Development at 31st/Peoria?

[Red Arrow]

Given that Oklahoma caps property tax increases I don't really buy that argument either.

The only cap I saw had an upper income limit that would be exceeded by pretty much anyone living in Brookside.  Please lead me to the cap.

Is this what you are thinking of?
https://www.assessor.tulsacounty.org/assessor-senior-valuation-limitation.php

[LandArchPoke]

The only cap I saw had an upper income limit that would be exceeded by pretty much anyone living in Brookside.  Please lead me to the cap.

Is this what you are thinking of?
https://www.assessor.tulsacounty.org/assessor-senior-valuation-limitation.php

https://okpolicy.org/resources/online-budget-guide/revenues/an-overview-of-our-tax-system/oklahomas-major-taxes/property-tax/

The county assessor appraises properties in two ways in Oklahoma. Your fair cash market assessment, which has no cap, and is supposed to be set at 100% of market. Then you have a total taxable value assessment, which is capped. It can not increase by more than 3% per year and this is what the millage rate is applied to in order to calculate what taxes you owe.

However, that capped taxable value can increase more than 3% in the event that the property is sold. At that time it is allowed by the county to increase your assessment by as much as they want and usually is increased to the reported contract price. Then after that reset, the taxable value assessment is thus capped again until the property is sold again.

I've seen plenty of commercial properties that have been owned for 10 years or more and that capped value is sometimes 100 to 200% below the fair cash market value and the person that buys the property has their taxes double or triple the next year upon reassessment. So this rule actually makes it beneficial to own property for a longer duration and if market value in a neighborhood you live in increases more than 3% per year, it saves you money on taxes each year. There's plenty of ways to access home equity these days too.

So, really it's a net benefit to anyone for them to encourage development near their property that would increase values to their residence (unless 3% per year is something someone can't handle which is a far different conversation and not out of the realm of possibilities given stagnation in wages over the past few decades). 

[LandArchPoke]

I agree on the first point, regarding houses that don't fit the neighborhood.  Particularly with regard to multi-car garages as the predominant feature of small-lot home.  I would have been in favor of overlay restrictions, but I didn't live in the area at the time, so wasn't part of that discussion.    I am sensitive to the current owners' wanting to maximize their land value, however as you note, we have zoning for a reason and these owners are not trying to maximize their land value within current zoning, but are asking for a change from residential to commercial.   This changes the basic nature of the area, and is what is being opposed.   

As a general rule, I do think zoning is important, particularly that traditionally residential areas are protected from encroaching commercial and related.  We do need "quiet residential areas" in all parts of the cities, not just specific to this area.

What I meant is that they are working within the current zoning code - they aren't seeking hardships or variances (that I'm aware of at least) from the board. The point of overlay district is that would further restrict the current zoning code. So for example it could require that anything within the neighborhood for new home construction requires the development to place the garage at least 10 feet from the front part of the house or much be side entry and have some level of transparency, etc. Then if someone wanted to build something that would comply with current zoning, but not with the overlay, they would then need to request variances or hardship and at that point the neighborhood has more of a say and can attempt to block that request through public feedback periods.

[patric]

I'm still with SXSW, in that Brookside starts at the creeks and goes South from there.     

From Nextdoor; dont know how much teeth this has, though --


' The city had agreed in the past, this area from Crow Creek to 31st was to remain residential. A document at the planning site supports that as the intent. From the Brookside infill document:

" 3. 31st Street South to Crow Creek Select Area:
...
B. This area is to remain residential in use. Existing residences should be maintained, rehabilitated and reused where feasible and appropriate. New and replacement residences are to reflect the unique character and include compatible design features of this urban residential neighborhood. "

The Brookside infill recommendations pdf document is at the planning site 

 http://tulsaplanning.org/resources/plans/
under 'Plans for Development Review Only.'  '

[swake]

From Nextdoor; dont know how much teeth this has, though --


' The city had agreed in the past, this area from Crow Creek to 31st was to remain residential. A document at the planning site supports that as the intent. From the Brookside infill document:

" 3. 31st Street South to Crow Creek Select Area:
...
B. This area is to remain residential in use. Existing residences should be maintained, rehabilitated and reused where feasible and appropriate. New and replacement residences are to reflect the unique character and include compatible design features of this urban residential neighborhood. "

The Brookside infill recommendations pdf document is at the planning site 

 http://tulsaplanning.org/resources/plans/
under 'Plans for Development Review Only.'  '

Next-door is awful.

[LandArchPoke]

From Nextdoor; dont know how much teeth this has, though --


' The city had agreed in the past, this area from Crow Creek to 31st was to remain residential. A document at the planning site supports that as the intent. From the Brookside infill document:

" 3. 31st Street South to Crow Creek Select Area:
...
B. This area is to remain residential in use. Existing residences should be maintained, rehabilitated and reused where feasible and appropriate. New and replacement residences are to reflect the unique character and include compatible design features of this urban residential neighborhood. "

The Brookside infill recommendations pdf document is at the planning site  

 http://tulsaplanning.org/resources/plans/
under 'Plans for Development Review Only.'  '

The infill plan is not an active small area plan, and it's also ancient (nearly 20 years old). That document has very little teeth to it, it's just design recommendations which have largely been ignored by the city ever since and by most of the developments. Just look at things like Bank of West and Jimmy Johns and how many other development along Brookside that the city approved that blatantly disregarded that document. So the neighborhood will have a hard sell if that's what they have to hang their hat on.

The city wide comprehensive plan adopted a few years ago is what INCOG and the board of adjustment base zoning/planning decisions on and that document it is VERY clear this site is in the 'Area of Change' and likely makes the older infill plan obsolete. Frankly, I'm still very surprised Brookside doesn't have a more official small area plan given how many other neighborhoods have had one completed since the last master plan was adopted. The small area plans are essentially extensions of the city comprehensive plan.

[Red Arrow]

https://okpolicy.org/resources/online-budget-guide/revenues/an-overview-of-our-tax-system/oklahomas-major-taxes/property-tax/

The county assessor appraises properties in two ways in Oklahoma. Your fair cash market assessment, which has no cap, and is supposed to be set at 100% of market. Then you have a total taxable value assessment, which is capped. It can not increase by more than 3% per year and this is what the millage rate is applied to in order to calculate what taxes you owe.

However, that capped taxable value can increase more than 3% in the event that the property is sold. At that time it is allowed by the county to increase your assessment by as much as they want and usually is increased to the reported contract price. Then after that reset, the taxable value assessment is thus capped again until the property is sold again.

I've seen plenty of commercial properties that have been owned for 10 years or more and that capped value is sometimes 100 to 200% below the fair cash market value and the person that buys the property has their taxes double or triple the next year upon reassessment. So this rule actually makes it beneficial to own property for a longer duration and if market value in a neighborhood you live in increases more than 3% per year, it saves you money on taxes each year. There's plenty of ways to access home equity these days too.

So, really it's a net benefit to anyone for them to encourage development near their property that would increase values to their residence (unless 3% per year is something someone can't handle which is a far different conversation and not out of the realm of possibilities given stagnation in wages over the past few decades). 

I know it's a matter of semantics but the rate of increase is capped, not the taxable value and not the taxes.  That's better than nothing though.  I hope to retire soon and don't know if my income will increase at at least 3%/year.  What am I saying.... my income has not increased at 3%/year while I have been working.

I don't care about the fair market value or the taxable amount after I sell the place.  I plan to stay here until it's no longer possible and the taxes on the new owners will not be my problem.

[LandArchPoke]

I know it's a matter of semantics but the rate of increase is capped, not the taxable value and not the taxes.  That's better than nothing though.  I hope to retire soon and don't know if my income will increase at at least 3%/year.  What am I saying.... my income has not increased at 3%/year while I have been working.

I don't care about the fair market value or the taxable amount after I sell the place.  I plan to stay here until it's no longer possible and the taxes on the new owners will not be my problem.

The taxable value is what is capped, which in return caps the amount your taxes can go up. Your fair cash market value can go up or down at any rate, but the taxable value can not increase more than 3% per year. That is what the 11% is applied to and then the millage rate is applied to that and calculates your property taxes so that is all tied together. Granted, the millage rate can change more than 3% per year, but that's something that effects everyone and not just a specific neighborhood. The only time your property taxes can increase by more than 3% is after a sale and the taxable value can then be marked up to the fair cash value or the purchase price that was recorded in deed records.

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

Next-door is awful.

It really is. It is like all of the worst parts of facebook spread to another platform. I remember a neighbor having his photo posted a number of different times just for walking down the street. He was delivering a package a couple of times and people simultaneously kept posting pics of him walking down the street.

On this issue, it is extremely one-sided acting like a game-changing development like this is some kind of secretive conspiracy designed to subvert the richest people in Tulsa to some sort of shady underground deal. It is out in the open and it is a boost that will help far more than it will negatively affect. Maybe a few very rich people around it won't like it and decide to move and sell their homes for a huge increase. That's about the worst that will happen.

A big argument is traffic and whether it can handle it. Has anyone been to downtown Denver or parts of DC? Similar intersections in many parts with far higher population density and yet they are able to handle it. The neighborhoods around there are very low density with huge yards and one mansion per big lot. Density (and bringing in people who want to live in a walkable area they will frequent) will actually help alleviate some traffic. The traffic increase will be minimal even if they think it will. 61st and Yale has the highest traffic count in Tulsa. Go there after 7pm and tell me how horrible it is. After rush hour, even the busiest spots die down and that intersection is relatively low-traffic when compared to other major intersections around Tulsa (checkout INCOG traffic maps).

[Red Arrow]

The taxable value is what is capped, which in return caps the amount your taxes can go up. Your fair cash market value can go up or down at any rate, but the taxable value can not increase more than 3% per year.

I guess tax people and accountants have a different definition of capped than the rest of the world.  Must be trade jargon.

I prefer to differentiate between a value and its rate of change.

[shavethewhales]

https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/government-and-politics/a-tulsa-neighborhood-is-pleading-for-more-time-to-study-a-proposed-brookside-development/article_aa4633e8-e710-11ea-9afd-ef5e3357d534.html

At least some of the residents have reasonable reactions. I can understand wanting more time to discuss it, but I have to assume NIMBY-ism will dominate the discussion. Rezoning is not the same as approving the building as proposed, but people will not understand that.

I'm all for preemptively rezoning key areas to allow for denser development. Brookside is a great place to start.

[rebound]

https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/government-and-politics/a-tulsa-neighborhood-is-pleading-for-more-time-to-study-a-proposed-brookside-development/article_aa4633e8-e710-11ea-9afd-ef5e3357d534.html

At least some of the residents have reasonable reactions. I can understand wanting more time to discuss it, but I have to assume NIMBY-ism will dominate the discussion. Rezoning is not the same as approving the building as proposed, but people will not understand that.

I'm all for preemptively rezoning key areas to allow for denser development. Brookside is a great place to start.

I also thought that was a good article, and aligns with my feelings as well.  The issue with most (at least the rational ones...) is not new development.   Basically everyone seems OK with denser residential of whatever kind.  The issue is the presence (and size/scope) of commercial/retail.   There are several valid concerns about rezoning, and how to assure control over future development type/size, etc.   I personally still think that commercial should be limited to south of Crow Creek, but if not, let's be sure to provide sufficient controls so as to protect the overall character of the area.   

[SXSW]

Man I hope they can preserve a lot of these trees..

[dbacksfan 2.0]

Man I hope they can preserve a lot of these trees..

Doubt it.By the time they started grading, upgrading water and sewer and electric, and digging out for a foundation for a multi floor building there won't be a tree left.

[LandArchPoke]

Likely not, most of the time they just bulldoze the trees and then replant tiny baby trees afterwards which half of the time die anyways because they don't plant the right type.

I would love to see them transplant a few somewhere like to River Parks or something. It's a pretty expensive process but if they sent and arborist out to survey the property and save 10-25% of them somehow that'd be nice to see. That is always the saddest part of new development for me is seeing so many mature trees just disregarded and most of the time they make no effort to save any of them even in places they could.

Just as a base costs for replanting/moving trees is about $10,000 to $20,000 per caliber inch. So to move a mature Oak Tree for example could be as much as $500,000 when you include cranes, trucks, replanting, etc. It is very expensive.

It would be nice to see them at least preserve all the trees that front Peoria and 31st, just prune them up higher. This would add a nice buffer and probably not make the commercial seem as intrusive to have mature trees between the street and sidewalk/store fronts. They could easily prune the trees up so you can still see the storefronts but at least makes it feel like it fits in better and keeps some of the tree canopy in place.