. Some land is entitled to be left the hell alone by government. If you're out in the sticks, you should be able to expect to be left alone. If, however, you own land in the urban core and your land's development is an important aspect in the city's core getting a much needed facelift (which will benefit all landowners who participate and invest), then yes, the government has a highly legitimate interest in seeing that you use your land in conformity with its common scheme or plan.

There's a time and place for laissez-faire. This ain't it. These people squatting on empty lots are holding back the landowners who are trying to make a go of it.

[Luke]

It definitely does work.

However, we just live in a more socialistic society instead of one where the individual has rights. If the group thinks one person's land is (whatever), then the group, by way of government, can force the landowner into what they want. It gets really bad when private developers collude with government councils in order that their private development gets built regardless of the landowner's legal rights.

We can see how local government has created a great use of urban space with lower bricktown and bass pro.

It IS possible to respect the constitution and still develop in urban areas.

[Midtowner]

The Constitution doesn't say we can't develop urban areas using eminent domain. In fact, according to Kelo, it says just the opposite.

[Luke]

Yeah, if YOUR property can earn the city more revenue from a business plan that someone else has for it, then the city can take it.

Ahhhh, freedom.

[Rover]

We have too much 3rd world thinking in this city already. Underdeveloped neighborhoods served with all city services increase taxes for everyone else, or it results in an inefficient supply of services. There is a reason for planning and order to development. Buying property and holding the city as hostage isn't right either. So, property owners of vacant lots should pay a TRUE fair share of what it takes to maintain the area.

Awhile back I was in Beirut. There are many standing examples of buildings torn up by the war. They have been their as a blight for 20 years. The reason....vacant buildings aren't taxed. The owner has no incentive to clear the building and do something more productive with it. It doesn't cost them to hold it. They hope it is enough of a problem that they will be bought out. The government subsidizes this blackmail with no taxes. Face it, there are many who are happy to be leeches. The citizens should have a right to be protected from them through actions of city government oversight. Remember, your INDIVIDUAL rights end when they abridge MY individual rights. I don't want to pay for leeches.

[wsucougz]

We have too much 3rd world thinking in this city already. Underdeveloped neighborhoods served with all city services increase taxes for everyone else, or it results in an inefficient supply of services. There is a reason for planning and order to development. Buying property and holding the city as hostage isn't right either. So, property owners of vacant lots should pay a TRUE fair share of what it takes to maintain the area.

Awhile back I was in Beirut. There are many standing examples of buildings torn up by the war. They have been their as a blight for 20 years. The reason....vacant buildings aren't taxed. The owner has no incentive to clear the building and do something more productive with it. It doesn't cost them to hold it. They hope it is enough of a problem that they will be bought out. The government subsidizes this blackmail with no taxes. Face it, there are many who are happy to be leeches. The citizens should have a right to be protected from them through actions of city government oversight. Remember, your INDIVIDUAL rights end when they abridge MY individual rights. I don't want to pay for leeches.

Good points, Rover. It certainly cuts both ways. There should be a system in place to make sure everyone carries their own weight.

[Kerry]

In case you guys haven't noticed, people aren't exactly limning up to develop large projects now. So unless every land owner is greedy and have no vision, then there must be other economic factors in play. Penalizing people who are doing nothing will not increase development. Giving people incentives to develop will increase development. Promising not to punish, is not an incentive. That is like saying, "The floggings will continue until moral improves."

[Urban Pioneer]

In case you guys haven't noticed, people aren't exactly limning up to develop large projects now. So unless every land owner is greedy and have no vision, then there must be other economic factors in play. Penalizing people who are doing nothing will not increase development. Giving people incentives to develop will increase development. Promising not to punish, is not an incentive. That is like saying, "The floggings will continue until moral improves."

What do you suggest? Other than Bass Pro and some TIF's (Tax Increment Financing) here and there our city has historically been quite resistant towards providing incentives. MAPS for incentives? lol

[Luke]

What do you suggest? Other than Bass Pro and some TIF's (Tax Increment Financing) here and there our city has historically been quite resistant towards providing incentives. MAPS for incentives? lol

Money.

Pay for their property. Make them an offer they can't refuse.

[Midtowner]

Yeah, if YOUR property can earn the city more revenue from a business plan that someone else has for it, then the city can take it.

Ahhhh, freedom.

Ah, so you understand. The 5th Amendment only requires the government to give you fair market value and only requires that there be some sort of 'public purpose' for the taking.

In Oklahoma, our rights are protected a bit more. Takings have to be for an actual public use (the requirement for public use is someone more than in Kelo). There does exist, however, an exception for this type of property we're talking about here which doesn't normally exist -- blight. Most, if not all of these properties can easily be called 'blighted' and therefore, the taking itself is enough of a public purpose to justify the taking on the theory that correcting blight anywhere it can be found benefits the public at large.

[okcboy]

What developments has Midtowner been involved in? He seems to be an expert on this subject.

[Midtowner]

I'm far from an expert. I'm just well acquainted with the public policy and the relevant mechanics of the situation here. That's enough to have an opinion on the internet I hope.