SandRidge hearing TODAY

[SkyWestOKC]

So Sandwhatever is gonna take their ball and go home if they don't get their way? So what.

I hope they move to Houston, get bought out, or go broke (or some combination of those.)

Talk about a knee-jerk reaction. I am with Posy once again, SandRidge has done more for the community than the urbanists. It may not be what you want, but they are putting money and jobs downtown. Doesn't seem like anyone but the urbanists are getting their panties in a twist over this. Someone should put forward a big check to buy this property from them. Everything is for sale in this world when you get right down to it because everyone has a price.

[HOT ROD]

they need to go ahead with the modified plan:

knock down all of the buildings except the KerrMac and India Temple, develop, partner, or sell both as boutique hotel properties with retail on the bottom (maybe KerrMac could be rental residential).
build the new midrise on Robinson
build the new midrise in front of Couch Park
build in the remaining areas as had been planned

This 'modified' would do much more for the city than their other plan, and Sandridge might begin to be seen in the same light as the other big s OKC has.

Otherwise, if Sandridge is not a fit for downtown, they can move or build a campus somewhere else. Im sure there are other companies that could move into Kerr McGee Tower (like American Fidelity or PrePaid Legal, for example).

Maybe Kerr McGee Tower was too big for SandRidge anyways, I think they probably should have taken over Devon's building once Devon moves into their tower. ...

Anyways, hopefully Tom is as aformentionedly described and will come to this rather sweet compromise.

I would LOVE to see India Temple redeveloped as a boutique hotel. Could be along the lines of success that we've seen between the Colcord and Skirvin. India Temple hotel, I like it!

(and like Devon, Sandridge would have 'it's own' downtown hotel at it's campus.)

[HOT ROD]

skywest, neither Anadarko, nor Sandridge has entertained selling those buildings. ....

[bluedogok]

Someone should put forward a big check to buy this property from them. Everything is for sale in this world when you get right down to it because everyone has a price.

As I posted in a prior thread, Not "everything" is for sale, if the "price" is beyond any concept of reality then it is NOT for sale and if they won't even listen to offers (as has been reported in the past) then it is really not for sale. Since according to county records that property has been in Kerr-McGee/Sandridge possession since 1911 it doesn't look like anyone has had the opportunity to buy it. When it seems the only way for someone to acquire the property is to perform a hostile takeover of Sandridge then it is not for sale. When you couldn't make a pro forma work for 100 years, it is not really "for sale". Just because some people have a "price" for which they would do anything doesn't mean everyone is that way.

[SkyWestOKC]

I didn't say they have, I said everything is for sale in this world, you just have to present the right price. My home is not up for sale...doesn't mean I wouldn't take a nice check if someone offered me one high enough.

[SkyWestOKC]

Well, then we just disagree then.

[Doug Loudenback]

I'm sure he has his Bourbon ready at his side.

Well, yes ... but, truth is, I flat missed the meeting today and am just now catching up. I thought that the meeting was NEXT Thursday!

[HOT ROD]

when will be the 'next' meeting?

[bluedogok]

Yeah...I would take 100K for the BMW I paid 15K for, that doesn't mean that it's really for sale if the price is beyond ridiculous.

The thing is they have turned down offers to even discuss selling those properties, that makes me think that they are pretty much not for sale at any price...other than taking over the entire corporation. I know someone who inquired once (when it was still K-M) and was told flatly they were not for sale and then the phone was hung up on them. This was someone with the ability to buy the building (without financing) and they couldn't even get to the discussion phase. For some reason they have never been interested in losing control of those properties.

[Kerry]

Talk about a knee-jerk reaction. I am with Posy once again, SandRidge has done more for the community than the urbanists. It may not be what you want, but they are putting money and jobs downtown. Doesn't seem like anyone but the urbanists are getting their panties in a twist over this. Someone should put forward a big check to buy this property from them. Everything is for sale in this world when you get right down to it because everyone has a price.

So Tom Ward has done more for OKC than person X so he gets to do whatever he wants now? Interesting pecking order system you got there.

[mburlison]

Last thing OKC needs is to lose Sandridge. Talk about baby w/ the bathwater. There is an old expression about being careful for what we wish for.

[ronronnie1]

Last thing OKC needs is to lose Sandridge. Talk about baby w/ the bathwater. There is an old expression about being careful for what we wish for.

And it cuts both ways. What if Sandwhatever tears down the buildings, then gets bought up and moves away. Would tearing the buildings down still sound like a good idea?

Be careful for what you wish for indeed.

[Doug Loudenback]

Unfortunately, the City's website does not contain a schedule of Channel 20s schedule this evening but I assume that the BOA hearing will be replayed. If anyone knows, please post as I would love to watch it. Right now, some other committee/commision's hearing is playing, not sure which one.

[rcjunkie]

And it cuts both ways. What if Sandwhatever tears down the buildings, then gets bought up and moves away. Would tearing the buildings down still sound like a good idea?Be careful for what you wish for indeed.

Yes, the buildings have no value as is, the cost to renovate not financially responsible.

[Kerry]

Yes, the buildings have no value as is, the cost to renovate not financially responsible.

rcjunkie - I think it has been demonstrated many many many times that these building are worth more than $0. Multiple developers have expressed interest in buying them to redevelope them.

[soonerguru]

Yes, the buildings have no value as is, the cost to renovate not financially responsible.

This is a canard. There have been many reported examples of people trying to buy these properties. The seller(s) aren't selling.

I worry this is turning into a male-member-measuring contest with Tom Ward. He's used to getting what he wants and he's not going to let a group of lily-livered preservationists tell him what to do by God. I think that sucks and makes him less than the besainted humanitarian his apologists are portraying him to be.

[Doug Loudenback]

This is a canard. There have been many reported examples of people trying to buy these properties. The seller(s) aren't selling.

I worry this is turning into a male-member-measuring contest with Tom Ward. He's used to getting what he wants and he's not going to let a group of lily-livered preservationists tell him what to do by God. I think that sucks and makes him less than the besainted humanitarian his apologists are portraying him to be.

Soonerguru, it isn't the "lilly livered preservations" telling Tom Ward or Sandridge what he/it might need to do that matters, it is the audience that the matter is being addressed to, in this case the Board of Adjustment, that matters and that body gives all appearances of being quite willing and able to reach its own conclusions as to whether the applicable ordinances have been complied with, or not. However this all turns out, that board has, I think, established its own credibility by not being swayed by irrelevant letters of corporate support, or such letters, e-mails, or comments by preservationists which don't go to the heart of the matter, which, of course, is whether ordinances have been complied with or not, pure and simple. It looks to me that the board will make its own independent judgment based upon the ordinances involved, which, I would hope we all agree, it its duty, its job, to do.

Today's vote sends messages ... (1) the board will act in the event that no compromise is reached; (2) compromise is desirable so that all involved get something of value, but, of course, if SandRidge isn't interested in that type of an approach ... all or nothing ... that's its choice to make even if it might be seen as ill-considered for it to present itself as lacking flexibility and a will to compromise. If that position is accurately stated, and so far it seems to be, that doesn't speak well of SandRidge as a good corporate citizen, in my opinion. Like someone else already said, this decision appears to have little if anything to do with SandRidge's economic position and it gives signs of being nothing more than ego-driven, regardless of whether its proposal is in conformity with local ordinances. I wouldn't suppose that SandRidge really wants to have that sort of a reputation in the community.

[Spartan]

when will be the 'next' meeting?

I seem to remember July 1?

[Popsy]

Doug, I would like to ask you if you heard any discussion by the board members as to weighing the appropriateness of the ordinances. If you did, I would like to borrow your hearing aid. The decisions they were making had to do with what they thought of the buildings, not whether applicable ordinances were violated or not. I still maintain this question will end up in district court.

[Spartan]

This is a canard. There have been many reported examples of people trying to buy these properties. The seller(s) aren't selling.

Haha, this is an awesome post, because of one word. I love when people bring up words I haven't seen in...years. Not in Oklahoma at least. You and Doug are both class acts, while Popsy continues his fits of rage against the evil "urbanists" who contribute nothing.

[Spartan]

Doug, I would like to ask you if you heard any discussion by the board members as to weighing the appropriateness of the ordinances. If you did, I would like to borrow your hearing aid. The decisions they were making had to do with what they thought of the buildings, not whether applicable ordinances were violated or not. I still maintain this question will end up in district court.

The courts have ruled to the spirit of the law several different times. In trying to find legal precedent you'll notice a lot of court rulings referenced by SandRidge...all from other state's. There's a reason they don't like what our state supreme court has to say..

As for appropriateness of the ordinances, that is all they considered, do you realize that? There is a majority in favor of both the KerMac and the India Temple, just interlocking votes that keep it from being unanimous. Wanzer cited the importance of not having setbacks and the ordinance against demolitions. He suggested that it's really just the corner buildings that are the most important, especially for areas that are already less defined. Baker also talked about the setbacks and even mentioned the importance of the streetwall and directly referenced the report from the planning dept recommending denial of SandRidge. When Baker did that it was the first time any commissioner cited that report when making a decision, since Gigi Faulkner, of course.

[Steve]

Spartan, is it possible for someone to be an "anti-urbanist"?

[Spartan]

If they want to call themselves that, sure..though I imagine it would be "realist" or something with less negative verbal implications (pro choice v. pro life, etc). I think some posters just dislike me though (I guess I can be a bit over the top when I'm trying to get people talking), and I hardly think Popsy has anything against downtown.

[krisb]

I can hardly imagine going through this whole process and the board of adjustment simply confirming the DDRC decision. I sure hope they vote to save both buildings. Ironically, it's those two structures with the most historic and cultural value, AND the strongest urban streetwall presence. I think saving those two will enhance the feel of SandRidge's front yard by framing Robert S. Kerr on the east and west.

[Doug Loudenback]

Doug, I would like to ask you if you heard any discussion by the board members as to weighing the appropriateness of the ordinances. If you did, I would like to borrow your hearing aid. The decisions they were making had to do with what they thought of the buildings, not whether applicable ordinances were violated or not. I still maintain this question will end up in district court.

Well, as I said, by reason of my own incompetence, I missed today's hearing (now yesterday's) but I am presently monitoring Channel 20 to see if it might come up before I crash and go to sleep.

The assumptions that I made and stated were based on the reports that I've read here and elsewhere which seem to indicate, at least to me, support for the conclusions that I stated. But, then, I may well be badly mistaken. I still want to hear the words spoken by all during the hearing. But, at the least, it seems rather indisputable that the BOA established its position as acting "on its own" as an independent body (which it is and should be) and not be persuaded or dissuaded by letters or other expressions of support for either position which really did not relate to the ordinances (the BOA's decision should not be based upon a popularity poll, should it?). So I guess that type of thinking was the springboard for my previous comments ... if such things are not of importance (as they shouldn't be, when the real question before the BOA is whether the DDRC based its decision upon the ordinances involved and whether its findings tracked what the ordinances required), then I suppose that I just jumped (logically) to the conclusion that the BOA was attempting to look at the matter from that perspective. In that, I may have been mistaken. I want to see the hearing so that I will have a better feel for that.