(PROJECT) The Metro/Tribune Lofts Expansion

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by DowntownNow

This is a joke!  Those monies were supposed to be re-invested in other downtown development.  To have put all of the funds back into the same developer while leaving the others out in the cold that at least have already spent the money on acquiring downtown property for re-development (i.e. the ONG Building ZigZag is a part of).

This is the same developer that tried unsuccessfully already to sell their Tribune I loft residences.  That was a failure on so many levels...the most identifiable being that the poor quality of improvements made it hard for anyone to fathom paying that much for a loft residence.  This is a company that began as a rental apartment developer and that was evident in the improvements they made to the loft units.

This developer has already failed and we are relying on them to perform with the next project?  What clearer evidence does one need than their inability to sell their Tribune I lofts as was expressed in their original business model?  "Okay, so we failed with this one, but give us another chance and we'll see if we can do it better...oh and forget those other guys down the street."

This is why Tulsa is considered among the hardest for outside developers to work or invest in.  This insider network that gets to take advantage of public tax monies that should have been spread around to create a synergy for re-development.  The TDA is not doing its job in looking out for the interest of all Tulsans...it simply does it for the select few.

The Tribune II land contract was already signed, independent of any financing package although assurances were made that the financing was in place already and available.  Now the project can not get under way for lack of funding unless TDA steps in with a $4 million no interest loan.  Those funds will now be tied up and spur no further economic growth for the next 10 years!  Way to go TDA in seeking to accomplish your mission of encouraging private economic investment and re-development in the area!

I certainly hope the ZigZag project is able to move forward now that this opportunity has been stripped away.

I thought Zigzag was going ahead all-private.

Not sure. Also not sure why they would name a company after rolling papers. Too much time at Oz/Starship?

(Just kidding)

[TheArtist]

Would have liked to have seen those funds divided out to help several developments. But at the same time, 63 units and a parking garage, probably equals several other projects. Plus its likely there are different ways to help other projects get going.  

This is a good project to help establish the Brady Arts/Greenwood area. I think focusing a good amount of attention to this area and really getting it established as a desirable, full fledged, functioning, mixed use, urban neighborhood, is a good thing. Its still going to take a few more things around the ballpark and a sprinkling of other projects (perhaps we can leverage some affordable housing there). But each one of these helps. Once you get this area established and functioning, it will grow outward from there without needing so much public help. Except for perhaps more affordable housing.  I am willing to bet, getting in a good chunk of more high end housing will only make it more likely that a developer will come in and build less expensive housing to compete. He can say, "Hey, I am in the same area and it costs less. Live here." But the area has to be seen as more desirable and moving along than it is now regardless. 5 years and 10 years will pass soon enough and by then hopefully we will be able to be genuinely concerned that there isnt enough affordable housing. Right now there isnt much in the way of housing period. And this wont be the only project during that 10 year time period in which we will likely get housing for different income levels.        

btw, What is this ONG building project?

[DowntownNow]

ZigZag and others may not have known until recently that funding from TDA was available.  TDA has never fully come out and divulged that these funds were still available.  The funds procurred by developers under the Vision2025 funding package stipulated that the low or no interest loans were to be paid back within certain time periods for future lending on additional downtown development.  

While it may have been ZigZag's initial goal to do this all privately, once they learn that monies are available at no interest through TDA, the wise business man would want to take advantage of this for any benefit they might accrue.

By simply giving all $4 million that was available right back to the same developer that held $2 million already, it effectively freezes anyone else out of receiving even a portional benefit and also puts an unfair advantage in the hands of ARG, they do not have to pass on any additional interest expense to their end buyers that their competition would have to.  

I find it interesting that the two newest members to the TDA are the one's that voted in dissent of this measure, I am glad they did.  The others simply voted status quo in favor of a particular developer.

There also is an aire of favoritism in the sense that TDA has required full financial backing of some recent developers before entering into a contract and yet, ARG was allowed to enter and execute a contract last year without having financing in place to perform the project.

In these tough economic times where even commercial financing is hard to secure, any help or benefit that could be offered by an entity such as the TDA should have been made available to all potential parties.

The original Vision2025 funding program required a proforma, financials and allocated the original $9.3 million under an RFP process that met certain criteria.  There was no call for a new RFP among proposed re-development projects downtown.  

Already the Mayo Building renovation team has requested additional funds from TDA as well as adjustments to the first/second position mortgage terms of the lenders.  Now you have ARG, who already was provided funding for their two other projects, getting more of the pie.  At what point are other potential developers afforded the opportunity to partake of incentives or benefits of these programs that were set in place to encourage such endeavours?

Just another case of 'if you're not in the club, don't come begging."

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


btw, What is this ONG building project?

ONG Building and adjoining Property. North side of 7th Street from Main to Boston. Zigzag development is new owner and all existing tenants are on month-to-month leases and will likely be leaving Summer/Fall to begin conversion. Building is a very good candidate for residential because the design allows for a hallway to run down an exterior wall the entire length (East-West) so the apartments can be divided easily. The parking lot (the one directly south of the Centennial Green) will be replaced with a parking garage with the current hopes of a 1st floor retail/restaurant space opening onto the centennial green and additional residential above that wrapping the Garage.

That's all the preliminary information which often changes before the project actually happens, but that's what I know. An occasional forum poster here is part of the project and he is very much in tune with good design and preservation.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


btw, What is this ONG building project?

ONG Building and adjoining Property. North side of 7th Street from Main to Boston. Zigzag development is new owner and all existing tenants are on month-to-month leases and will likely be leaving Summer/Fall to begin conversion. Building is a very good candidate for residential because the design allows for a hallway to run down an exterior wall the entire length (East-West) so the apartments can be divided easily. The parking lot (the one directly south of the Centennial Green) will be replaced with a parking garage with the current hopes of a 1st floor retail/restaurant space opening onto the centennial green and additional residential above that wrapping the Garage.

That's all the preliminary information which often changes before the project actually happens, but that's what I know. An occasional forum poster here is part of the project and he is very much in tune with good design and preservation.

Oooh that sounds really nice.

[cannon_fodder]

Here is an article on the Zigzag development from the Journal Record dated Dec. 2008:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20081205/ai_n31113291


The more I learn about this new loan, the more I am disappointed.  Thanks for pointing it out DowntownNow.  Clearly the funds should have been divided somehow if there isn't anything else to the story.  I'd understand a 1-3 split in favor of new construction even, but something.

Nonetheless, I hope the ZigZag developers take this as a challenge and march forward to compete with the new lofts.  I really hope downtown takes off with all the new residential going on line soon.  Part of that will be to make sure displaced businesses stay downtown and new offices consider downtown as a location.  Live, work, play.

[Townsend]

I couldn't picture the ONG building so I had to look it up.  Now I've got it.

[DowntownNow]

That ONG project by ZigZag has to be a win-win for everyone involved.  They secured a building that has ancillary parking...thats a coup for a downtown redeveloper.  Now if they manage to put additional structured parking on there, its not only a revenue generator for the developer, but gives them way more than enough parking for their retail, any office and certainly their loft tenants and visitors.  

They have several things going for them - the parking they have should accomodate any residential as it is already, plus guests.  The way the building is designed makes the separation for loft residences almost perfect and the amount of natural light from the windows is great!  

TDA should have looked at some partnership, provide some of this funding for structured parking to help alleviate the parking fiasco in downtown's core.  I'm afraid TDA just cant think outside the box.

[Double A]

Go back and review the first page of this thread. Once again, I told you so.

[sgrizzle]

That ONG project by ZigZag has to be a win-win for everyone involved.  They secured a building that has ancillary parking...thats a coup for a downtown redeveloper.  Now if they manage to put additional structured parking on there, its not only a revenue generator for the developer, but gives them way more than enough parking for their retail, any office and certainly their loft tenants and visitors.  

They have several things going for them - the parking they have should accomodate any residential as it is already, plus guests.  The way the building is designed makes the separation for loft residences almost perfect and the amount of natural light from the windows is great!  

TDA should have looked at some partnership, provide some of this funding for structured parking to help alleviate the parking fiasco in downtown's core.  I'm afraid TDA just cant think outside the box.

I believe they are looking at 160 spaces so they will have plenty available to rent out.

[DowntownNow]

I keep hearing that more and more developers that are already in the game or wanting to get into the game of downtown development are pissed at the way ARG got $4 million in no interest financing.  Several of them hsave said they should have been included in an RFP for funds that could have helped their already started project or helped kicked off new ones.  Cant say I blame them, seems ARG is getting a lot of help on this matter.  I also hear the City Council will be taking this up next week.  Time for TDA to be reformed and be made truly independent from the City.

[nathanm]

ARG has financing, it's called stupidly high rent increases at their other properties.

[swake]

I keep hearing that more and more developers that are already in the game or wanting to get into the game of downtown development are pissed at the way ARG got $4 million in no interest financing.  Several of them hsave said they should have been included in an RFP for funds that could have helped their already started project or helped kicked off new ones.  Cant say I blame them, seems ARG is getting a lot of help on this matter.  I also hear the City Council will be taking this up next week.  Time for TDA to be reformed and be made truly independent from the City.

You want LESS oversight of TDA?

Really, you think that's the answer?

[DowntownNow]

The TDA was always supposed to be an independent legal entity free from City authority and political push by City leaders.  Since the 80s it has become far less so.  So tied in with the City that HUD had to step in finally.  What I want is an independent authority thats responsible to the City Council in so far as the Council adopts an urban renewal plan and ensures TDA abides by it and the directives associated with it.  Having the City provide oversight is like asking the fox to guard the hen house.

[DowntownNow]

And the plot thickens...the following article references the City Council Urban & Economic Development Committee meeting held this last Tuesday that started at 10:45AM - a lil late due to an extended Public Works meeting.  Last chance to see the replay on Ch24 TGOV is Monday starting about 9:00PM.

TDA $4 million loan draws fire
by: P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
Sunday, March 29, 2009
3/29/2009 3:27:34 AM

The Tulsa Development Authority is under fire by some city councilors and local developers after it awarded a 10-year, interest-free $4 million loan with no competitive process.

"It really disturbs me that you guys predetermined how the $4 million would be recycled into the economy downtown," Councilor Bill Martinson said during a council committee meeting last week.

In February, the authority voted 3-2 to recycle $4 million in tax money back to American Residential Group for a companion project to its Tribune Lofts project, at Archer and Main streets.

"We have people actively engaged in trying to revitalize downtown Tulsa and they are not even given an opportunity to put these dollars to use," Martinson said.

During that meeting, a local developer said she was told by Authority Chairman Carl Bracy that a member of the mayor's office and other city officials presented the project as the viable one for downtown.

"In effect, (the authority) was to award the money to that project," Mayo Hotel developer Tori Snyder said she understood from Bracy.

Snyder and some other local developers are upset that they were not given the opportunity to vie for the $4 million in 1996 third-penny sales tax funds designated for downtown housing, which was originally awarded to American Residential Group through a bidding process.

American Residential's initial proposal suggested the funds be repaid to provide a perpetual fund for downtown housing, the city agreed and initiated such a policy.

Of the initial award, American Residential has repaid $2 million of the $4 million, with the other $2 million due in 2011.

Bracy, who was present at the council committee meeting with Snyder, did not dispute her comments. Instead, he told councilors that the authority wasn't legally required to competitively bid the funds and could have originally given it away and have nothing.

"I don't think we did anything wrong and inappropriate and that it was fair," Bracy said about the recent award process.

Martinson, who has been critical of the authority, said he and Bracy had a fundamental disagreement.

"I think when we are dealing with taxpayer dollars it needs to be as transparent as possible," he said.

Snyder said there are local developers who have been waiting for those funds to be available and didn't know they could just ask for it outside of a competitive process.

American Residential principal Jay Helm said on Saturday that his firm went to the authority with its financial proposal after it was awarded a contract on purchasing the property that did go through a bidding process.

The financing was discussed several times in the authority's meetings, which are open to the public. A majority of the members appeared not to support the request during those discussions. However, during February's special meeting, the request was approved in a split vote.

Mayor Kathy Taylor said Saturday she didn't direct TDA and has never directed TDA on what to do.

"My friendship with Jay (Helm) had nothing to do with him being awarded the property site for his development or the $4 million."

She said she knew there were plans for an addition to the Tribune, but that she knows about all of the economic development efforts.

Martinson said that the authority's desire to recycle the funds is admirable, "but I'm wondering to what extent they are really being recycled if they keep being recycled with the same developer."

Councilors Rick Westcott and Bill Christiansen also voiced concerns after they said they received several e-mails from local developers upset about the process.

Authority member Julius Pegues, one of the two votes against awarding the funds to American Residential, said the board is working to correct its procedures.

"Let's assume TDA erred in its process to distribute this money," he said.

He said the authority's goal is to prevent these type of issues from occurring in the future as it relates to proposals for available funding.

"We may have made mistakes here recently, but I don't think we made any that we can't correct," said Pegues, who was vocal about the lack of a competitive process.

The principals of American Residential, Jay Helm and Steve Ganzkow, both contributed to Mayor Kathy Taylor's campaign. Helm gave $5,000 and Ganzkow $2,000. Helm's daughter also was employed as Taylor's personal aide for about a year and left in the fall of 2007.

The award of the initial $4 million to American Residential occurred under former Mayor Bill LaFortune's term. Officials at that time said the group's payback clause played a significant role in getting the funds.

Several concerns I have over this:

• Lack of notice and a competitive process in awarding these large funds, essentially pubicly subsidizing a large portion of the overall investment of ONE project and not maximizing the potentials for downtown
• In the televised meeting, Martinson made reference to the contract between City and TDA allowing them to distribute those tax funds for downtown housing and that the contract may have expired in 2003 with no further extension

• Tori Snyder's claim that in a conversation with Chairman Carl Bracy, he admitted TDA was directed to fund this project after Bunney and City staff recommended it - he also left that unchallenged
• Julius Pegues, TDA Vice Chair, was one of the two dissenting votes to approve funding and in an earlier article by the Tulsa World Pegues said he also has concerns about the "process and lack of openness" regarding the reallocation of the funds. "There were no requests for proposals presented," he said. "Other developers who wanted to do development housing downtown didn't get the opportunity to participate."

• Juliues Pegues in the meeting Tuesday then acts like this is something new to them, stating TDA "may have erred," and that TDA has a goal to "prevent these types of issues from occurring in the future."  To which one other developer invited by the Council to speak with Snyder said "it isn't rocket science" to address.
• I have a huge problem with Mayor Taylor saying "she didn't direct TDA and has never directed TDA on what to do"...yet people have shown me numerous copies of TDA contracts signed by Taylor - yet she says she has nothing to do with TDA?

• I find it telling how the Tulsa World put in its article the relationship between Taylor, Helm, his daughter and Ganzgow.
• If you watch the meeting, you will see Chair Bracy stumble over his own words, at one point calling on Mike Bunney to jump in the discussion but Bunney essentially refuses.  At the end of the meeting, in what seemed like a surprise to TDA, Council asks two developers or citizens to come up.  They essentially refuted point for point everything Bracy and Pegues said.  Both Pegues and Bracy never stood up to refute any of the information those two provided...which seemed odd since they just took out the argument TDA was making.

[/list]
[/list]
[/list]