Should City Take Ownership of Downtown Bldgs and Re-develop

[DirtLaw]

As long as we have committees, boards, etc. making subjective decisions we will have controversy. The best way is to have extremely clear and strong laws, covenants, restrictions, etc. and to insure they are enforced. Laws which are ambiguous or are subject to a lot of interpretation are not good laws which breed controversy and encourage bypassing.

It seems we have two choices....strengthen the rules and/or accept the translation and judgement of the governing committee. Or, the city needs to take ownership of everything and become the developer...in which case we will still have controversy of how they do that function.

The problem is that strong laws do not necessarily apply in all situations ... that is why there is a Board of Adjustment in the first place, so people can request variances to the code because the code does not or should no apply in certain situations.

[Larry OKC]

I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the only properties acquired by the city to date were acquired in arms length transactions. Two that come to mind are the former postal facility and the goodwill property.

What properties, if any, in that C2S area has the city acquired via the ED process?

You are correct, as of yet no properties have been acquired thru ED. Yet.

But they have taken the steps to set everything up so if they can't acquire thru normal offers, they can do it thru ED. Will see if I can dig up the article and post later.

[Larry OKC]

No, they are not supposed to "protect the city from these kinds of plans" like you say. You simply disagree with the result at that hearing and spew crap like this. They voted in the way they saw fit and this is why we have an appeals process, but to say they folded just because the result does not match your side is a bit much.

I don't have the text of the ordinance handy but that is exactly what the board is supposed to do.

[DirtLaw]

I don't have the text of the ordinance handy but that is exactly what the board is supposed to do.

That may be what your interpretation of their job description is, but I can tell you that is not totally accurate. If you think their job is to protect the City from these types of plans, what types of plans is that?? The ones that you do not agree with?? The ones that some other guy does not agree with?? Their job is to hear an application and make a decision based on the ordinance and how the ordinance relates to a particular set of facts presented.

[Larry OKC]

That may be what your interpretation of their job description is, but I can tell you that is not totally accurate. If you think their job is to protect the City from these types of plans, what types of plans is that?? The ones that you do not agree with?? The ones that some other guy does not agree with?? Their job is to hear an application and make a decision based on the ordinance and how the ordinance relates to a particular set of facts presented.

The types of plans that run contrary to the ordinance. Most of SandRidge's plan is fine. Some of it isn't. Here's the ordinance....

The charge of the Downtown Design Review Committee is to “promote the development and redevelopment of the downtown area in a manner consistent with the unique and diverse design elements of downtown, ensure that uses are compatible with the commercial, cultural, historic and governmental significance of downtown, promote the downtown as a vital mixed-use area, create a network of pleasant public spaces and pedestrian amenities, enhance existing structures and circulation patterns, and preserve and restore historic features” (Zoning Ordinance Sect. 7200.2A Downtown Business District, Purpose and Intent).

We already of a network of "pleasant public spaces" (there are something like 5 or 6 plaza/park areas in the immediate vicinity. That sit empty and underutilized.

Tearing down the oldest remaining building and replacing it with a corporate plaza (by SandRidge's own admission is just to improve the sight lines to the SandRidge Tower), doesn't qualify as "development and redevelopment".

Destroying a building hardly "enhances existing structures"

Destroying a building doesn't exactly fit in with preserving and restoring "historic features"

The reason for this ordinance seems fairly straight forward. You better have a darn good reason (several in fact) if you want to tear something down. The obvious problem is, once the building is gone, there is a zero percent chance of it ever being restored/redeveloped/repurposed etc.

When it is gone, it is gone.

[Spartan]

The city does not need to take ownership of the SandRidge buildings because those buildings sitting vacant for years is not a failure of the private sector to come up with a solution for how to fix it. You just have a rogue property owner with enough money, supposedly, for an impractical and obsolete headquarters..and they refuse to share a block with ANY other use. That's what you have, an abandonment of important planning tenets such as MIXED USE. Private v. public ownership is NOT the issue here.

The only city action that would be prudent is to simply enforce the ordinance that this community worked hard to get in place to prevent this very thing from happening again.

[RedDirt717]

The city has eminent domain. It certainly could be used in this case. Not bloody likely, though.

That would be horrible.

I tend to take the side of the property owners in almost all cases.

It's not the government's job to decide what the people want to do with privately owned estate.

Let's try to avoid the "tyranny of the majority" moniker.

[Rover]

So, should the city issue its own development plans and only authorize ownership of buildings if the owner will forego their own interests or options and commit to the city's vision? Will everyone in the city agree to agree with the city's vision?

Seems to me that is what happened with urban renewal.

[SoonerDave]

With all the discussion of the public vs. private interest in downtown development, I am wondering what everyone thinks about the city just taking ownership of all buildings and declaring the best use and best owners for those buildings and properties. It seems there are those who believe it is a right to privately own and control within the laws that are in place, and those who believe it is the public's right and responsibility to dictate the future of the property based on what a public body believes is in everyone's best interest. I am interested in how everyone feels about this.

There's a dangerous morphing of codes and zoning into government confiscation implicit in this notion.

It is the city's place to establish the playing field for construction of various entities, eg zoning, safety codes, etc.

It is the market's place to decide what needs to be built.

The notion of the city dictating what must be built is, simply, wrong.

We already see cities abusing the purpose of eminent domain, and people rightly recoiling to stop such abuses. Power to them.

[Rover]

Isn't it amazing, the "people" love the city to dictate what others must do, but reject it when it interferes with their own ideas and plans. LOL

[Midtowner]

Isn't it amazing, the "people" love the city to dictate what others must do, but reject it when it interferes with their own ideas and plans. LOL

You sort of described our system of government right there. Nothing amazing about it really. Those in power dictate while those out of power are dictated to. Occasionally, those in power will actually be responsible with their power and listen to both sides of the argument with an open mind before dictating what will be done, but that is increasingly rare.