A grassroots organization focused on the intelligent and sustainable development, preservation and revitalization of Tulsa.
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 26, 2020, 07:27:01 am
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 55   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Simon Outlet Mall 61st & Hwy 75  (Read 222319 times)
swake
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 7825



« Reply #495 on: March 13, 2015, 07:13:18 am »

I was on the fence on this issue, not really giving a crap because I do not live anywhere close to TM, and I rarely head over that way. But the more I read about this organized effort to interfere with property rights the more I am inclined to take the position-put your money where your mouth is and buy the property. That way people will actually have skin in the game and not have to be bothered with my "passing judgment" on their passion.

And another thing, I do not like the very real litigation possibility that cynical has repeatedly told (warned?) us about. People in this forum complain about how much money Okie's passions over an issue wind up costing the taxpayers in lawsuits. Who is going to pay for that mess if it comes?

How hard is it for you to get that they need zoning changes and want TIF money? They have all the rights they need to use the property within current zoning and without taxpayer money, but that won't allow the project to get done.
Logged
guido911
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 12171



« Reply #496 on: March 13, 2015, 08:03:40 am »

How hard is it for you to get that they need zoning changes and want TIF money? They have all the rights they need to use the property within current zoning and without taxpayer money, but that won't allow the project to get done.

Because I do not believe for one single second that the issue of TIF money or zoning has anything to do with the underlying dispute here. In my opinion, this is all about TM and the wants of those who use it. That said, is it wrong to have that belief? Of course not. TIF money, zoning, some obscure beetle, graffiti on walls, and every other complaint is masking that actual issue here. I look at that as excuse-making/grasping at straws, which is why I posted earlier about messaging.

If you want, call my fear of litigation "excuse-making", even though I have no direct interest in the outcome. Indirectly, I guess I am impacted because there is a population that apparently wants an outlet mall and may not get one because of those having an interest in TM.

Logged

Someone get Hoss a pacifier.
swake
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 7825



« Reply #497 on: March 13, 2015, 08:37:18 am »

Hey, if there are no real issues related to zoning and they don’t want public money for the project, then Simon should just build it within current codes without a TIF right away.

I personally think it’s going to get built, and built here. Built with a greatly altered site plan on a smaller footprint, maybe with structured parking and some park integration that a TIF helps pay for, which is good. My personal preference is that it moves across the highway, but the process seems pretty locked in at this site. I don’t think the city is actually going to fight too much, they need the project and need it in Tulsa and have to be afraid of the potential Catoosa site.

Tulsa needs this project for sales tax dollars. Jenks schools need the property taxes. The mall will bring a variety of stores to the Tulsa area that don’t exist today which makes the area more livable. It will solidify the southwest Tulsa area as the next boom area of both the metro and the city of Tulsa. The area has good schools, is naturally scenic (which a moved or improved site plan can help maintain), has good if not yet improved highway access and is close to downtown and midtown. The mall going to the other sites will still have benefits but less so. Locating at the Hard Rock in Catoosa drains tax dollars from the city of Tulsa and any related growth would be meager with mediocre schools and a less convenient location to other parts of the city and metro.  East Tulsa has poor area schools and is in a blighted industrial area of the city with zero growth potential.
Logged
Conan71
Recovering Republican
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 29312



« Reply #498 on: March 13, 2015, 01:15:42 pm »


East Tulsa has poor area schools and is in a blighted industrial area of the city with zero growth potential.


I remember people arguing Tulsa Hills was a pig in a poke because there was zero growth potential in that area of SW Tulsa.  Turns out, long time land owners are sub-dividing and selling off their properties.  I never would have thought there would have been upscale neighborhood development in that part of Tulsa, ever.  I figured south of 91st was as far north as that would go.

Skip Steele’s presentation at the RCDS forum last night shed some pretty good light on the 129th & I-44 spot. 
Logged

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
swake
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 7825



« Reply #499 on: March 13, 2015, 01:53:27 pm »

I remember people arguing Tulsa Hills was a pig in a poke because there was zero growth potential in that area of SW Tulsa.  Turns out, long time land owners are sub-dividing and selling off their properties.  I never would have thought there would have been upscale neighborhood development in that part of Tulsa, ever.  I figured south of 91st was as far north as that would go.

Skip Steele’s presentation at the RCDS forum last night shed some pretty good light on the 129th & I-44 spot. 

The biggest difference being Jenks Schools extend to 61st St. And that expensive subdivision behind Tulsa Hills was there before Tulsa Hills was announced, it's just expanded. The growth was already happening in west Tulsa.
Logged
Townsend
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 12195



« Reply #500 on: March 13, 2015, 02:25:54 pm »

I remember people arguing Tulsa Hills was a pig in a poke because there was zero growth potential in that area of SW Tulsa. 

Tulsa Hills is a pig...it could've been so much more but it's a Sam's with a big ugly wall, a Target and a Lowes.  The rest is a bunch of stores I've not paid attention to and a crap load of ugly buildings.  Too bad the developer couldn't keep it hilly (Tulsa Hills)...might've been more of a destination instead of a "go to Sam's and get the hell out of there".

I'm guessing that is what will happen at the outlet mall so I understand people's fear of what is coming.

Saying "it's their property, let them do what they want" is asinine.  There are way too many stakeholders to not make this developer do their damndest to make it work for everyone.
Logged
Conan71
Recovering Republican
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 29312



« Reply #501 on: March 13, 2015, 02:35:28 pm »

The biggest difference being Jenks Schools extend to 61st St. And that expensive subdivision behind Tulsa Hills was there before Tulsa Hills was announced, it's just expanded. The growth was already happening in west Tulsa.

I guess I missed that Stone Creek was there before the Tulsa Hills development.  Boy did their backyard view get screwed.



Agreed on Jenks schools being a huge advantage, but I think it’s also clear that Tulsa Hills was a catalyst to much more retail and residential development.
Logged

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
Conan71
Recovering Republican
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 29312



« Reply #502 on: March 13, 2015, 02:45:45 pm »

Tulsa Hills is a pig...it could've been so much more but it's a Sam's with a big ugly wall, a Target and a Lowes.  The rest is a bunch of stores I've not paid attention to and a crap load of ugly buildings.  Too bad the developer couldn't keep it hilly (Tulsa Hills)...might've been more of a destination instead of a "go to Sam's and get the hell out of there".

I'm guessing that is what will happen at the outlet mall so I understand people's fear of what is coming.

Saying "it's their property, let them do what they want" is asinine.  There are way too many stakeholders to not make this developer do their damndest to make it work for everyone.

Here’s what else has people worried, especially the Y.  This was taken just south of Dick's:



I get that leases have penalties for stores not using proper disposal, but there’s little safeguard against the slobs of the world who think it’s someone else’s place to pick up after them.  I also realize with our winds some stuff just gets away from people.
Logged

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
guido911
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 12171



« Reply #503 on: March 13, 2015, 03:29:55 pm »

Tulsa Hills is a pig...it could've been so much more but it's a Sam's with a big ugly wall, a Target and a Lowes.  The rest is a bunch of stores I've not paid attention to and a crap load of ugly buildings.  Too bad the developer couldn't keep it hilly (Tulsa Hills)...might've been more of a destination instead of a "go to Sam's and get the hell out of there".

I'm guessing that is what will happen at the outlet mall so I understand people's fear of what is coming.

Saying "it's their property, let them do what they want" is asinine.  There are way too many stakeholders to not make this developer do their damndest to make it work for everyone.

What are you talking about? Tulsa Hills is already there. I thought this was about an outlet mall about one mile north? As for Tulsa Hills, is it not generating tax revenue? Are people not going there? I don't know.

And since when are private property rights asinine?
Logged

Someone get Hoss a pacifier.
Townsend
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 12195



« Reply #504 on: March 13, 2015, 03:39:55 pm »

What are you talking about? Tulsa Hills is already there. I thought this was about an outlet mall about one mile north? As for Tulsa Hills, is it not generating tax revenue? Are people not going there? I don't know.

And since when are private property rights asinine?

Note the mention of the outlet mall.

I have no idea.  Since when are private property rights asinine?
Logged
rebound
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 968


WWW
« Reply #505 on: March 13, 2015, 03:43:51 pm »

Yeah. You lend credence to two damned anti-police buffoons and you can's deal with the fall out.

Fallout?  Besides you making snarky comments with no substance?  Yeah, I think I can handle that.    I've noticed you argue two ways.  You can, some of the time, provide an interesting counterpoint.  But if you can't, and/or you don't have good argument, you turn to snark and pictures.  But you hate to just let it go so you use a lot of smoke and mirrors.   I'll make my points, but I'm only going to respond to the level of the dialog.  
Logged

 
swake
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 7825



« Reply #506 on: March 13, 2015, 03:44:19 pm »

Tulsa Hills is a pig...it could've been so much more but it's a Sam's with a big ugly wall, a Target and a Lowes.  The rest is a bunch of stores I've not paid attention to and a crap load of ugly buildings.  Too bad the developer couldn't keep it hilly (Tulsa Hills)...might've been more of a destination instead of a "go to Sam's and get the hell out of there".

I'm guessing that is what will happen at the outlet mall so I understand people's fear of what is coming.

Saying "it's their property, let them do what they want" is asinine.  There are way too many stakeholders to not make this developer do their damndest to make it work for everyone.

I've never understood Tulsa Hills, the developers were terrible. Whoever planned the parking lots and traffic flow should be flogged.

Tulsa Hills also also should have gone on the other side of the highway where the apartments are now, or on top of the hill at 81st where Unit is going. It would have required much less leveling, the exact same as what you see for the Outlet Mall. US 75 was built right up against the side of the hills, why does development keep trying to go on the side with the hills?
Logged
Conan71
Recovering Republican
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 29312



« Reply #507 on: March 13, 2015, 04:55:54 pm »

This Tulsa World article is a bit confusing.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/businesshomepage1/restaurants-retail-and-renewal-some-years-later-tax-increment-finance/article_92bc0724-90ee-578b-9868-4ba14c783be7.html

7. Tulsa Hills (2006-2021)
Projected: $170,446,000
Actual: $11,257,829 (ad valorem); $14,339,164 (sales tax)

The $170 million I guess is what is projected to be collected over the life of the TIF for Tulsa Hills. So only $13 - $16 million was given? If that's the case, the TIF should already be paid off, considering $25 million has been collected.


The more I learn about TIFs the less I know.   Undecided

Skip Steele told me last night that TIF is still paying out and I believe it was supposed to be a 15 year TIF.  Each one can have different payback characteristics.
Logged

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
PonderInc
City Dweller
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


« Reply #508 on: March 16, 2015, 05:39:01 pm »

The main thing that people need to understand is that suburban big box stores (and I include outlet malls in this category) are a bad return on investment for cities.  We go broke on this stuff.  The city has to extend and maintain roads, water/sewer, police, fire, etc to what is currently agricultural land.  The result is supposed to be increased property taxes, sales taxes and jobs.  The problem is that providing / maintaining services in suburban areas costs more than is recouped in taxes.  Then, due to parking and other wasteful land use practices, only a small fraction of the property actually creates jobs and taxes.  And the jobs that are created are low-paying and often part-time.  In the short term, it's a Ponzi scheme (it seems to work as long as there's always new income coming in from more new developments, and the infrastructure is new enough that it doesn't require repairs.  Sort of a time bomb waiting to go off.) Over time, the costs are far greater than the returns.

There are a couple great articles that explain the economics of this in terms of "yield per acre."

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/10/walmart_an_economic_cancer_on_our_cities/
http://www.citylab.com/work/2012/03/simple-math-can-save-cities-bankruptcy/1629/

Both articles cover the same concept in different ways.  An economist compares two different properties: a six-story, mixed-use building near downtown vs a suburban Walmart, and compares them "apple to apple" based on "yield per acre."  The Walmart (which occupied 34 acres) only contributed $50,800 in property and sales tax per acre, while the mixed-use building (which occupied less than a quarter of an acre) contributed $330,000 per acre.  The Walmart contributed 6 jobs per acre, while the mixed-use building contributed 74 jobs per acre.  It really helps you understand the efficiency of density and mixed-use buildings in places where all the space isn't wasted on one-story, single-use buildings where 2/3 of the land is covered in asphalt.

The proposed outlet mall is 48 acres.  This is 2,102,206 SF in size.  Of this, only 350,000 is considered "gross leasable space."  So only 16% of this land will be busy generating (low-paying) jobs and tax dollars.  The rest is mostly asphalt.  In the meantime, they want the city to freeze the taxes at the current rate (as if it's still agricultural / unimproved space) and capture the difference to pay for "improvements" to make this thing work.  So all those newly generated tax dollars won't be paying for schools we already have, or roads that you and I actually drive on, or maintenance of existing infrastructure.  They will be spent making this boondoggle "pencil" for the developers, who know that it doesn't work without the city paying for all the big new roads, signalized intersections, water/sewer, police/fire, etc.

It's a scam and people need to say no.
Logged
Conan71
Recovering Republican
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 29312



« Reply #509 on: March 16, 2015, 06:16:00 pm »

Cherry Street generates more sales tax per acre than Tulsa Hills.  That is a known metric.

Does anyone here regularly commute south on 75 during afternoon rush?  It me took the better part of 7-8 minutes to get from 41st to 61st last Thursday night at 5pm.  The outdated design of the cloverleaf interchange over I-44 seems to create a real log jam now.
Logged

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 55   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

 
  Hosted by TulsaConnect and Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
 

Mission

 

"TulsaNow's Mission is to help Tulsa become the most vibrant, diverse, sustainable and prosperous city of our size. We achieve this by focusing on the development of Tulsa's distinctive identity and economic growth around a dynamic, urban core, complemented by a constellation of livable, thriving communities."
more...

 

Contact

 

2210 S Main St.
Tulsa, OK 74114
(918) 409-2669
info@tulsanow.org