I like this whole "assertiveness" thing that Mayor Kathy's got going on here. At least she's got a finger on what might spur the average landlord to action: their wallets.
Quoted in full from the World: (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080127_1__Theow54322%22)
quote:
Vacant building's owner faces hefty fine
The owner of the Tulsa Club Building will be fined $1,000 a day beginning Monday until the building is brought up to code, city officials said.
The historic 11-story building at Fifth Street and Cincinnati Avenue has fire, electrical and plumbing code violations, said Harold Adair, the abatement coordinator for the city's Neighborhood Inspections Department.
The building, which has been vacant for more than a decade, also has safety and health code violations.
The structure is one of 60 vacant buildings within and near the Inner Dispersal Loop that the city targeted last year in an effort to rid the downtown area of vacant and substandard buildings.
"Our goal isn't to demolish these buildings," Adair said. "We're trying to make them habitable."
A building inspection conducted in September and an administrative hearing two months later led to the fines, he said. Under regulations that took effect in August, the city can impose fines of up to $1,000 a day until the property owners bring a building up to code.
City officials said they have attempted for months to reach the building's owner, Carl J. Morony of California, to discuss bringing it up to code.
One concern of mine is that this might be considered selective enforcement of a law.
Is the Tulsa Club Building the only vacant building in Tulsa?
Please, let's not destroy another Art Deco building designed by Bruce Goff.
"When you only have two pennies left in the world, build a fountain in the middle of the intersection of Fifth and Main with one, and build a fountain in the middle of the intersection of Fifth and Main with the other." ~DTU proverb
I don't think it's selective at all... There are around 60 buildings in and around downtown that have been put on notice.
And in the article, it states that the city does NOT want building to be torn down, but to be rehabilitated. It seems like it's a step in the right direction, but I'm afraid the owner will decide that it's cheaper to demolish it than to pay $1,000/day that it's not up to code. [B)]
He could always do the sensible thing and sell it. There have been people who have wanted to buy that building and convert it into lofts for a while, but he's refused to sell.
Could the city also refuse to issue a demolition permit on it?
I think this is the correct use of the legislation to stop landmark buildings crumbling before our eyes.
The guy wants to make money pure and simple. I think they assume that by placing fines on the building right when downtown real estate interest is getting higher, they might coax him into selling.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
The guy wants to make money pure and simple. I think they assume that by placing fines on the building right when downtown real estate interest is getting higher, they might coax him into selling.
I suppose it beats a compulsary purchase order, the city can at least make some money off the fines.
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
I don't think it's selective at all... There are around 60 buildings in and around downtown that have been put on notice.
But the emphasis is on the Tulsa Club Building, not 60 buildings.
quote:
...but I'm afraid the owner will decide that it's cheaper to demolish it than to pay $1,000/day that it's not up to code.
So am I. And my guess is that another Art Deco building designed by Bruce Goff will be ripped down and replaced by another surface parking lot. Many buildings downtown have been vacant for years. Vagrants were getting into the Mayo Hotel a few years ago, but thank goodness we didn't tear it down.
"When you only have two pennies left in the world, you might as well forget the idea of buying a loft in the Tribune Building."
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
I don't think it's selective at all... There are around 60 buildings in and around downtown that have been put on notice.
But the emphasis is on the Tulsa Club Building, not 60 buildings.
Yeah, but you have to start somewhere, and as I understand it, that's definitely a high profile kick in the pants. I'm new to Tulsa and I've even noticed that building. It sticks out like a sore thumb.
While not pictured in the article, I believe they are going through the same process on teh abundant life building, etc.
The Tulsa Club building sticks out due to the very obvious vandalism.
Ugh... I was just driving past this building the other day taking a new way home from work. What a waste. If they have to tear this down too and we let it happen, then I guess these buildings really are too good for Tulsa. Maybe we just deserve a bunch of crappy parking lots and prefabricated-looking garbage buildings if we can't manage to hang on to the most beautiful buildings we have. What a waste.
In the longer story from today (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080128_1_A1_spanc27725%22), it appears that the owner of the Abundant Life building is cooperating with the city in trying to get the building up and running. Reponsiveness seems to be a key difference, and it provides some indicator of why Mr Morony was
selected:
quote:
City officials said they have attempted for months to reach the building's owner, Carl J. Morony of California, to discuss bringing it up to code.
The city sent letters to Morony and the other owners of the vacant buildings, Adair said.
If the guy won't even reply to a letter, I think he selected himself.
Nice article on the building from KOTV (//%22http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=7781597%22). The redo of the site is impressive.
I'm on board with this plan.
While a strong advocate of property rights, in this instance, the owner's neglect is harming the property of those near him. By having everyone in a "wait and see" mode each of those buildings continues to decline. Eventually we all lose out - just like a blighted house in your neighborhood.
What's more - they are only attempting to force the owner to live up to existing laws.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
My nose can smell the future and I smell smoke coming fromt the Tulsa Club Building. Smells like the same smoke from the Towerview Apartments.
At least the people in the Philtower overlook the Tulsa Club Building and unless he's planning to dynamite it, the fire brigade should get there in time. Personally what with people gaining entry to it, I'm surpised it hasn't caught fire before.
If its been empty for a decade I don't know why the problem wasn't sorted out 9 years ago.
Screw that California slumlord. If this doesn't get his attention nothing will.
Seize it by eminent domain, citing nuisance laws, and turn it over to someone who actually wants to do something with it. The owner has a basic obligation to keep up his property, and he clearly isn't doing it.
I know a few folks loathe eminent domain, but I think many of them would be OK with it for historic preservation.
Even Senor Bates indicated he would support such a use of ED.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Seize it by eminent domain, citing nuisance laws, and turn it over to someone who actually wants to do something with it. The owner has a basic obligation to keep up his property, and he clearly isn't doing it.
I know a few folks loathe eminent domain, but I think many of them would be OK with it for historic preservation.
Even Senor Bates indicated he would support such a use of ED.
This may be a really stupid question, but I have to ask: How does that process work??? Not the the seizure, but the 'turning it over to someone who wants to do something with it'. Does the city sell the property? Does it find a party with an interest in fixing it up? Does it hand it over to DTU or some authority? [?]
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Seize it by eminent domain, citing nuisance laws, and turn it over to someone who actually wants to do something with it. The owner has a basic obligation to keep up his property, and he clearly isn't doing it.
I know a few folks loathe eminent domain, but I think many of them would be OK with it for historic preservation.
Even Senor Bates indicated he would support such a use of ED.
This may be a really stupid question, but I have to ask: How does that process work??? Not the the seizure, but the 'turning it over to someone who wants to do something with it'. Does the city sell the property? Does it find a party with an interest in fixing it up? Does it hand it over to DTU or some authority? [?]
The government has the power to seize property from a private party for its fair value as long as the seizure is for "public use." This power was historically used for things like roads, bridges, and military bases. But in the last, oh, 25 years or so, the U.S. Supreme Court has held in a series of opinions that "public use" is just about any purpose the government sees fit. The only real check on this power is whatever democratic system happens to be in place to control the government entity doing the seizing.
So in other words, as long as it pays the guy what the building is worth and the City Council approves, the City of Tulsa can seize the Tulsa Club and do whatever it wants with it, including selling it off to the highest bidder.
(Edited to be more specific.)
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
The government has the power to seize property from a private party for its fair value as long as the seizure is for "public use." This power was historically used for things like roads, bridges, and military bases. But in the last, oh, 25 years or so, the U.S. Supreme Court has held in a series of opinions that "public use" is just about any purpose the government sees fit. The only real check on this power is whatever democratic system happens to be in place to control the government entity doing the seizing.
So in other words, as long as it pays the guy what the building is worth and the City Council approves, the City of Tulsa can seize the Tulsa Club and do whatever it wants with it, including selling it off to the highest bidder.
Thanks, Floyd!
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Even Senor Bates indicated he would support such a use of ED.
Doubt it.
I would certainly be in favor of an eminent domain seizure by the city if the property owner were to slate the Tulsa Club for demolition. Short of demolition, though, I think the fines are plenty.
They should have done that with the Skelly, but I think we all know the press wouldn't have been good on that one.
Can't they also make it harder to get demo permits?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Even Senor Bates indicated he would support such a use of ED.
In what context?
This morning on KFAQ, I heard discussion of a private revolving fund to save and secure historic structures such as the Tulsa Club Building. That's a better idea than eminent domain IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Even Senor Bates indicated he would support such a use of ED.
In what context?
This morning on KFAQ, I heard discussion of a private revolving fund to save and secure historic structures such as the Tulsa Club Building. That's a better idea than eminent domain IMO.
He won't in any context. With eminent domain and many other public tools, Bates is a conservative dogmatist looking for a wedge issue. Thus, eminent domain will
always be evil and unnecessary. Likewise, public mass transit will always be a taxpayer-subsidized waste (as if streets aren't subsidized), and raising taxes will always be the wrong idea, even when it's what the citizens want.
Bates' problem is that he speaks about a fictional world, where jitneys, free enterprise, and NIMBY-fights will transform Tulsa from a hemorrhaging, sprawling, stagnating mess into a charming, urban, whatever. He advocates for change, but is distrustful of every measure, every tool, and every person, who tries to get from A to B.
Don't get me wrong, a private revolving loan fund is a great idea, but it is not a replacement for eminent domain. A crazy, intransigent building owner won't use it. Then what?
My worry would be that this fund would turn into money for paying ransom for buildings. I don't think the city should be forced to pay over the odds because some wanky Californian slum landlord wants lots of money for a building he paid a pittance for ten years ago.
I think eminent domain and the use of fines costs the tax payer very little and looks like a way of potentially generating money. While the fund could end up rewarding people for neglecting there buildings and costing more money.
My view is that in situations where the "public use" is not infrastructure-related, the eminent domain power should only be used in extreme circumstances. But, I would characterize the potential loss of architectural heritage through demolition by an out of state landlord as extreme.
It's all conjecture until this guy figures out what he's going to do with the property.
quote:
The government has the power to seize property from a private party for its fair value as long as the seizure is for "public use." This power was historically used for things like roads, bridges, and military bases. But in the last, oh, 25 years or so, the U.S. Supreme Court has held in a series of opinions that "public use" is just about any purpose the government sees fit. The only real check on this power is whatever democratic system happens to be in place to control the government entity doing the seizing.
Yes, we remember when the city decided we needed an Albertsons at 15&th & Lewis (across from a former Safeway/Buds/whatever). A neighborhood was bulldozed, the existing store went out of business, then Albertsons bailed.
Has anyone actually made an offer to the owner?
What's his price? And, what is the building actually worth?
Is it really too much, or just more than whomever wants it is willing to pay?
Actually, I'm wondering if the owner is even aware of what is going on. Did officials just mail a letter to the record address and call it "it"? For that matter, do we actually know they did that much?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Has anyone actually made an offer to the owner?
What's his price? And, what is the building actually worth?
Is it really too much, or just more than whomever wants it is willing to pay?
Actually, I'm wondering if the owner is even aware of what is going on. Did officials just mail a letter to the record address and call it "it"? For that matter, do we actually know they did that much?
The article says that the city has been trying to contact him for months to no avail. I'm assuming they didn't hire a PI to hunt the man down; they're probably using his last known contact info to try to settle the fine. There's no detail one way or another about private attempts to buy or negotiate a sale.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
The article says that the city has been trying to contact him for months to no avail. I'm assuming they didn't hire a PI to hunt the man down; they're probably using his last known contact info to try to settle the fine. There's no detail one way or another about private attempts to buy or negotiate a sale.
I think we should just go over and file a quick claim deed. Move some furniture in and declare it as our building.
TulsaNow could office on the first floor or the penthouse and lease out the rest.
Tulsa Club...now TulsaNow Club.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
The article says that the city has been trying to contact him for months to no avail. I'm assuming they didn't hire a PI to hunt the man down; they're probably using his last known contact info to try to settle the fine. There's no detail one way or another about private attempts to buy or negotiate a sale.
I think we should just go over and file a quick claim deed. Move some furniture in and declare it as our building.
TulsaNow could office on the first floor or the penthouse and lease out the rest.
Tulsa Club...now TulsaNow Club.
I'm all for it. I got a crowbar.
After ten years, it's yours for free--adverse possession doctrine, yeah!
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Has anyone actually made an offer to the owner?
What's his price? And, what is the building actually worth?
Is it really too much, or just more than whomever wants it is willing to pay?
Actually, I'm wondering if the owner is even aware of what is going on. Did officials just mail a letter to the record address and call it "it"? For that matter, do we actually know they did that much?
The article says that the city has been trying to contact him for months to no avail. I'm assuming they didn't hire a PI to hunt the man down; they're probably using his last known contact info to try to settle the fine. There's no detail one way or another about private attempts to buy or negotiate a sale.
I am aware that attempts have been made and there have been interested parties.
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
The government has the power to seize property from a private party for its fair value as long as the seizure is for "public use." This power was historically used for things like roads, bridges, and military bases. But in the last, oh, 25 years or so, the U.S. Supreme Court has held in a series of opinions that "public use" is just about any purpose the government sees fit. The only real check on this power is whatever democratic system happens to be in place to control the government entity doing the seizing.
Yes, we remember when the city decided we needed an Albertsons at 15&th & Lewis (across from a former Safeway/Buds/whatever). A neighborhood was bulldozed, the existing store went out of business, then Albertsons bailed.
The city had nothing to do with the 15th & Lewis Albertson's. The developers acquired each parcel on their own. There was no threat or exercise of eminent domain.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Even Senor Bates indicated he would support such a use of ED.
Oy vey!!
I'll try again:
rwarn17588, in what context did he indicate his support of eminent domain?
Yesterday on KFAQ, I heard discussion of a private revolving fund to save and secure historic structures such as the Tulsa Club Building, although without such a fund in place, it most likely will not work in the short term. In the long run, I think the revolving loan fund is a better idea than eminent domain.
I don't understand the urgency of this issue. Other buildings (such as the Mayo Hotel) remained vacant for a long time. Perhaps there were fines of $1,000 per day against the owners of the Mayo Hotel and other vacant and unsecured buildings -- I'm not sure. We have lost so many Art Deco buildings already. I think another vacant corner site downtown will be worse than a vacant building.
Monday, Monday, can't trust that day
Monday, Monday, it just turns out that way
Oh Monday, Monday, won't go away
Monday, Monday, it's here to stay ~John Phillips
Can you explain how the revolving loan fund would work? I'm not familiar with the concept.
As far as the urgency of the issue, my guess is that the city has learned from experience. The farther you allow these absentee landlords to let their buildings languish in illegal conditions, the more difficult it is for restoration to occur. Ultimately, without code enforcement, the most profitable way to "restore" the property is to demolish and start over. That's obviously undesirable, hence the "urgency."
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=7793179
So if the city is going after other buildings, what will happen to the Quicktrips, example 15th and Main?
I'm not attacking Quicktrip. It was the first abandoned building of its kind that popped in my head.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
The city had nothing to do with the 15th & Lewis Albertson's. The developers acquired each parcel on their own. There was no threat or exercise of eminent domain.
I was told something very different by some owners of those properties.
All those homes all at once, and not one of them not wanting to just pack up and go? Surely that gives one pause to wonder.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=7793179
So if the city is going after other buildings, what will happen to the Quicktrips, example 15th and Main?
I'm not attacking Quicktrip. It was the first abandoned building of its kind that popped in my head.
Why do people keep bringing that up, that place was turned into a Bill and Ruth's years and years and years ago
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=bill+and+ruth's+tulsa+main&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.106236,92.8125&ie=UTF8&cd=1&ei=M6ygR9a0NJWKiwHxgvT6Bw&sig2=rd5s3-zbcSLQVqXqjB0ajg&cid=36140289,-95987104,6474310060465676609&li=lmd&om=0&ll=36.140864,-95.987377&spn=0.003015,0.005665&t=h&z=18&iwloc=A
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=7793179
So if the city is going after other buildings, what will happen to the Quicktrips, example 15th and Main?
I'm not attacking Quicktrip. It was the first abandoned building of its kind that popped in my head.
Why do people keep bringing that up, that place was turned into a Bill and Ruth's years and years and years ago
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=bill+and+ruth's+tulsa+main&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.106236,92.8125&ie=UTF8&cd=1&ei=M6ygR9a0NJWKiwHxgvT6Bw&sig2=rd5s3-zbcSLQVqXqjB0ajg&cid=36140289,-95987104,6474310060465676609&li=lmd&om=0&ll=36.140864,-95.987377&spn=0.003015,0.005665&t=h&z=18&iwloc=A
Sorry, then what will they do with the abandoned QT/Bill and Ruths on 15th and Main?
It's surrounded by fencing and hasn't had a sub or QT wrap walk out of those doors for a long time.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=7793179
So if the city is going after other buildings, what will happen to the Quicktrips, example 15th and Main?
I'm not attacking Quicktrip. It was the first abandoned building of its kind that popped in my head.
Why do people keep bringing that up, that place was turned into a Bill and Ruth's years and years and years ago
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=bill+and+ruth's+tulsa+main&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.106236,92.8125&ie=UTF8&cd=1&ei=M6ygR9a0NJWKiwHxgvT6Bw&sig2=rd5s3-zbcSLQVqXqjB0ajg&cid=36140289,-95987104,6474310060465676609&li=lmd&om=0&ll=36.140864,-95.987377&spn=0.003015,0.005665&t=h&z=18&iwloc=A
Sorry, then what will they do with the abandoned QT/Bill and Ruths on 15th and Main?
It's surrounded by fencing and hasn't had a sub or QT wrap walk out of those doors for a long time.
Hey, if someone is willing to convert a Luby's I can imagine the QT/B&R won't stay empty forever.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Can you explain how the revolving loan fund would work? I'm not familiar with the concept.
As far as the urgency of the issue, my guess is that the city has learned from experience. The farther you allow these absentee landlords to let their buildings languish in illegal conditions, the more difficult it is for restoration to occur. Ultimately, without code enforcement, the most profitable way to "restore" the property is to demolish and start over. That's obviously undesirable, hence the "urgency."
The Mayo Hotel was abandoned for a long time. The Ambassador Hotel was empty for years also.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Can you explain how the revolving loan fund would work? I'm not familiar with the concept.
As far as the urgency of the issue, my guess is that the city has learned from experience. The farther you allow these absentee landlords to let their buildings languish in illegal conditions, the more difficult it is for restoration to occur. Ultimately, without code enforcement, the most profitable way to "restore" the property is to demolish and start over. That's obviously undesirable, hence the "urgency."
The Mayo Hotel was abandoned for a long time. The Ambassador Hotel was empty for years also.
Completely agree. Those are good examples of how aggressive code enforcement might have prevented deepening disrepair of Tulsa's architectural icons, thus saving the city money in subsidizing renovations and preventing tragic degradation of historic buildings.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Can you explain how the revolving loan fund would work? I'm not familiar with the concept.
As far as the urgency of the issue, my guess is that the city has learned from experience. The farther you allow these absentee landlords to let their buildings languish in illegal conditions, the more difficult it is for restoration to occur. Ultimately, without code enforcement, the most profitable way to "restore" the property is to demolish and start over. That's obviously undesirable, hence the "urgency."
The Mayo Hotel was abandoned for a long time. The Ambassador Hotel was empty for years also.
Completely agree. Those are good examples of how aggressive code enforcement might have prevented deepening disrepair of Tulsa's architectural icons, thus saving the city money in subsidizing renovations and preventing tragic degradation of historic buildings.
My emphasis. We don't know. Aggressive code enforcement also
might have increased the pressure for demolition in those cases, as it took years to find developers willing to take on those hotels. Dozens if not hundreds of buildings have been razed downtown. I don't see how another vacant lot is going to help the city.
Monday, Monday, can't trust that day ~John Phillips
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
My emphasis. We don't know. Aggressive code enforcement also might have increased the pressure for demolition in those cases, as it took years to find developers willing to take on those hotels. Dozens if not hundreds of buildings have been razed downtown. I don't see how another vacant lot is going to help the city.
Monday, Monday, can't trust that day
~John Phillips
With no pressure at all on negligent building owners, they won't even keep their buildings weatherized. Yes, people are that stupid. Once you start getting water in the building, you've got demolition through neglect. So, what's the difference?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Has anyone actually made an offer to the owner?
What's his price? And, what is the building actually worth?
Is it really too much, or just more than whomever wants it is willing to pay?
Actually, I'm wondering if the owner is even aware of what is going on. Did officials just mail a letter to the record address and call it "it"? For that matter, do we actually know they did that much?
I heard he wants about 10x what he paid.
Yesterday I talked to a couple of architects about the possibility of saving the building. Both have experience with the restoration of historic buildings, here in Tulsa and in New England.
The first architect said that there isn't significant water damage yet. I'm not sure how he knows this.
The second architect also has information on the building in its current condition -- encouraging information about its structural stability.
Yes, I've also heard that the owner wants much, much more than what he paid for it. I remember that World Publishing didn't pay very much for the Skelly Building -- less than $200,000 as I recall. In the case of the Skelly Building and the Froug Building, the assessed value of the real estate was lowered after demolition. That results in less tax revenue for the county.
We can guess about the Tulsa Building's condition's effect on the value of surrounding properties, so a comparison to the Skelly and Froug sites might not be a fair one. The Skelly Building and Froug Building appeared to be in relatively good condition shortly before they were demolished -- better than the Tulsa Club Building appears to be now. I've tracked the assessed values of World Publishing's block and surrounding properties, both before and after the Skelly/Froug demolitions. There was a net loss in assessed value. If all property owners in the county trashed their buildings as World Publishing chose to do, the overall decrease in property tax revenue would be absolutely devastating.
There are many variables and unknowns in the big picture besides abandoned buildings. Downtown cores are defined by streets and buildings. Corner buildings are especially important. One thing I know for sure: Tulsa is not known internationally for its special and unique parking lots, vacant land, and Tulsa Development Authority opportunity sites. Tulsa is recognized around the world for its Art Deco buldings, several of which were designed by Bruce Goff. Tulsa has many problems to face. Are 60 neglected buildings really holding us back?
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Can you explain how the revolving loan fund would work? I'm not familiar with the concept.
As far as the urgency of the issue, my guess is that the city has learned from experience. The farther you allow these absentee landlords to let their buildings languish in illegal conditions, the more difficult it is for restoration to occur. Ultimately, without code enforcement, the most profitable way to "restore" the property is to demolish and start over. That's obviously undesirable, hence the "urgency."
The Mayo Hotel was abandoned for a long time. The Ambassador Hotel was empty for years also.
Completely agree. Those are good examples of how aggressive code enforcement might have prevented deepening disrepair of Tulsa's architectural icons, thus saving the city money in subsidizing renovations and preventing tragic degradation of historic buildings.
My emphasis. We don't know. Aggressive code enforcement also might have increased the pressure for demolition in those cases, as it took years to find developers willing to take on those hotels. Dozens if not hundreds of buildings have been razed downtown. I don't see how another vacant lot is going to help the city.
Monday, Monday, can't trust that day
~John Phillips
You appear to be suggesting that these aggressive fines are increasing the risk of demolition of valued architecture. What is your recommendation instead? Non-enforcement of building codes? Because we see what happens when landowners allow their properties to decay--ultimately, the value declines to the point that renovation is almost impossible, and demolition starts to make financial sense.
On another topic, you never explained the revolving loan fund. I'm curious about what it is and how it works in this situation.
Finally--a new thought. I think Tulsa needs some sort of demolition ban downtown. Maybe we could have some kind of approval board for any proposed demolition inside the IDL. This would probably be an easier mechanism than eminent domain to make sure Tulsa doesn't lose its architectural heritage. It would also keep the city out of the real estate business.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Can you explain how the revolving loan fund would work? I'm not familiar with the concept.
As far as the urgency of the issue, my guess is that the city has learned from experience. The farther you allow these absentee landlords to let their buildings languish in illegal conditions, the more difficult it is for restoration to occur. Ultimately, without code enforcement, the most profitable way to "restore" the property is to demolish and start over. That's obviously undesirable, hence the "urgency."
The Mayo Hotel was abandoned for a long time. The Ambassador Hotel was empty for years also.
Completely agree. Those are good examples of how aggressive code enforcement might have prevented deepening disrepair of Tulsa's architectural icons, thus saving the city money in subsidizing renovations and preventing tragic degradation of historic buildings.
My emphasis. We don't know. Aggressive code enforcement also might have increased the pressure for demolition in those cases, as it took years to find developers willing to take on those hotels. Dozens if not hundreds of buildings have been razed downtown. I don't see how another vacant lot is going to help the city.
Monday, Monday, can't trust that day
~John Phillips
You appear to be suggesting that these aggressive fines are increasing the risk of demolition of valued architecture. What is your recommendation instead? Non-enforcement of building codes? Because we see what happens when landowners allow their properties to decay--ultimately, the value declines to the point that renovation is almost impossible, and demolition starts to make financial sense.
I don't know the effect of the aggressive fines. We both used the word "might" in our posts, which I emphasized.
From Monday's
Tulsa World article on the subject:
quote:
Ridding the downtown area of vacant buildings will improve the quality of life for people who live and run businesses in the area...
Perhaps this is true, but how many people actually live in the vicinity of the Tulsa Club Building? Are those few residents really concerned that the building's condition is lowering their quality of life? What attracted them to move to the area in the first place? Could it have been the unique collection of buildings and streetscapes which can't be found anywhere else in Tulsa? How many buildings were vacant when they chose to move downtown?
I'm not trying to evade your question about the revolving loan fund, but it's something that Michael Bates could answer better than I. Such a fund would be a carrot to offer up in addition to (or perhaps in lieu of) the stick (of aggressive code enforcement). I doubted rwarn's post, so I was mainly asking for clarity about the context in which Michael Bates may or may not support eminent domain.
If the guy who owns the Tulsa Club building bought it for say 250,000 and now wants 2 mill for it. I hope the city is collecting property taxes as per the 2 mill that the owner says its worth. The city should do that with a lot of properties like that and perhaps those abandoned buildings or lots that someone bought for a song and now sits there because the person wants a lot more for it, well if it really is worth a lot more they should pay property taxes on it. If they dont like paying the higher property taxes they can lower the price, sell it, or do something positive with the property so that the property is making enough money to pay the taxes.
^ I've heard different figures, but that's not how property taxes are assessed anyway.
This is an interesting thread. I haven't been inside the Tulsa Club Building since the early or mid-90s, but I've received a bunch of information about it within the last 30 hours or so. I need to digest all the numbers and sleep on it.
(http://www.tulsalibrary.org/JPG/C0305.jpg)
Source: Beryl Ford Collection / Rotary Club of Tulsa, Tulsa City-County Library, Tulsa Historical Society
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
On another topic, you never explained the revolving loan fund. I'm curious about what it is and how it works in this situation.
If Booworld won't answer, Floyd, I will. A revolving loan fund is a loan pool dedicated to a special purpose, in this case it would be to breathe new life into downtown buildings. As loans are repaid back into the fund, the fund grows and new loans are made. Thus, the pool is constantly revolving and growing.
Because the fund's mission is something other than profit, you could do things that banks typically won't. For instance, funds could be offered at a lower interest rate, and "riskier" loans could be made. But if you really want to make the most of such a fund, you'd probably want to offer smaller amounts at market rates and to be used as seed money to leverage much bigger bank loans.
Remember back in the day when you had to have 20% equity to get a loan? Well, as long as the bank gets paid back first, the bank would see your 2nd position revolving loan as "equity" on your project. And so the fund managers could use the revolving loan to leverage lots of bank loans. This would allow them to achieve their mission more quickly...and in smaller bites. By spreading that money out over lots of different projects, they'd be managing their risk pretty effectively.
It's a good idea, but it's not magic. I don't think access to loans is the problem downtown. Kanbar certainly doesn't need a revolving loan. And I would think that with the growing number of successes downtown (McNellie's, Philtower, and many, many more), that banks would be eager to make loans down here.
As I said, the problem isn't access to capital, it's access to vision. The Tulsa Club guy has zero ideas. He's
intellectually bankrupt. That's harsh, I know, but the guy apparently doesn't even have the smarts to keep the graffiti off of that gem of a building. What does a stranger to Tulsa think when he or she sees this kind of craziness? It hurts his investment in ways that far outweigh the cost of a can of paint thinner. And, it diminishes downtown.
I can pretty safely say that he's not willing to borrow
a penny at any interest rate, and he'll sit on that building and do nothing until it rots to the ground if he's allowed. His "business model" is to camp out and wait for an angel to come along with a solution that makes him rich. Ironically, he's the problem. He's scaring the angels away.
So, if somebody offers up revolving loan funds as
the solution for downtown, they either don't know what they are talking about, or they are trying to trick you. It's a jitney.
As for the demolition ban, I don't know if I'm willing to go that far. Personally, I'd like to see how the city does with this nagging and hectoring thing. I'm confident that he'll either do something or sell.
^ Also, the possibility of using the fund to purchase endangered properties outright, secure them, and then sell them to developers with appropriate re-use plans was discussed on KFAQ Tuesday morning.
(http://www.tulsalibrary.org/JPG/A1713.jpg)
Source: Beryl Ford Collection / Rotary Club of Tulsa, Tulsa City-County Library, Tulsa Historical Society
This sounds all really good about the revolving loan fund. However I'd really like to see it used in a way that doesn't reward reckless building owners. If they guy who owns the Tulsa Club building can name his price because his bizarre business model which involves buying a nice building close to other buildings, neglecting it until it becomes dangerous then forcing people to buy it off him. Won't he just buy more Tulsa buildings and pull the same stunt?
We need to reward people who look after their buildings and those who renovate, but punish those who neglect there buildings. He should be fined $1000 a day, but this should be combined with a moratorium of building demolition within a set area. To only use fines encourages people to 'get rid of the problem' be it by sale or demolition, the city should force peoples hand to sell the building if they have no interest in maintaining it and it is a danger. I don't understand the attitude of 'oh woe is me, haven't we lost so many buildings?', but on the other hand aren't prepared to use legislation to prevent it happening in the future.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
^ Also, the possibility of using the fund to purchase endangered properties outright, secure them, and then sell them to developers with appropriate re-use plans was discussed on KFAQ Tuesday morning.
Si, nailed it. Letting negligent building owners have anything to do with setting the price is nuts. You'd be rewarding them for being awful. Besides, how are you going to do business with a guy that claims his rotting building is worth 10 times what it is?
Fine him. Push him to do something. Ultimately, if the guy refuses to act, why shouldn't the city take the building from him, pay him it's appraised value, and then resell it to the highest bidder with a restoration plan? What, exactly, is so evil about that? And how is it worse than giving greedy do-nothings get everything they want.
The fines might be the best option in this case. I'm questioning the process. I don't have a solution, especially when a building owner has unknown or illogical motivations. Also, I don't recall identifying any particular mechanism as evil.
I've seen selective code enforcement in Tulsa, and I think it's unfair. I wondering if that might be what's going on here.
Booworld, you are right and proper in questioning the actions of our government. My only recommendation is that you be similarly skeptical when a talking head from KFAQ offers a "solution".
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
^ I've heard different figures, but that's not how property taxes are assessed anyway.
This is an interesting thread. I haven't been inside the Tulsa Club Building since the early or mid-90s, but I've received a bunch of information about it within the last 30 hours or so. I need to digest all the numbers and sleep on it.
(http://www.tulsalibrary.org/JPG/C0305.jpg)
Source: Beryl Ford Collection / Rotary Club of Tulsa, Tulsa City-County Library, Tulsa Historical Society
Wow, I wonder if those columns and beams are still in there? That architecture is a hidden Tulsa treasure if it is. I have often thought it would be neat to have an Art-Deco museum downtown in part of one of those buildings. A downtown Art-Deco museum would be a great fit for Tulsa. I have searched the web for art-deco museums and havent found but perhaps 1 or 2 and they were both more like tiny, cluttered, roadside, antique stores, not real museums. We could easily create the worlds premier Art-Deco Museum. I am actually suprised nobody else has done it.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
On another topic, you never explained the revolving loan fund. I'm curious about what it is and how it works in this situation.
If Booworld won't answer, Floyd, I will. A revolving loan fund is a loan pool dedicated to a special purpose, in this case it would be to breathe new life into downtown buildings. As loans are repaid back into the fund, the fund grows and new loans are made. Thus, the pool is constantly revolving and growing.
Because the fund's mission is something other than profit, you could do things that banks typically won't. For instance, funds could be offered at a lower interest rate, and "riskier" loans could be made. But if you really want to make the most of such a fund, you'd probably want to offer smaller amounts at market rates and to be used as seed money to leverage much bigger bank loans.
Remember back in the day when you had to have 20% equity to get a loan? Well, as long as the bank gets paid back first, the bank would see your 2nd position revolving loan as "equity" on your project. And so the fund managers could use the revolving loan to leverage lots of bank loans. This would allow them to achieve their mission more quickly...and in smaller bites. By spreading that money out over lots of different projects, they'd be managing their risk pretty effectively.
It's a good idea, but it's not magic. I don't think access to loans is the problem downtown. Kanbar certainly doesn't need a revolving loan. And I would think that with the growing number of successes downtown (McNellie's, Philtower, and many, many more), that banks would be eager to make loans down here.
As I said, the problem isn't access to capital, it's access to vision. The Tulsa Club guy has zero ideas. He's intellectually bankrupt. That's harsh, I know, but the guy apparently doesn't even have the smarts to keep the graffiti off of that gem of a building. What does a stranger to Tulsa think when he or she sees this kind of craziness? It hurts his investment in ways that far outweigh the cost of a can of paint thinner. And, it diminishes downtown.
I can pretty safely say that he's not willing to borrow a penny at any interest rate, and he'll sit on that building and do nothing until it rots to the ground if he's allowed. His "business model" is to camp out and wait for an angel to come along with a solution that makes him rich. Ironically, he's the problem. He's scaring the angels away.
So, if somebody offers up revolving loan funds as the solution for downtown, they either don't know what they are talking about, or they are trying to trick you. It's a jitney.
As for the demolition ban, I don't know if I'm willing to go that far. Personally, I'd like to see how the city does with this nagging and hectoring thing. I'm confident that he'll either do something or sell.
Thanks for the explanation. That definitely sounds like a program that could benefit Tulsa.
But I think a demo ban could help the architectural landscape of downtown, as long as it was discretionary. Take Trinity Episcopal's demolition of the Auto Hotel, for instance. That parking garage was junk--barely functional. But it was a decent-looking corner building, providing that sense of urban streetscape that gives a downtown its feel. A demolition review board could have said--alright, you can take down the Auto Hotel, but what you erect in its place must maintain the density of the streetscape. Trinity's replacement wasn't the worst possible, but the church certainly could have done a better job of preserving the feel of the street. That's just one possibility.
Of course, the downside is that it's still government meddling with the rights of property owners. It's still something to consider. Doesn't OKC have something like it in place?
Noticed some more graffiti on the Tulsa Club today as I shot pictures of the Slums on Elgin...
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2232/2261383655_08b4d72752_b.jpg)
And here's one I took a while back:
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1168/724541898_019fe5c35c.jpg)
[V]
Does the building owner know he's being fined?
City needs to proceed with condemnation, and get some strong chains and padlocks on the doors to prevent further vandalism and decay.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
Does the building owner know he's being fined?
probably now he does.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
Does the building owner know he's being fined?
probably now he does.
Yeah, if he happens to stop by Mailboxes, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
Does the building owner know he's being fined?
probably now he does.
Yeah, if he happens to stop by Mailboxes, etc.
That's the thing. I'm interested to know if he's reponded to the notification(s) like the owner of the abundent life fortress of solitude.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
Does the building owner know he's being fined?
probably now he does.
Yeah, if he happens to stop by Mailboxes, etc.
That's the thing. I'm interested to know if he's reponded to the notification(s) like the owner of the abundent life fortress of solitude.
hey, how is the fortress of solitude doing?
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
Does the building owner know he's being fined?
probably now he does.
Yeah, if he happens to stop by Mailboxes, etc.
That's the thing. I'm interested to know if he's reponded to the notification(s) like the owner of the abundent life fortress of solitude.
hey, how is the fortress of solitude doing?
I drove by a week or so ago and it looked like some of the trees weren't growing on the roof anymore. Not sure if the owner did that or the ice storm.
I was told all the owners of these sad buildings had to do was promise the city they would do something and the fines would stop.
Anyone know if that's true?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Seize it by eminent domain, citing nuisance laws, and turn it over to someone who actually wants to do something with it. The owner has a basic obligation to keep up his property, and he clearly isn't doing it.
I know a few folks loathe eminent domain, but I think many of them would be OK with it for historic preservation.
Even Senor Bates indicated he would support such a use of ED.
I am opposed to the use of eminent domain if it is used to acquire the building for anything other than a public use(public library, public school, etc). Turning it over to private developers would be a blatant abuse of eminent domain.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
Does the building owner know he's being fined?
probably now he does.
Yeah, if he happens to stop by Mailboxes, etc.
That's the thing. I'm interested to know if he's reponded to the notification(s) like the owner of the abundent life fortress of solitude.
hey, how is the fortress of solitude doing?
I drove by a week or so ago and it looked like some of the trees weren't growing on the roof anymore. Not sure if the owner did that or the ice storm.
I was told all the owners of these sad buildings had to do was promise the city they would do something and the fines would stop.
Anyone know if that's true?
well if thats true it means those fines have no teeth.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
well if thats true it means those fines have no teeth.
Only rumor so far. I don't know how to find out.
So if this is happening at a maintained building downtown, shouldn't someone be more attentive about an abandoned building?
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=8011235
"Crews are working to repair an outside wall of a downtown Tulsa building Thursday.
Bricks began falling from near the top of the AT&T building at 5th and Detroit last week. Thursday, crews were trying to repair the problem and replace what has already fallen.
There is no word yet in what caused the bricks to start falling."
Anyone heard anything new about the Club building? I drive by it all the time and it keeps pissing me off.
The saga drags slowly onward. (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080414_1_A1_hThef17682%22)
quote:
Mayor may be asked to act on Tulsa Club Building
City representatives will soon ask Mayor Kathy Taylor to take action against a downtown building owner deemed in violation of city codes and facing more than $134,000 in fines, officials said.
"Probably by the end of the month," said Harold Adair, abatement coordinator for the city's neighborhood inspections division.
Once the request for action is submitted, Taylor would decide whether to approve it.
If approved, it would lead to legal action against Carl J. Morony of California, the owner of the Tulsa Club Building, an 11-story building at Fifth Street and Cincinnati Avenue.
Ultimately, if Morony is summoned to court but fails to appear, his building could be sold at a sheriff's auction, said Kevin Cox, field supervisor with the Department of Working in Neighborhoods.
Lee Anne Ziegler, executive director of the Tulsa Foundation for Architecture, said the organization is interested in revitalizing the Tulsa Club Building.
"We want to find an adaptive use for the property," Ziegler said. "It's very
endangered and at-risk."
She said the organization has held monthly meetings about potential plans for the building. There's no end to how the organization could use the building, including archives and office space, she said.
"It's complicated, but it can be done," Ziegler said.
Morony has been fined $1,000 a day since August for failure to bring the building into compliance.
Under regulations that took effect in August, the city can impose fines of up to $1,000 a day until property owners bring a building up to code.
The Tulsa Club, which has been vacant for more than a decade, has fire, electrical and plumbing violations.
It also has safety and health code violations.
Though Morony owes the city more than $134,000 in fines, he only paid $125,000 for the building. City officials said allowing Morony to continue accumulating thousands in fines isn't their intent.
"All we want is for Morony to come and make the building safe," Adair said. "That's what he's failed to do."
City officials said they have attempted to contact Morony for months about revamping the building. A letter was sent Feb. 28 informing him that, at the time, he owed the city $92,000 in fines.
Meanwhile, David Horton, owner of the vacant Abundant Life Building, or "diamond" building at 1720 S. Boulder Ave., continues to work with city officials to develop a use. Horton has said he plans to revitalize the building into a mixture of retail, housing and office space.
Horton has also created a development team and recently met with city, state and federal officials about his plans for the building. He is scheduled to again meet with city officials on April 23, Cox said.
The Tulsa Club and Abundant Life buildings are two of 60 vacant buildings within and near the Inner Dispersal Loop that Tulsa targeted in 2007.
The effort is to rid the downtown area of vacant and substandard buildings.
How high do the fines have to be before a debt recovery agency gets involved? If the fines get any higher the sale price of the property might not be enough to cover the fines.
I say seize the property now, auction it and give anything left over to the owner.
Glad to hear they will be taking action soon. I wonder how long the legal proceedings will take before it could be auctioned off? The sooner it's up for auction, the sooner a real owner could purchase the building and DO something positive with it!
Edible Art Deco
(http://www.tulsalibrary.org/JPG/C0306.jpg)
Photo source: Beryl Ford Collection/Rotary Club of Tulsa, Tulsa City-County Library, Tulsa Historical Society
Anybody have any updates on the Tulsa Club?
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Anybody have any updates on the Tulsa Club?
No, but the "Take Me Back to Tulsa Club" at McNellie's is very tasty.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Anybody have any updates on the Tulsa Club?
I heard that a little bit of time internet sleuthing will turn up the current location of the owner... hmmm.
Another Tulsa World update: (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080503_1_A8_spanc67460%22)
quote:
City plots next step in building remediation
City officials will wait a little longer before asking Mayor Kathy Taylor to take action against a downtown building owner deemed in violation of city codes.
Harold Adair, abatement coordinator for the city's neighborhood inspections division, had expected to request action from the mayor by the end of April, but he's been busy with other city-related projects. He hopes to make that request soon.
pancakes?
quote:
In a prepared statement, Taylor said: "Field Investigations continues to pursue remedial action and have notified me that they will be requesting approval to take further action.
"I will review their request when I receive it, and work with them to determine the best solution."
City records show Carl J. Morony of California, the owner of the Tulsa Club Building, faces more than $154,000 in fines for not bringing his building up to code.
City officials said they have attempted to contact Morony for months and sent him a letter informing him of his fines Feb. 28.
Adair said he has spoken with people who have been in contact with Morony, "but they won't put me in contact with him."
"I've been told he (Morony) knows of the fines."
Tulsa attorney Thomas Bingham
previously represented Morony.
"I've withdrawn from representation," he said.
Asked if he has recently spoken with Morony, Bingham declined to comment.
If Taylor approves the request, it would lead to legal action against Morony, the longtime owner of the 11-story building at Fifth Street and Cincinnati Avenue.
Ultimately, if Morony is summoned to court but fails to appear, his building could be sold at a sheriff's auction, city officials said.
The Tulsa Club, which has been vacant for more than a decade, has fire, electrical and plumbing violations. It also has safety and health code violations.
Lee Anne Ziegler, executive director of the Tulsa Foundation for Architecture, told the Tulsa World the organization is interested in revitalizing the building. She has said the organization has held monthly meetings about potential plans for the building, which could including archives and office space.
Morony has been fined $1,000 a day since August for failure to bring the building into compliance.
Under regulations that took effect in August, the city can impose fines of up to $1,000 a day until property owners bring a building up to code.
Meanwhile, David Horton, owner of the vacant Abundant Life Building, or "diamond" building at 1720 S. Boulder Ave., continues to work with city officials to develop a use.
Horton has said he plans to revitalize the building into a mixture of retail, housing and office space.
The Tulsa Club and Abundant Life buildings are two of 60 vacant buildings within and near the Inner Dispersal Loop that the city targeted in 2007.
California's a big place. Don't suppose anyone knows with which town he may associate? Perhaps an address or phone number?
Local attorney bails, just when he's most needed.
....the theft of this man's property continues.
Really great building and TFA wants to turn it into a file cabinet?
Thanks.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
Edible Art Deco
(http://www.tulsalibrary.org/JPG/C0306.jpg)
Photo source: Beryl Ford Collection/Rotary Club of Tulsa, Tulsa City-County Library, Tulsa Historical Society
That is a priceless photo booWorld, a vintage photo of the Tulsa Club building recreated in pastry with the culinary artist in the pic. The Beryl Ford Collection is one of the most valuable, if not the most valuable resources for Tulsa history.
I would hate to see the Tulsa Club building fall to the wrecking ball. I remember as late as the early 1980s, attending lunches there and marveling at the interiors, even in their 1980s condition. And this was one of the last Tulsa downtown buildings that still had human elevator operators as late as the mid 1980s, the other being the Thompson Building at 5th & Boston.
If my Tulsa history memory is correct, the Tulsa Club building was designed by Bruce Goff and constructed as a joint venture of the Tulsa Club and the Tulsa Chamber of Commerce. The building was home to both entities until the 1950s when the Chamber of Commerce moved to new digs around 620 S. Main. This building is very much a part of the history of the Tulsa Chamber of Commerce, as well as a valuable piece of Tulsa art deco architecture. Where is the C of C voice, and the "young professional" mouthpiece organization arm of this group, in preserving this priceless piece of Tulsa, and their own, history? Oddly absent, in my opinion.
Considering the way the building is or was set up making it into a small boutique hotel might be an option. I thought one floor was set up as a gym with a jogging track. If one kept that floor set up as it was and turned the upper levels into ballroom and convention space. Restoring the art deco look of course. The lower floors which were offices could
be gutted and made into hotel rooms.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
I don't think it's selective at all... There are around 60 buildings in and around downtown that have been put on notice.
But the emphasis is on the Tulsa Club Building, not 60 buildings.
quote:
...but I'm afraid the owner will decide that it's cheaper to demolish it than to pay $1,000/day that it's not up to code.
So am I. And my guess is that another Art Deco building designed by Bruce Goff will be ripped down and replaced by another surface parking lot. Many buildings downtown have been vacant for years. Vagrants were getting into the Mayo Hotel a few years ago, but thank goodness we didn't tear it down.
"When you only have two pennies left in the world, you might as well forget the idea of buying a loft in the Tribune Building."
I remember some historic buildings at Main between 7th and 9th: specifically an old apartment building replete with a classic old-model elevator, and of course the old Cathey's furniture store. These seem to have been ripped out in favor of who knows of what signifigance or common good. And as for leveling them for parking space? Well, good parking still seems kinda scarce in many places downtown.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
California's a big place. Don't suppose anyone knows with which town he may associate? Perhaps an address or phone number?
Local attorney bails, just when he's most needed.
....the theft of this man's property continues.
I looked him up. He lives in Berkely, CA. For more info, I'd have to pay, but I'm not gonna do that.
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
California's a big place. Don't suppose anyone knows with which town he may associate? Perhaps an address or phone number?
Local attorney bails, just when he's most needed.
....the theft of this man's property continues.
I looked him up. He lives in Berkely, CA. For more info, I'd have to pay, but I'm not gonna do that.
Thanks. I know a guy who thinks it's a great location for his Pizza Hut franchise operation.
Red roof logo.
The wheels of justice grind slow, but if we're lucky, they'll grind exceedingly fine. (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080527_11_A14_spancl159929%22)
quote:
City seeks to sue building's owner over violations
City officials have asked Mayor Kathy Taylor to approve legal action against the owner of a downtown building deemed in violation of city codes.
Harold Adair, an abatement coordinator for the city's Neighborhood Inspections Division, said the request for action names Carl J. Morony of California, who owns the Tulsa Club Building at Fifth Street and Cincinnati Avenue.
City records show that Morony owes $154,000 in civil penalties for failing to bring the 11-story building up to code.
The building, which has been vacant for more than a decade, has fire, electrical and plumbing violations as well as safety and health code violations.
"It's up to Taylor to decide if she will approve the request," Adair said.
City officials said they had tried for months to speak to Morony about bringing the building into compliance and that they sent him a letter Feb. 28 informing him that he was being fined for the violations.
Ultimately, if Morony is summoned to court but fails to appear, his building could be sold at a sheriff's auction, city officials said.
Morony had been fined $1,000 a day from August until sometime last month for failure to bring the building into
compliance. Under regulations that took effect in August, the city can impose the fine until property owners bring a building up to code.
Although Morony's fines total $154,000, he only paid $125,000 for the building.
City officials said it wasn't their intent to allow Morony to continue accumulating thousands of dollars in fines.
"Our main concern is getting the building safe and (back) into compliance," Adair said.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
California's a big place. Don't suppose anyone knows with which town he may associate? Perhaps an address or phone number?
Local attorney bails, just when he's most needed.
....the theft of this man's property continues.
If you throw a cd player out your car window and I pick it up, it's not theft. I can keep it for myself and fine you for throwing it away. While this building never moved, the owner has definitely thrown it away.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
California's a big place. Don't suppose anyone knows with which town he may associate? Perhaps an address or phone number?
Local attorney bails, just when he's most needed.
....the theft of this man's property continues.
If you throw a cd player out your car window and I pick it up, it's not theft. I can keep it for myself and fine you for throwing it away. While this building never moved, the owner has definitely thrown it away.
+1
This is no diffrent than having parking violations on your vehicle.....
So seriously, is there anything new about the Tulsa Club Building? The $1,000 a day fine must be adding up to a big reason for the city to take it and find a developer.
I will poop an entire cantalope if this turns into a parking lot.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
So seriously, is there anything new about the Tulsa Club Building? The $1,000 a day fine must be adding up to a big reason for the city to take it and find a developer.
I will poop an entire cantalope if this turns into a parking lot.
Please. Don't poop that cantalope.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
Please. Don't poop that cantalope.
I've got that kind of time.
There are crews cleaning the Tulsa Club building of graffiti. At least that's a step in a direction.
edited for spelling graffiti like a non-reader
That's great news.....I wonder who ordered the cleaning?
I can't belive he only paid $125,000 for that building!
Neat, he is using legal posturing to try and get a quick sale of 20 TIMES the original purchase price for a building in far worse shape than when he bought it.
http://tulsalistings.marketlinx.com/SearchDetail/Scripts/PrtBuyFul/PrtBuyFul.asp?emailGUID=747d164e-37e4-4bc0-8b87-00d30673fea1&AgentId=21098
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Neat, he is using legal posturing to try and get a quick sale of 20 TIMES the original purchase price for a building in far worse shape than when he bought it.
http://tulsalistings.marketlinx.com/SearchDetail/Scripts/PrtBuyFul/PrtBuyFul.asp?emailGUID=747d164e-37e4-4bc0-8b87-00d30673fea1&AgentId=21098
And it's covered in graffiti again. I don't know this cat but I'd like to sweep the leg.
Wow, that is neat!
Development authority ponders vacant Tulsa Club
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090210_11_0_TheTul778757
If TDA or the City wants it so bad, why don't they just buy the thing?
As linked above, it's for sale (//%22http://tulsalistings.marketlinx.com/SearchDetail/Scripts/PrtBuyFul/PrtBuyFul.asp?emailGUID=747d164e-37e4-4bc0-8b87-00d30673fea1&AgentId=21098%22)
....less than $28/S.F. for prime, historic old building with National Historic Register implications.
Instead, they decided to spend that much on legal fees in an attempt to steal it.