Where did the
Tulsa World get information about a moratorium? When I checked the Mayor's Office's webpage today, I found no mention of a moratorium at all. According to the Mayor's Office's webpage:
Engineering Services continues to accept applications for license agreements for use of public property for private, commercial development. The City is also conducting a critical review of policies to develop a list of criteria for reviewing license agreement applications.
If Engineering Services is continuing to accept applications for license agreements, and if "City staff is committed to work quickly to complete policies and move license agreement requests forward for council action," then how would that be considered a moratorium on sidewalk cafés?
Did the Mayor's Office issue a moratorium? If so, when and for how long?
The August 9th Channel 6 article doesn't include the word "moratorium," but specifically mentions that the "City of Tulsa is putting all downtown licensing agreements on hold, meaning downtown businesses wanting to install outdoor seating or signs will have to wait."
Where is Channel 6 getting its information about putting licensing agreements on hold? From the Mayor's Office? From another City department?
The August 9th Channel 6 article also states:
A business must have a licensing agreement before building or adding anything to the public space outside. The City said most businesses do, but some never ask permission.
And until the new policy is complete, hopefully sometime next month, the City won't hand out any new licensing agreements.
Again, who at the City is feeding info to Channel 6 and to the
Tulsa World? I've looked at Executive Orders from the Mayor's Office online, and the most recent order posted is about a Route 66 Commission from May 15, 2016. I didn't see anything about a licensing agreement moratorium.
The August 9th Channel 6 article also states that the "City said it won't require unlicensed businesses to remove its outdoor items. That is unless someone files an ADA complaint and the store is found to be breaking the law."
If any City official or employee actually told Channel 6 that the City won't require unlicensed businesses to remove outdoor items, then which City official or employee said that? And, if the statement is true, then how is a moratorium on official licensing agreements an effective tool of regulating
unlicensed businesses?
Here's the last paragraph from the license agreement policy news item on the Mayor's Office's webpage:
The license agreement process is an effort to position the City for planned growth that represents the high expectations of the City in an effort to provide the kind of public space our citizens and visitors can enjoy, while also protecting and preserving the public realm for key functions such as walkability and the extension of public utilities.
I find this difficult to believe, because I don't think the Mayor's Office cares about walkability. That lack of concern was demonstrated when Barbo [sic] Cox and some of her neighbors made a video and whined to the mayor about a proposed sidewalk along Riverside. The mayor promptly issued a moratorium on the sidewalk proposal, so to speak.
This sidewalk usage "problem" is not about Jeff Speck's study, and it's not even about walkability. Something else is going on.