Core to Shore

[BoulderSooner]

True but since there is going to be a Park, the value has risen...maybe the City should have bought the property before they announced the plans for the park when it was worthless? Like they did with other properties in the Park area before MAPS 3 passed 9with G.O. bond money)???

its not like the city is doing the appraisal ... and the city is not the final say on the amount when it goes to court

[Larry OKC]

That is correct, however, maybe they should have tried to buy the property when the appraisal was much less before its value went up due with the City initiative? Granted they would have been taking a chance but they already had money approved by the voters for that purpose even if MAPS 3 failed. Then the CIty could have sold the property if they decided they didn't need it after all.

[Just the facts]

Larry - the current appraised value is $709,000. The City is offering $1.2 million. The owner wants $2.5 million ($1.8 million more than the appraised value).

[Larry OKC]

What was he wanting before?

[Just the facts]

What was he wanting before?

My guess is he wasn't asking anything since it wasn't for sale. He inherited the land from his grandfather, ran a slum housing project for several years on the site until it burned down, and then waited around to try and cash in. This guy is one of those responsible for the wasteland that was this part of town for the last 30 to 40 years. He should be kicked in the groin. The City really should look at some kind of density taxation for the urban core. Vacant lots should be taxed at rate that would discourage them.

[Teo9969]

My guess is he wasn't asking anything since it wasn't for sale. He inherited the land from his grandfather, ran a slum housing project for several years on the site until it burned down, and then waited around to try and cash in. This guy is on of those responsible for the wasteland that was this part of town for the last 30 to 40 years. He should be kicked in the groin.

Well, he'll get kicked in the groin if OKC eminent domains him into $250k less than their initial offer. I hope he gets nothing but the appraised value.

[Just the facts]

Well, he'll get kicked in the groin if OKC eminent domains him into $250k less than their initial offer. I hope he gets nothing but the appraised value.

I would like to see the City search their records and make sure he is the rightful owner. A lot of shinnagens took place in OKC in the early days (even by today's standards). I would rather see the City go Willy Wonka on him where he gets nothing.

[Larry OKC]

I am conflicted on this, as while I don't want to see taxpayer dollars wasted in paying more than what the property is really worth, I am also generally opposed to eminent domain taking of private property for a want, not a need. The Park is a want. And the property in question isn't even in the path of the Park but is adjacent to it? That means the City is using it to take private property, not for a public purpose (Park) but to turn around and sell it to a developer??? That just seems wrong on so many levels. If the guy wants to sell, fine, he has set his price. If the City wants it bad enough, they should pay that price rather than have a court legally take it from the guy for less. If the City doesn't want to pay his price, again fine, build around his property or build someplace else. And what is the property worth? As someone argued on the scalping thread, the value is what the buyer is willing to pay vs. what the seller is asking. The true value is where those two numbers meet.

[Just the facts]

I know what you are saying Larry. The Supreme Court ruled the City can use eminent domain to take private land and resell it to private developers so the City has that going for them. In most cases I don't like that idea but this clearly a case of someone milking the system for more than it is worth and being a lowlife in the process. And it isn't like the guy lives here and has no where else to go - it's a vacant lot.

[CaptDave]

Jeez, I didn't realize the property in question was adjacent to the park. I agree that eminent domain is not appropriate for acquiring land on the periphery of the for the park without very compelling reasons and justification. I think eminent domain is proper to acquire the land for the park only since that is the public project. Let the developers worry about buying the land around it (and they will) using their time and money to do the research and legal requirements. The city has no business buying land just to turn around and sell it to a private developer. I think the city is possibly setting itself up for a lot of criticism when the eventual buyers of the land around the park become evident. Does everything involved with Oklahoma politicians have to have the scent of impropriety? Just once I would like to see something done where there were no ethical lapses either perceived of real.

[Snowman]

Jeez, I didn't realize the property in question was adjacent to the park. I agree that eminent domain is not appropriate for acquiring land on the periphery of the for the park without very compelling reasons and justification. I think eminent domain is proper to acquire the land for the park only since that is the public project. Let the developers worry about buying the land around it (and they will) using their time and money to do the research and legal requirements. The city has no business buying land just to turn around and sell it to a private developer. I think the city is possibly setting itself up for a lot of criticism when the eventual buyers of the land around the park become evident. Does everything involved with Oklahoma politicians have to have the scent of impropriety? Just once I would like to see something done where there were no ethical lapses either perceived of real.

On the other side why should the city/public invest millions to raise the price someone has been squatting on land for decades and would likely continue to do for years.

[Just the facts]

Land assembly is the biggest hurdle to urban development and it doesn't help when you have squatters that do the bare minimum, and a lot of times not even that. The City needs to find a way to aggressively solve this issue. Maybe they think this approach will do that because they were able to buy a lot of land this way with little to no hassel.

[Oil Capital]

According to the DO article, the property in question is not adjacent to the park, it is part of the park property. From the article:

"In 1889, D.W. Chandler — the Hope brothers' maternal grandfather — along with their great uncle and aunt, claimed two lots on the block that now comprises the far northwest corner of the planned municipal park."

Read more: http://newsok.com/some-oklahoma-city...#ixzz20vb9rdpD

[Soonerus]

The Crosstown Expressway depressed the value of all properties cut off from downtown to the South, including this property.

[CaptDave]

Thanks for the clarification Oil Capital. I stand corrected.

I am still hopeful (idealistic I know) the Core to Shore area will fill in during my lifetime. That area directly south of the CBD and all the way westward to the Farmers Market could see an influx of redevelopment like nowhere else IF the boulevard is designed with that goal.

[Snowman]

The Crosstown Expressway depressed the value of all properties cut off from downtown to the South, including this property.

If you owned it since the time of construction of the original crosstown then the total dollar amount will be much higher due to inflation, how much value it could have been is speculation at best. The original migration out after WW2 started lowering a lot of value out of everywhere downtown, extended even more by the freeways (still affecting the entire downtown).

[shane453]

The city has no business buying land just to turn around and sell it to a private developer. I think the city is possibly setting itself up for a lot of criticism when the eventual buyers of the land around the park become evident. Does everything involved with Oklahoma politicians have to have the scent of impropriety? Just once I would like to see something done where there were no ethical lapses either perceived of real.

Read Supreme Court case Berman v. Parker (1954). If there is a comprehensive redevelopment plan in place it is a constitutionally sound "public purpose" to use eminent domain on private property and then hand that property over for development. More recently Kelo v. City of New London (2005) pretty much affirmed the same thing. In New London eminent domain was used in a much more established neighborhood. There is no legal problem using ED in this situation and compared to many other eminent domain cases there is not too much of an ethical argument.

[CaptDave]

I was voicing my personal opinion on the use of ED, Shane. It think there are appropriate uses for it but think the Kelo decision overreached.

[Just the facts]

I am still hopeful (idealistic I know) the Core to Shore area will fill in during my lifetime.

Unless you die in the next 10 years you should have no problem seeing this happen. People are going to be stunned how fast this fills in, especially if a future streetcar route serves the area.

[CaptDave]

Honestly JTF, I might be part of that infill. I can see that area of OKC being a great place to live if its potential is realized.

[Larry OKC]

According to the DO article, the property in question is not adjacent to the park, it is part of the park property. From the article:

"In 1889, D.W. Chandler — the Hope brothers' maternal grandfather — along with their great uncle and aunt, claimed two lots on the block that now comprises the far northwest corner of the planned municipal park."

Read more: http://newsok.com/some-oklahoma-city...#ixzz20vb9rdpD

You are correct about that particular property, but the article also mentions the City buying adjacent properties, that is what I have a greater fundamental problem with, Supreme Court decision or no. It is wrong. Wasn't it shortly after that decision that the property of one of the majority justices had their property obtained by eminent domain being sold not for a public project itself (like the Park) but to private developers?

JTF: I understand what you are saying about property owners doing nothing, we have seen the results of that along the Canal. However, I still think it is fundamentally wrong to force someone to sell. It may be legal, but that doesn't make it right.

[Just the facts]

JTF: I understand what you are saying about property owners doing nothing, we have seen the results of that along the Canal. However, I still think it is fundamentally wrong to force someone to sell. It may be legal, but that doesn't make it right.

The guy owning the land is pretty old - I say we just wait him out and buy it from whomever inherits it.

[kevinpate]

The guy owning the land is pretty old - I say we just wait him out and buy it from whomever inherits it.

And if whoever inherits decides to build a little bungalow to retire to near a park? I'm fine with that, though I suspect many would not be.

[CaptDave]

And if whoever inherits decides to build a little bungalow to retire to near a park? I'm fine with that, though I suspect many would not be.

That is exactly what I would do had I been able to purchase some land down there a couple years ago when I looked. My dream would be to develop some park front brownstones / townhouses and live in one of the end units....or mixed use development with flats overlooking the park on the upper 3 or 4 floors; but alas the bank account does not permit that.

[ljbab728]

An update on the park presented to the advisory board.

http://newsok.com/planners-eye-flexi...rticle/3695493