SandRidge Center & Commons

[Popsy]

Can you provide one example of someone 'bad mouthing' Sandridge?

Yes.

[Kerry]

Yes.

Very funny. Let me re-phrase the question. Will you provide an example of someone 'bad mouthing' Sandridge?

[Popsy]

Very funny. Let me re-phrase the question. Will you provide an example of someone 'bad mouthing' Sandridge?

I do not have the time to research and copy every post right now, but I will try to refresh your memory with a few of the phrases bandied about. Sandridge is doing this only because of vanity; Sandridge is not a good corporate citizen; Sandridge uses bullying tactics; references to Sandridge using illegal tactics and possiblly extortion and arm twisting. They go on and on, but surely you remember those. Parse or twist it however you want, with luck this will be decided today.

[Kerry]

I do not have the time to research and copy every post right now, but I will try to refresh your memory with a few of the phrases bandied about. Sandridge is doing this only because of vanity; Sandridge is not a good corporate citizen; Sandridge uses bullying tactics; references to Sandridge using illegal tactics and possiblly extortion and arm twisting. They go on and on, but surely you remember those. Parse or twist it however you want, with luck this will be decided today.

Dude - that isn't bad mouthing. Those are facts. And facts created by Sandridge's own actions I might add.

[Kerry]

I see on Channel 20, Sandridge is trying to claim there isn't any parking to support residential. How many parking spaces is Sandridge taking out as part of their Sandridge Common plans? Where is the parking for the Braniff Building, Park Harvey, or The Colcord?

Now they are going on about how great urban parks are. Really, that would be a great argument for Core2Shore park. Where are the examples of all the great Corporate Plazas?

[Rover]

Why is it that some people think the only valid opinion is their own and that any other opinion is stupid? That is the height of arrogance. Just because you don't agree doesn't automatically make someone else wrong or stupid.

We all know how much you disagree and hate SR's idea. Let's see what the law says about their actions and requests. These hearings are not about whether you and I agree, but rather what is allowed by law and/or what is agreed on by our governing bodies.

[Popsy]

Dude - that isn't bad mouthing. Those are facts. And facts created by Sandridge's own actions I might add.

Well punkin, I suppose you wouldn't know if a fact hit you square in the face if you really think those are facts. Life is much to short to dwell any further on this now non-matter, so I bid you ado to continue your fact finding efforts.

[MikeOKC]

Popsy, It's so obvious you are a Sandridge PR guy. Are they paying you well?

[Popsy]

Popsy, It's so obvious you are a Sandridge PR guy. Are they paying you well?

No Mike. I am just an old burned out former business owner that started sticking up for Sandridge back when no one else was on their side. I do thank you for the compliment however, as no one else has deemed me worthy of being paid in quite some time. My efforts would not be worth anything to them any way as this is just a forum where people can share their views at times without being attacked. (well not too often attacked)

[Spartan]

3-1 Fail. There goes the neighborhood.

Once again your lack of reading comprehension raises it's ugly head. If you will reread my remarks that you take exception to you will note that I referenced the Sandridge "supporters" not trying to villify pok. I agree that pok has said nothing that I can remember that would imply that they were trying to villify Sandridge. The pok "supporters" have been quite active in bad mouthing Sandridge in this forum, thus my implied statement to that effect. So, my answer to your first and your final question is yes you are and yes I am. Satisfied?

Well here's what you actually said.

Doug, if they continue the fight I would certainly have an equal amount of respect for them. I do not think either side should be villified for working towards achieving their convictions. To date I have not seen the Sandridge supporters trying to villify anyone, but on the other hand...................

So you claim that you said SR and pro-SR parties are not attempting to vilify PO. I don't dispute that, I am in wholehearted agreement that you made that statement. Contrary to the facts however, there have been threats made to PO including a threatened loss of funding. Not sure what more you want.

You can claim that you never implied PO has been attempting to vilify (a word you continue to misspell) SR. But here's what you actually said: "To date I have not seen the Sandridge supporters trying to villify anyone, but on the other hand..................."


And my lack of reading comprehension? I think you're the one with the problem, evidently. [Insert childish insult come-back.]

[Midtowner]

Popsy, It's so obvious you are a Sandridge PR guy. Are they paying you well?

I dunno.. pretty sure that if they can get their letters to the editor published in the Oklahoman, they're going to go that route above diving into the fray on okctalk.

[Kerry]

Well punkin,

Punkin? That is what I call my wife. Here is a list of acceptable nicknames: Kerry-okie, t-bone, slow-mo, and dead eye. Or were you coming onto me with the 'punkin' reference?

[Doug Loudenback]

Just got back. I was able to catch everything from about 2:15 on so I'll naturally have to make some comments about that later in my blog and here. However, by the time the speech making was all done, the board spent very little time with discussion a motion was made and seconded and then voted upon, denying the appeal 3-1, only David Wanzer voting to sustain the appeal. It was, in my opinion, a done deal well before the hearing commenced. That's life in the big city, movin' west, c'est la vie, etc. etc. etc. Preservation OK acquitted itself well, but power (in my opinion) won the day.

[DirtLaw]

Anyone know if POK will appeal this to the district court?

[metro]

Sounds like the Good Ole'Boy network is still strong in OKC. Sad considering I doubt Sandridge will be here in 10 years and we'll have more vacant lots than necessary downtown.

[Kerry]

Unless Tom Ward is a liar, we shouldn't have to live with the corporate plaza for long. He said in the meeting he needed the space to build another tower in the future. We'll see.

[mheaton76]

Anyone know if POK will appeal this to the district court?

Funding, alas, would be an issue for an appeal I would imagine. I think it's a done deal, sadly ... Our city is still very young, and this is a good reminder that we don't always collectively make the best decisions . However, there's a lot of good things happening too, as we all know.

I'll be on the look out for the silver lining, and that I'll be proven wrong that all this demolition is a profoundly bad idea for our downtown.

[BDK]

metro,

You're worried that the company isn't stable, or you think they're going to bolt after all this controversy?

[Midtowner]

Funding, alas, would be an issue for an appeal I would imagine. I think it's a done deal, sadly ... Our city is still very young, and this is a good reminder that we don't always collectively make the best decisions . However, there's a lot of good things happening too, as we all know.

I'll be on the look out for the silver lining, and that I'll be proven wrong that all this demolition is a profoundly bad idea for our downtown.

Not-for-profit foundations can often find lawyers who are willing to take on bears of cases (or just little bits of them) on a pro-bono basis. Taking a case like this, if nothing else, will provide free publicity and would be worth the time and effort in terms of free marketing.

I wouldn't completely count them out.

[SOONER8693]

Unless Tom Ward is a liar, we shouldn't have to live with the corporate plaza for long. He said in the meeting he needed the space to build another tower in the future. We'll see.

I honestly don't know how to feel on this, but, it looks like it is done. So, maybe it is time to move on and hope the new tower is needed soon.

[DirtLaw]

If it is appealed it will be an interesting appeal. These are tough to overturn since the party appealing has the burden, and it is a heavy burden to overcome. If it does go to District Court, it will be POK v. the Board of Adjustment which will be represented by the City Attorney's office (unless they outsourced it which is unlikely). SR will likely join as another party to the suit.

[Spartan]

I think we knew all along that a legal appeal in District Court would be the best shot at getting the city ordinances applied fairly, but in all honesty.. I am almost ready to move on. It will be interesting to see what PO does, but I think they're going to have to genuinely evaluate the outlook. I truly agree that there may be benefits to working with and not against the establishment to ensure the well-being of other historic buildings, most notably the First National. I agree with the assessment that it is fixing to become an issue as well. I wouldn't underestimate the value of these buildings in question, as Jonathon Poston made it very clear that the National Trust in D.C. has identified them as being very important, but it will be interesting to see what happens to say the least.

Interestingly, it would not be the first time in the last 2 years that these buildings and their future have been involved in a lawsuit.

As for today, what a mess. I think this thing was SandRidge's for the taking as long as they could be nice for a change. SandRidge pulled the rug out on us by shocking everyone with niceness. Frank Hill didn't even say a pppppeepppp. I covered it extensively in the write-up on my blog, but I'll also mention on here that I think Michael Dunn's comments have the ability to become very prophetic if we keep heading down this path. In an Orwellian-I.M. Pei sort of way.

Remember his quotes. Maybe he is right.

[Architect2010]

If it is true that he has future plans to build a new tower on those empty sites left from these buildings then why didn't he say that in the first place. Most people are angry at the misconception that the replacing landscape was to become permanent and not open to future development.

[MIKELS129]

If it is true that he has future plans to build a new tower on those empty sites left from these buildings then why didn't he say that in the first place.

He never said it before. He lied and so did most of the others. But when the City is corrupt you can get away with it.

[dankrutka]

If it is true that he has future plans to build a new tower on those empty sites left from these buildings then why didn't he say that in the first place. Most people are angry at the misconception that the replacing landscape was to become permanent and not open to future development.

I'm not the expert others are on this site, but this comment seems to make a big difference. If the plaza is possibly only temporary so that they can build another tower later then this would be a much more bearable situation. Can anyone shed any light on the probability if this happening?