Simon Outlet Mall 61st & Hwy 75

[Conan71]

Thank you for the tip of the hat to those who do appreciate what is up there.  Per INCOG's web site, if the council does not approve a recommendation from TMAPC the applicant can take it to district court.   

The residents of West Highlands successfully challenged and got Lindsey to stand down from their plans to build apartments on Union between 61st & 71st.  It was approved by TMAPC and met proper zoning guidelines, I believe it even fit the comp plan and small area plan.  Residents considered that private property transaction to be a matter of their public interest.  

An outlet mall will get built, along with it the jobs and sales tax revenue.  I simply hope it won't be on the west flank of Turkey Mountain.  I dread the trash and noise issues.  When I'm up there, I'm up there because I'm trying avoid such things.  

Trash from Tulsa Hills makes it a mile north.  Just think how it will be with a mall adjacent to the area:



This photo is from the ridge to the east of this proposed development.  That horizon of trees in the distant background (it's about 1/4 mile or so away) will be a horizon of outlet mall if this goes through.  You could not plan a more opposite development to wilderness than this.



This area is attracting an unbelievable amount of people here every weekend.  We spoke to a couple who were over from Tahlequah riding with a friend.  They said if the mall gets built they will go to Bentonville instead.  They don't mind the traffic and parking hassle so much now but figure all the extra mall traffic will make it unenjoyable.

TMUA is bringing in its fair share of tourism $$.  I know people from OKC who come here almost weekly to bike and/or run.  Lots of users from BA, Owasso, and Jenks which is bringing tax dollars to Tulsa when they dine, shop and fill up the car.  People have this idea that Urban Wilderness is sunk money and does not produce revenue.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

It's estimated an outlet mall is worth $4 million a year in new sales tax revenue.  Simon or Horizon properties could do that in another area, Horizon has a plan of their own in an area of town which needs a shot in the arm much like west Tulsa got with Tulsa Hills.  The city gets it's needed revenue and keeps an asset with immeasurable value.  

The problem for SW Tulsa if they get this is Woodland Hills-like development intensity without Woodland Hills style infrastructure to handle all the extra activity and traffic.

[guido911]

What, in your opinion, are the "actual benefits" of Turkey Mountain? I see it as one of the most important parts of the city. It separates us from other mid size cities, and gives people from out of town something to remember us by. To pave over one of Tulsa's most defining characteristics with anything, much less something as bland as an outlet mall, would be a gross mistake.

I moved to Tulsa in 1996, and decided to settle here around 1998. At that time, TM was NEVER a factor I considered. It was not even in my top 10 as I do not recall knowing it existed. I am an outdoors person as much as the next. I run, cycle, camp, etc. But I also understand that I cannot do these things on private property. If it's that important, I would put my money where my mouth is. Have you? Have you ponied up the cash to stop this "gross mistake"?

As far as paving over things, I thought Simon was developing its own land. Who said anything about paving over TM? You know, the more I listen to the likes of you, the more inclined I am to discount this cause. It's like you don't give a damn about Simon's private property and ownership rights.

Let me ask you this, how would you feel if a bunch of complete strangers told you what you can/can't do with the land you own? People that may live no where close to your land?

[guido911]

Thank you for the tip of the hat to those who do appreciate what is up there.  

You deserve it. You walk the walk. Now, about your coming out of the tree hugger closet..... 

[ZYX]

I moved to Tulsa in 1996, and decided to settle here around 1998. At that time, TM was NEVER a factor I considered. It was not even in my top 10 as I do not recall knowing it existed. I am an outdoors person as much as the next. I run, cycle, camp, etc. But I also understand that I cannot do these things on private property. If it's that important, I would put my money where my mouth is. Have you? Have you ponied up the cash to stop this "gross mistake"?

As far as paving over things, I thought Simon was developing its own land. Who said anything about paving over TM? You know, the more I listen to the likes of you, the more inclined I am to discount this cause. It's like you don't give a damn about Simon's private property and ownership rights.

Let me ask you this, how would you feel if a bunch of complete strangers told you what you can/can't do with the land you own? People that may live no where close to your land?

I'm sorry if you took my post as hostile, it wasn't intended to be.  I was honestly curious as to what your opinion of the "actual benefits" of TM are, and you still haven't answered.

If I owned land land in such a sensitive area, I would hope that I'd be mindful of how development could affect use of the surrounding land. The infrastructure in this area isn't there to support a mall. It cannot be added without negatively impacting Turkey Mountain. I am a general supporter of private property rights, but I think that this is one case where the city should not allow such a development.

For the record, I've been on the privately owned part of Turkey Mountain exactly twice, and that is because trails that run through it are marked on the official Turkey Mountain maps. At the time, I was unaware that it was private property. I'm much more concerned with the road infrastructure/traffic/trash problems than with the outlet mall itself.

[cynical]

I can't speak for the owner, and the answer really depends on the owner's or lessee's intentions and resources. I also don't know the terms of the lease with Simon. Is it contingent on gaining approval of the project? If Simon took out a non-contingent 100 year lease, they would  have standing to challenge a denial of their project as a "taking." If the lease was contingent, the owner would have standing to bring the action. The plaintiff could challenge could appeal the denial of the proposal to district court or could file suit for damages for inverse (sometimes called "reverse") condemnation. The appeal might argue that the proposed development was consistent with the comprehensive plan, that the denial was based upon protecting recreational uses on parkland located a substantial distance from this property, and that the denial of the proposal was therefore arbitrary and capricious. A suit for inverse condemnation would need to allege that the city: (1) had the right of eminent domain; (2) had taken the property in question; and (3) had taken it for public use.

As I've said before, a land-use scheme that prevents the property owner from making any economic use of his property such as the "visitors' center" concept shown by Conan would be a "taking." If the denial was based on the city's desire to preserve Turkey Mountain Park and the adjacent lands as a public recreational asset as so many here demand, that would qualify as a taking for public use even if this specific parcel was no longer accessed by the public.

A third alternative would be to file an action in federal court under 42 USC Sec. 1982, which provides an action for damages whenever any person is deprived of life, liberty, or property by anyone acting under color of state law. This is the original Civil Rights Act that is used for a variety of purposes such as challenging illegal searches and seizures, deliberate indifference to medical treatment of inmates, prison overcrowding, etc. It has been used successfully to challenge oppressive land use planning schemes. The so-called "property rights" movement would extend this to any restrictions on land use in the public interest. I do not support that theory, but it's out there. 

As with any condemnation action, the amount of damages for inverse condemnation of real property is the "fair market value" of the property taken, meaning in condemnation cases the value of any property actually taken plus the difference in value of the property not actually taken before and after the taking. The value is set according to the property's highest and best use, but minus any benefits to the remaining property by reason of the taking.

There are a good many variables here, all of which can be disputed in a condemnation case. What is the value before the taking? What is the value after the taking? What is the highest and best use of the property, and how does that influence the value? And in an inverse condemnation action, was there a taking at all? All of these issues will take time to figure out, with someone paying for all of the time expended. If the plaintiff is Simon, they can probably afford to try these issues. Which leads to Guido's question about fees and expenses.

Unlike an ordinary eminent domain case, in an inverse condemnation case attorneys' fees and other expenses are always awarded to a prevailing property owner, even when the suit is settled without trial. If the landowner is paid damages, it also gets its fees and expenses paid. That can be very expensive. The fees have to be "reasonable," meaning that the time expended was reasonable and the hourly rate commensurate with the hourly rates commonly charged in the community, given the experience and expertise of the attorney.

The tree-hugger in me would like to see the area preserved for recreational use, but not by taking private property without just compensation. The Oklahoma and US Constitutions are quite explicit about that, and the case law is clear - you don't get to force a property owner to leave its land in "pristine wilderness" condition without paying for it. And subterfuges by public entities are very, very easy to prove.

I would like to know from cynical what the likelihood of an eminent domain lawsuit (or similar COA) would be if Simon is prohibited by government from developing their land as they want. Also, what the ballpark for attorneys fees and damages would be.

[guido911]

The tree-hugger in me would like to see the area preserved for recreational use, but not by taking private property without just compensation. The Oklahoma and US Constitutions are quite explicit about that, and the case law is clear - you don't get to force a property owner to leave its land in "pristine wilderness" condition without paying for it. And subterfuges by public entities are very, very easy to prove.

[emphasis added]. That has been the rub for me, and what some supporters of TM simply do not understand. How do you force someone to leave land they own alone without paying them? And if push comes to shove, who is prepared to write the check?

I hope folks read the entirety of cynical's post and take it seriously. I would encourage people involved in this dispute to pass it along to those also involved.

Good post.

[SXSW]

I hope that the city will support the interests of the people of Tulsa over business interests. However, I don't know how far the city can legally go.

Simon wants taxpayer money to fund infrastructure improvements so they can make a very difficult site work for their mall.  The city can deny that making the development unfeasible, at least in this location.

I still think the Cherokees win out in this whole thing.

[Conan71]

Again, I've not read a post in this discussion that anyone suggest the city condemn the land.  In fact, everyone I've spoken to who does not want to see a mall built here also believes the sellers deserve just compensation for their speculative land investment if Simon goes elsewhere.

I'm also of the understanding that there is a lease in place while the developer does their due diligence and the project is either approved or denied in the planning process.  Once that period is complete, the developer closes on the property or walks away depending on the outcome of their due diligence.

If the deal does fall through, preservationists need to be prepared to purchase the property and take it out of play for further development. 

[ZYX]

Thanks, cynical.

Again, I've not read a post in this discussion that anyone suggest the city condemn the land.  In fact, everyone I've spoken to who does not want to see a mall built here also believes the sellers deserve just compensation for their speculative land investment if Simon goes elsewhere.

I'm also of the understanding that there is a lease in place while the developer does their due diligence and the project is either approved or denied in the planning process.  Once that period is complete, the developer closes on the property or walks away depending on the outcome of their due diligence.

If the deal does fall through, preservationists need to be prepared to purchase the property and take it out of play for further development. 

I agree that the land owner should be compensated, and intended to put that in my last post, but didn't. Should the deal fall through, how would preservationists be able to purchase the property? Is there a fundraising effort for such a case? Hope that a donor purchases it? Neither is very reliable. I would support a small access fee for TM, but how long would that take to raise the needed money?

[rdj]

At $3 a pop it would take about 1.1MM turns of the stile to cover the $3.2MM asking price for the dirt.  $5 per cuts the number to 640M to cover the nut.  That would be before loan or bond fees/interest, if RPA for example were to bond for it.  Assuming they have bond powers, I honestly don't know if they do.  I don't know the usage, but that is a lot of folks coming thru there.  It isn't unprecedented though, many parks have a usage or trail fee.

[Conan71]

At $3 a pop it would take about 1.1MM turns of the stile to cover the $3.2MM asking price for the dirt.  $5 per cuts the number to 640M to cover the nut.  That would be before loan or bond fees/interest, if RPA for example were to bond for it.  Assuming they have bond powers, I honestly don't know if they do.  I don't know the usage, but that is a lot of folks coming thru there.  It isn't unprecedented though, many parks have a usage or trail fee.

That's an interesting metric.  They do know 11,000 cars per week pass into the lower lot.  Even if you did it as a per car charge of $5 and assuming the fee did not knock down usage (judging by how many people show up every weekend now, I doubt a user fee would kill it that much) it would pay out in about 58 weeks.

However, that's not a practical approach if the land were to be taken out of play for future development, assuming Simon walks away.  I'm rather surprised the owners of the property never made overtures to RPA or the Y about some sort of seller financing ever since their developer walked away in 2008 from the office park concept.  I'm probably even more confused as to why users of the trails back then didn't coalesce and form a group to buy it once that went away.

A good number of runners, equestrians, hikers, and mountain bikers are professionals, not broke college kids looking for a freebie.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Let me ask you this, how would you feel if a bunch of complete strangers told you what you can/can't do with the land you own? People that may live no where close to your land?

Like zoning requirements....??

We are told every day in dozens of ways what we can and can't do with our land.  Your gated community is probably more oppressive than most about that kind of thing.  How do you feel about that?   I bet you can't keep a few chickens in the back yard as pets!  But I bet there is someone nearby with a yappin' dog that offends a lot of the neighbors!

Everyone pays homage to the 'king', no matter what country one lives in.

Turns out, I am getting ready to build a small house and found out due to some circumstances of its location, no building permits are required, so that will be good.  And they don't even tell me that I HAVE to build a McMansion!!  I can make a cozy little cottage home of several hundred square feet - no problem!!

Not quite sure how that is gonna play out with getting whatever inspections are required, but sure sounded like that is done on the most casual of basis' - except for the tax guy - he does a serious inspection, right down to granite countertops versus Formica, etc!  But gives an exemption to whatever part of the house is build as storm shelter safe room.  I told him I was planning on building the entire place as specified by FEMA shelter standards.  I don't think he was really amused....but hey, ya gotta try!

[heironymouspasparagus]

[emphasis added]. That has been the rub for me, and what some supporters of TM simply do not understand. How do you force someone to leave land they own alone without paying them? And if push comes to shove, who is prepared to write the check?

I hope folks read the entirety of cynical's post and take it seriously. I would encourage people involved in this dispute to pass it along to those also involved.

Good post.

It is a good post.  As others have said, no one has said to just take without paying.  No one has stepped up to buy, though.  Maybe we are all waiting on Kaiser to do that...?


This drifts dangerously close to what the Sierra club, et. al. are all about with their efforts to protect wilderness, stopping clear-cut logging, etc.  Chaining oneself to a tree, or climbing into the thing to stop a guy with a chainsaw is stupid.  If there is any "strength of ones convictions" involved, band together (as they have done) and make effective use of the infrastructure already in place - corporate America!  As they haven't done yet.

Ducks Unlimited has been all about habitat preservation and restoration for over 100 years - and they put their money where their mouth is - they buy land and rebuild habitat.  Yes, it is in conjunction with other like minded entities, but they have been singularly effective.  Just look how many ducks and geese there are running around town in different places!  Like fleas on a dog!!  We need more hunters!

Circling back, almost around this barn;
If these entities are truly interested in preservation and restoration, then take the donations, buy stock in the companies like Weyerhauser, Georgia Pacific, whoever.  Buy the whole company if possible.  Get people like Kaiser, Warren Buffet, etc involved.  There are many philanthropists around just looking for a good place to park some money.  THEN run the thing as 'caretakers' of the environment AND the economy - a truly win,win for everyone!!

Same thing applies here for Turkey Mountain.  Buy it.   I would contribute a few bucks to the effort.


Notice in the pictures by Conan - the obligatory trash blowing in the wind.  Even up on top of that hill !!   If ya watch along the roadsides EVERYWHERE ya go in this state - it is just one big blowing trash dump!  Gotta be just so proud of all these Okies who throw their carp out wherever they happen to be!   Stay classy, Oklahoma!!

[Conan71]

Notice in the pictures by Conan - the obligatory trash blowing in the wind.  Even up on top of that hill !!   If ya watch along the roadsides EVERYWHERE ya go in this state - it is just one big blowing trash dump!  Gotta be just so proud of all these Okies who throw their carp out wherever they happen to be!   Stay classy, Oklahoma!!

I left out the obligatory

[guido911]

Like zoning requirements....??

We are told every day in dozens of ways what we can and can't do with our land.  Your gated community is probably more oppressive than most about that kind of thing.  How do you feel about that?   I bet you can't keep a few chickens in the back yard as pets!  But I bet there is someone nearby with a yappin' dog that offends a lot of the neighbors!

Everyone pays homage to the 'king', no matter what country one lives in.

Turns out, I am getting ready to build a small house and found out due to some circumstances of its location, no building permits are required, so that will be good.  And they don't even tell me that I HAVE to build a McMansion!!  I can make a cozy little cottage home of several hundred square feet - no problem!!

Not quite sure how that is gonna play out with getting whatever inspections are required, but sure sounded like that is done on the most casual of basis' - except for the tax guy - he does a serious inspection, right down to granite countertops versus Formica, etc!  But gives an exemption to whatever part of the house is build as storm shelter safe room.  I told him I was planning on building the entire place as specified by FEMA shelter standards.  I don't think he was really amused....but hey, ya gotta try!

Would you PLEASE read cynical's post on this.