SandRidge Center & Commons

[Kerry]

What a monumental disaster this is.

[UnFrSaKn]

Recorded this around 3pm today. Best viewed in 1080p.

[metro]

Sickening

[UnFrSaKn]

I noticed when the video finished, Youtube plays this video next:

Group Fights To Save OKC Downtown Buildings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tlg0D6WD8m4

[PLANSIT]

As I drove by, I couldn't help but think of some dude shaving his pubes to make himself look bigger. If this isn't a classic case of "look at me!", I don't know what is.

[Spartan]

Kind of a strange way of putting it...

[Pete]

As sad as it is to see this building go, you really wonder how anyone could ever take a look at all that beautiful detailed stone and brick work and say, "Hey, let's go through a lot of trouble and considerable expense bolting on these hideous concrete panels. That will be much better."

It's really hard to understand the mindset of the owners and also the general populace who didn't seem to care.

[Rover]

As sad as it is to see this building go, you really wonder how anyone could ever take a look at all that beautiful detailed stone and brick work and say, "Hey, let's go through a lot of trouble and considerable expense bolting on these hideous concrete panels. That will be much better."

It's really hard to understand the mindset of the owners and also the general populace who didn't seem to care.

The fight was lost a long time ago when they butchered the building by putting the facade on in the first place. Sometimes once something is killed it can't be brought back to life. Time to quit blaming Sandridge.

[Kerry]

The fight was lost a long time ago when they butchered the building by putting the facade on in the first place. Sometimes once something is killed it can't be brought back to life. Time to quit blaming Sandridge.

My opposition to the Sandridge Commons plan was based on the removal of buildings and having them replaced by flower beds. If I can't blame Sandridge for that, who can I blame?

I do have to wonder why they are tearing this building down from the inside out though.

[ljbab728]

I thought it was interesting in looking at those photos how haphazard some of the brickwork appears in an area where it appears an addition was made to the original columns.

[Patrick]

I do have to wonder why they are tearing this building down from the inside out though.

Ummmm.....they didn't want folks to see what might really be underneath?

Seems like from the pics, the stone is all sawed off. So, I guess there wasn't anything to save.

[krisb]

I think we lost the battle by overemphasizing the historic merit of the buildings. The design review panel and the board of adjustment were more interested in the reactivation of the area, rather than the saving of old buildings. The density/urban design front may have been more effective than the preservation front, even though they are closely related.

[SSEiYah]

I read the last 10 pages or so, on the most recent building being torn down, what was the purpose of adding a new facade? Was this part of a project to add new structural reinforcements to the floors?

[Doug Loudenback]

If you haven't seen it already, you might want to checkout Steve Lackmeyer's most recent OkcCentral blog post, called, "Lone SandRidge Opponent Yanked from Board of Adjustment." It describes that the one member of the Board of Adjustment who opposed the SandRidge appeal got booted from office when Mayor Cornett declined to reappoint him.

David Wanzer, the only member of the city’s Board of Adjustment to oppose SandRidge Energy’s application to tear down three older buildings on its downtown campus. Mayor Mick Cornett chose not to appoint Wanzer for another term and instead appointed Mark Stonecipher in his place. Cornett reappointed the other two members up for new terms – Jim Allen and Michael Dunn, who both supported the SandRidge building demolition (the council gave its blessing to Cornett’s appointments).

Cornett declined to say why he was reappointing Dunn and Allen but chose not to reappointment Wanzer, citing his policy of not discussing appointments to boards and commissioners. Cornett’s predecessors Kirk Humphreys and Ron Norick on various occasions did discuss changes to boards (Humphreys was quite vocal in voicing his displeasure with former Riverfront Redevelopment board member Dusty Martin after Martin openly advocated on behalf of controversial property owner Moshe Tal).

Cornett’s authority to appoint and remove members from boards and commissions includes the MAPS citizens oversight board.

My stomach (gut, visceral) reaction is very upset about this -- I'm not sure that I'm being objective. I wonder (to myself), is the mayor so defensive as to chip out everyone on this and other boards who might be an independent thinker, or (2) am I over-reacting?

Since this particular board is an appeals board, is the mayor packing his court, or what?

[metro]

Well said Doug, I agree

[Doug Loudenback]

This, and other things, makes me wonder ... click on images for larger ...



... or is this the pecking order ...



... or something in between.

In quickly putting together this list, I recognize that the police & fire unions have pretty much trashed their power potential by and in the last 2 elections. But I thought they should be mentioned even if their ability to influence has been radically diminished.

I care less about that I do the relative position of what I've called "Citizen Voters," i.e. citizens who vote and excluding those who don't bother to do so.

As I said before, I may be over-reacting to Mayor Cornett's dismissal of David Wanzer as a member of the Board of Adjustment. But, if that was the only item in the city political milieu that distressed me, I'd probably not be making this comment.

[Kerry]

I think you only have to look at who is driving events downtown in the last 10 years. Clearly Devon, Sandridge, Chesapeak, and others are driving everything. As long as they are going the same way I am going I am okay with that. It is when they fall asleep at the wheel and drift onto the should (taking out urban density) that I worry. No matter how much we brace for impact, it only reminds us that we are in the passenger seat. I am not sure I would include the Okahoma in with group 1. They are probably more of a group 2 entity.

[okclee]

Do we know if Wanzer wanted to continue with another term?

Has anyone spoken to Mr. Wanzer about this?

[BoulderSooner]

I think we lost the battle by overemphasizing the historic merit of the buildings. The design review panel and the board of adjustment were more interested in the reactivation of the area, rather than the saving of old buildings. The density/urban design front may have been more effective than the preservation front, even though they are closely related.

empty buildings that won't ever be renovated .. don't make density

[BoulderSooner]

doug

a couple of things .. the Mayor who we elected .appoints these boards with the approval of the council ... and the guy didn't get yanked .. his term ended ..

and on your power chart remember that 4a and number 5 are pretty much the same thing

[okclee]

This seems like it could be another play on words and dramatic sensationalism, "Yanked from BOA!".

For all we know, Wanzer had enough and wants no part of this committee.

[Doug Loudenback]

Kerry, I included the Oklahoman as I did in the group largely because of David Thompson, president of the OPUBCO Communications Group and publisher of the Oklahoman, then being chairman of the Chamber and principal leader during the MAPS 3 campaign coupled with the Oklahoman's ownership and management's actual editing of at least one article which had been submitted by a reporter -- no, it was not an article submitted by Steve Lackmeyer but was communicated to me by a completely different source about which I am not at liberty to be more specific -- being substantially modified before it hit the press. Beyond that, certain matters about MAPS 3 were out-of-bounds to reporters during the campaign. That type of thing does not appear to have occurred during the original MAPS campaign. If one looks back at the MAPS 3 campaign, one will not find a single Oklahoman article which was truly probing or in depth about MAPS 3 and that was not the case during the original MAPS campaign, even though the Oklahoman was editorially aligned with the passage of original MAPS. In the MAPS 3 campaign, the boundary or firewall between (1) editorial position and (2) news reporting did not seem to exist. I am also aware at least one other relevant matter which, unfortunately, I am not at liberty to discuss.

okclee, no, I've not communicated with Wanzer and don't know if he wanted another term. However, had he not wanted another term, I doubt that Steve's post would have read, "Cornett declined to say why he was reappointing Dunn and Allen but chose not to reappointment Wanzer, citing his policy of not discussing appointments to boards and commissioners." Instead, the mayor would have more tamely reported, "David decided that he did not want to serve another term." Or so it seems to me. Tea leaves reading? Yes.

BoulderSooner, I understand that Wanzer didn't get fired, he just didn't get reappointed. See my reply to okclee, above. About 4a and 5 being pretty much the same thing, I guess you mean the Chamber & "Completely Invisible Interests." The reason that I differentiated, and put the Chamber in the "Semi-visible Interests" group was that some parts of the Chamber's operations, e.g. municipal election campaign handling, lobbying at the Legislature, are at least partially visible; on the other hand, the private meetings in group 5 are totally invisible to the public. Perhaps the Oklahoman and the Chamber should have dual listings in both groups 4 and 5. It does get a bit blurry.

[Doug Loudenback]

Following up on his initial blog post, Steve has made another:

So Mayor Mick Cornett won’t say why he yanked David Wanzer from the Board of Adjustment. I am told Wanzer did not request to leave the board. I’m getting calls from the preservation crowd fearing Cornett yanked Wanzer because he cast the lone “no” vote to SandRidge Energy’s demolition of downtown buildings some deemed to be historic and worth saving (the demolition is the most extensive clearance of intact buildings since the heyday of Urban Renewal in the 1970s).

So far I can’t find anyone involved in this matter who is willing to deny this was retribution. We also know much longer serving members of the Board of Adjustment were reappointed (Wanzer only served two and one-half years).

So who is Mark Stonecipher?

Mark is an oil and gas attorney with Fellers Snider law firm.

[Spartan]

Wow.

That's fine if people want to play the, "maybe Wanzer had enough and wanted to leave," card. Maybe, but maybe not. I'll trust Steve's reporting that Wanzer did not want to leave the board. Maybe he didn't care strongly, but the only other option is that he wanted to stay if he didn't want to leave. That logic right there. Furthermore, where it gets dubious is with the replacement. Consider the backgrounds of everyone else on the board.

[Pete]

With more downtown development looming -- especially Preftake's block -- this is troubling.