OG&E Energy Center

[soondoc]

I know it isn't a perfect situation but I think it still needs to be done. Think how many jobs it will create, the new look of DT, and what that does for future businesses who just might be looking at this city? You have to sometime step back and think outside the box. OKC is being watched around the country and this is just another sign of growth and stability. Not a lot of cities are building high rises so the fact we have several about to go up is impressive. With that said, if they get what they want in tax dollars, we should demand they add several more floors to at least a couple of the buildings! Just remember how some people still hate the MAPS and all the money spent on it but this city would not be the city they live in now without it. I know it's not perfect but sometimes you have to fake it before you make it.

[hoya]

The amount listed in the OCURA agenda was high, but is in the range where you can discuss it. The new amount is way way too high. If ClayCo feels it's that risky a business venture then they shouldn't be proposing something like this. Build something smaller that they know the market can support.

[bchris02]

The amount listed in the OCURA agenda was high, but is in the range where you can discuss it. The new amount is way way too high. If ClayCo feels it's that risky a business venture then they shouldn't be proposing something like this. Build something smaller that they know the market can support.

The entire thing did kind of have a "too good to be true" feel to it. I think there are a few things that need to be looked at.

If the city grants the TIF subsidy and the towers get built as rendered, will it set a new precedent and spur enough development that it would be worth it to the city? What is the worst that could happen? If the city denies with subsidy, will Clayco pack up and go home? Will they still build but something smaller and less ambitious? I think it's also worth looking at whether OKC's peer cities have/would approve such a thing.

[td25er]

Why can't we just be happy we are probably going to get 4 nice buildings with some residential elements to replace the previous eye-sore?

[hoya]

Why can't we just be happy we are probably going to get 4 nice buildings with some residential elements to replace the previous eye-sore?

I'm perfectly happy with the design. I just don't want the city forking over 1/3 of the cost for it.

[Urbanized]

You are the main contributor to the mis-information. If P180 wasn't TIF dollar used to fund roads what was it?

From the Alliance for Economic Development website (it is freaking #1 on the list):

Programs | Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City



and let me add - you have no way of knowing if these will be built if TIF funds aren't used AND if they can't be built without a taxpayer subsidy then maybe they shouldn't be built. We should wait for a project and developer to come along who can make a profit and expand the tax base at the same time - instead of one who doesn't expand the tax base, increase the cost to the existing base AND pulls funds from the existing base. In what world would the latter even be considered as a viable way of business?

Why did you leave out point number two when you quoted from that page? Was it an oversight or intentionally left out because it conflicted with your narrative? Here, let me help:

2. The developer or redeveloper can receive an allocation of TIF revenues to fund eligible TIF project costs in the form of “assistance in development financing” upon meeting conditions to the allocation

And, for the record, point one dealt with the CONSTRUCTION of public improvements (a la P180), not the maintenance of them, as you suggest. Boulder is 100% correct on this subject; TIF is an economic development tool. That is its ONLY purpose. That said, it is still debatable that such a gargantuan allocation is appropriate. Seems like a sky-high ask as a negotiation tactic, and I would guess that Cathy O'Connor beats it down to a manageable number/method.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm perfectly happy with the design. I just don't want the city forking over 1/3 of the cost for it.

agreed

[gopokes88]

Why did you leave out point number two when you quoted from that page? Was it an oversight or intentionally left out because it conflicted with your narrative? Here, let me help:


And, for the record, point one dealt with the CONSTRUCTION of public improvements (a la P180), not the maintenance of them, as you suggest. Boulder is 100% correct on this subject; TIF is an economic development tool. That is its ONLY purpose. That said, it is still debatable that such a gargantuan allocation is appropriate. Seems like a sky-high ask as a negotiation tactic, and I would guess that Cathy O'Connor beats it down to a manageable number/method.

You get out of here with your logic and understanding of how neogiations work.

[jccouger]

You get out of here with your logic and understanding of how neogiations work.

There is a difference between starting high in the negotiation process or giving a number so high that is becomes offensive.

[bchris02]

Why did you leave out point number two when you quoted from that page? Was it an oversight or intentionally left out because it conflicted with your narrative? Here, let me help:


And, for the record, point one dealt with the CONSTRUCTION of public improvements (a la P180), not the maintenance of them, as you suggest. Boulder is 100% correct on this subject; TIF is an economic development tool. That is its ONLY purpose. That said, it is still debatable that such a gargantuan allocation is appropriate. Seems like a sky-high ask as a negotiation tactic, and I would guess that Cathy O'Connor beats it down to a manageable number/method.

Like!

[Just the facts]

Why did you leave out point number two when you quoted from that page? Was it an oversight or intentionally left out because it conflicted with your narrative? Here, let me help:

I left it out because I was refuting the misinformation BoulderSooner was putting out there.

[Urbanized]

And yet you were unsuccessful in doing so, AND the second point (which you left out) SUPPORTED his information (NOT misinformation).

[Urbanized]

HERE is the best example of recent MISinformation in this thread:

Worth it for whom? The whole purpose of the TIF was to establish a funding mechanism to support the public facilities within the TIF. If we continue to give away those tax dollars where is the money going to come from to maintain P180 streets in the future? If this goes through it will be the biggest bait and switch in the history of OKC. The entire push for urbanization was so that the tax dollars collected along public infrastructure paid enough to cover the cost of the infrastructure. If the City decides they don't want to do that then the whole idea of a tax sustainable downtown core is dead - just as it was finally getting started.

Just sayin'.

[Just the facts]

If the city grants the TIF subsidy and the towers get built as rendered, will it set a new precedent and spur enough development that it would be worth it to the city?

That part bolded in red in the problem - if we continue to give away all the tax revenue from development there will never be enough development to make it worth it. Clayco is asking to keep 97% of the tax revenue. If they get that deal then every new property owner in OKC should get that deal. Would we seriously allow that?

[Urbanized]

HERE is the best example of recent MISinformation in this thread:

Worth it for whom? The whole purpose of the TIF was to establish a funding mechanism to support the public facilities within the TIF. If we continue to give away those tax dollars where is the money going to come from to maintain P180 streets in the future? If this goes through it will be the biggest bait and switch in the history of OKC. The entire push for urbanization was so that the tax dollars collected along public infrastructure paid enough to cover the cost of the infrastructure. If the City decides they don't want to do that then the whole idea of a tax sustainable downtown core is dead - just as it was finally getting started.

NONE of that is correct. Just sayin'.

[Laramie]

You're going to have to invest if you want to get results. If the TIF funds are available and you qualify; go for it...

[Urbanized]

For those following along who haven't clicked the link or who are scratching their heads, HERE is the COMPLETE text found at the link JTF posted. The text HE posted was intentionally left incomplete in an attempt to bolster an incorrect point. Judge for yourselves:

http://www.theallianceokc.org/programs

TAX INCREMENT FINANCE DISTRICTS

The City of Oklahoma City has 8 tax increment finance (TIF) districts. The districts were established pursuant to the Oklahoma Local Development Act and the State Constitution. The districts are all located in the core of Oklahoma City.

Tax increment financing (TIF) is an economic tool that Oklahoma City utilizes for promoting development in blighted, underserved, or economically distressed urban areas. TIF helps to fund new economic growth that will attract new investors, consumers, and employers into the area.

TIF monies can be allocated in two ways:

1. The City can construct public improvements (parking, infrastructure, streetscape, and/or landscaping improvements) on publicly owned land or easements

2. The developer or redeveloper can receive an allocation of TIF revenues to fund eligible TIF project costs in the form of “assistance in development financing” upon meeting conditions to the allocation

You can disagree with the idea of TIF in principle, but please refrain from fibbing about what it actually is.

[Motley]

It would be great to know how the funding and TIF investment compares to a similar project in a comparable city at the same comparable stage of renewal. Really it is hard to say if Clayco is unreasonable unless we know what happens in similar situations. You need to benchmark apples-to-apples and then see if this is reasonable or not. I assume the OCURA does this and that is why they will negotiate the terms and make the decision. Maybe Pete or Steve would have the ability to do a benchmark study, but without that information, it is impossible to say this is good or bad. If there is any transparency in what OCURA does, that information could be available to all to second guess their final decision.

[bchris02]

It would be great to know how the funding and TIF investment compares to a similar project in a comparable city at the same comparable stage of renewal. Really it is hard to say if Clayco is unreasonable unless we know what happens in similar situations. You need to benchmark apples-to-apples and then see if this is reasonable or not. I assume the OCURA does this and that is why they will negotiate the terms and make the decision. Maybe Pete or Steve would have the ability to do a benchmark study, but without that information, it is impossible to say this is good or bad. If there is any transparency in what OCURA does, that information could be available to all to second guess their final decision.

Completely agree with this.

You can't really compare this project with something in Dallas or NYC because it's an apples to oranges comparison. I would like to know what kind of subsidies similar developments in cities that are similar to OKC or one tier up received. Somewhere like Nashville, Indy, or Charlotte.

[Motley]

Exactly. What cities are truly comparable in their phase of urban renewal and growth and in trying to step up to the next level. I would add maybe Cincinnati, Omaha, Knoxville or Memphis.

[Just the facts]

And yet you were unsuccessful in doing so, AND the second point (which you left out) SUPPORTED his information (NOT misinformation).

Go back and read what he wrote because it isn't what you think he wrote. Yes, there is clause #2 which allows for “assistance in development financing”. I can only assume this was added to assist with the development of properties that have some kind of environmental problem (the Steelyard) or in the redevelopment of a structure the city has an interest in keeping (the Fred Jones plant). I seriously doubt they intended that clause to be used to build on flat vacant ground with no environmental issues.

[Paseofreak]

Tax increment financing (TIF) is an economic tool that Oklahoma City utilizes for promoting development in blighted, underserved, or economically distressed urban areas. TIF helps to fund new economic growth that will attract new investors, consumers, and employers into the area.

I'd hardly characterize the area where these structures are proposed as blighted, underserved, or economically distressed urban areas. Instead, the area is a developable gem created with the prior TIF monies allocated in the area, most specifically, The Devon TIF which was spread to the surrounding area. I'd certainly entertain an argument that by the definition in this paragraph, this project isn't eligible for TIF at all.

[Just the facts]

That ^

[Bellaboo]

I would agree that the Stage Center site was not only blighted but underserved also. Now the South half might not be blighted, but what's proposed is a higher and better use, which makes it underserved at present.

[Just the facts]

I would agree that the Stage Center site was not only blighted but underserved also. Now the South half might not be blighted, but what's proposed is a higher and better use, which makes it underserved at present.

That blight was removed. If they needed TIF money it would have been for the demo.