"The Pearl" an area that will go down in History as a turning point in Tulsa
TulsaGoldenHurriCAN:
Quote from: T. Jamison on October 17, 2019, 02:17:46 pm
https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/city-puts-hold-on-eminent-domain-for-pearl-district-retention/article_98b7b251-8aa3-5acc-a1a4-3e974559d3e4.html
Has anyone been following these recent developments? What do you think about it?
I saw a post discussing the many areas around downtown facing eminent domain:
https://www.reddit.com/r/tulsa/comments/doay96/tulsa_has_an_eminent_domain_problem/
And another one: https://www.reddit.com/r/tulsa/comments/dlii4e/eminent_domain_update_tulsa_world_swing_and_miss/
Specifically, it sounds like the issues are (starting less specific, then going into this most recent case):
* City shows goals to revitalize certain areas with plans for economic redevelopment* The city decides to "condemn" and area unofficially (slowly starting the process of buying/bull-dozing), then the neighborhood follows suit and property values plummet, city speeds up, and only a few houses remain which the city can buy up on the cheap* City finally uses eminent domain to condemn last few houses with claim that it is purely for flood control, contrary to all documentation from last 20 years stating it was an economic redevelopment project (which would be illegal per Oklahoma State Constitution). *Properties that benefit from west Pearl pond are not in a flood zone and are not even eligible for flood insurance (no history of flooding)* Demolishing and purchasing 45 properties to bump the City of Tulsa's own "flood zone" up 1 level for 49 properties (but that "flood zone" conflicts with all other official flood zone maps such as FEMA or the standard National Flood Insurance Program) and almost all of the benefit value claimed will be a single building: Spirit Bank.* Down the road, the current homeowners cannot afford an equivalent house with the money provided. The city sells the new water-front properties to the highest bidder for economic redevelopment (or a developer gets them at a discount like 71st and Riverside).
The city has plans for most all of the neighborhoods around downtown. After the community showed strong opposition to the Crutchfield/Crosby Heights and West Pearl Pond plans, they were paused. That is important because that is about where the West Pearl Pond has been for 20 years... Just unknown timeline for a project with plans which are reportedly "60% complete" that offers dubious flood control, but guarantees a large number of prime water-front properties, ripe for economic redevelopment.
I'm wondering what folks on here think of this. Besides the other benefits of the houses (Paul Harvey's childhood home), there's quite a few nice renovated places around there. They claim this is for the "greater good". Why does the city position itself to redevelop at the cost of lower/middle class to benefit larger corporations that can take on this kind of economic redevelopment project. It looks like the "greater good" is helping Spirit Bank and corporations.
hello:
I think it's vile. These people took a chance on these neighborhoods that the city left behind and now that their potential is useful to big corporations the city now "cares".
buffalodan:
So this isn't really related at all to most of the things, but I hated the reddit thread where people talked about doing the low impact development stuff for decreasing the flooding issue. Either the flooding issue is real, in which case you really can't fix it with LID principals. Or the flooding isn't a real issue in which case LID just makes water quality better.
I do think that they have done a poor job of explaining the benefits or reasons for the project, and love forcing developments that happened because of a flood issues to implement LID. But they aren't as related as I think the redditors assume.
TulsaGoldenHurriCAN:
Quote from: buffalodan on October 31, 2019, 11:00:29 am
So this isn't really related at all to most of the things, but I hated the reddit thread where people talked about doing the low impact development stuff for decreasing the flooding issue. Either the flooding issue is real, in which case you really can't fix it with LID principals. Or the flooding isn't a real issue in which case LID just makes water quality better.
I do think that they have done a poor job of explaining the benefits or reasons for the project, and love forcing developments that happened because of a flood issues to implement LID. But they aren't as related as I think the redditors assume.
It sounds like that is just yet another alternative idea for dealing with a sudden build up of water in a flash flood, to prevent it in the first place. There's a bunch of much cheaper options for water runoff to go, namely expanding the existing pond (which would be far cheaper than $30 MILLION that the new pond is estimated to cost). City of Tulsa said they assume 100% urbanization and that is the only model in which the properties to gain from this pond would have any (negligible) benefit.
The burden of proof that those properties do in fact flood is on the City of Tulsa (that proof has not been shown). So as far as we know, there is no flood risk. We are talking $30 million of taxpayers' money! Imagine taking the equivalent of about 200 houses' entire value and shredding that up to get this detention pond. This is a massive price for a pond that at best will potentially help 49 properties on extremely rare events, but is guaranteed to destroy 45 properties permanently.
heironymouspasparagus:
Canals. Water buffers by definition.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page