Posted in full from TulsaBusiness.com, because I think it's subscription only: (//%22http://www.tulsabusiness.com/article.asp?aID=47433%22)
quote:
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
TBJ Article
Partnership to Build Lofts, Retail in Brady District
Tulsa Business Staff
6/18/2008
The 120 Development Group LLC has announced they will build 120 Brady Village, a mixed-use project in the Brady District in downtown Tulsa.
The project, located on a 42,000-SF site West of Elgin Avenue, between Archer and Brady Streets, will be located directly across Elgin Avenue from the planned $30 million Brownstone project currently being developed by Rueben Gant and the Greenwood Community Development Corp.
120 Development Group, a partnership between Novus Homes LLC and W3 Development LLC will build 18,000 SF of commercial space with the project. The space, which will be located on the first floor of the development, will include on-street parking, direct sidewalk access, patio areas, and landscaping. The commercial space will be known as The Shoppes @ 120.
Also included in the project is The Lofts @ 120, which is to include 40 high-end, New York style, residential loft units with sizes ranging from 1100 to 2400 SF.
Each loft residence will feature an energy efficient design, 10-foot ceilings, floor-to-ceiling windows, exposed HVAC ductwork, stainless steel appliances, hardwood or stained concrete floors, custom baths, custom cabinets, granite countertops, and open floor plans.
According to the developer, loft owners will have access to a secured lobby, private covered parking, elevator service, community room, and a 24-hour fitness center.
The project exterior elevation will complement the existing area architecture and preserve the rich heritage and industrial warehouse style already present in the Brady District. GH2 Architects LLC will design the project, which is expected to be complete by late 2010.
(http://www.tulsabusiness.com/images/photos/120%20attachment%203.jpg)
Heh, at first I thought they were building 120 new lofts, they might have trouble filling that up.
I'm curious to see how Tulsans respond to new denser infill. I'm all for it, just anxious to see how quickly it sells out.
The developer came to one of the DowntownLIVE meetings, and left me rather impressed. I like the rendering, and, if the Drillers locate in Brady, it will be directly across the street.
call me when they break-ground...
"the planned $30 million Brownstone project currently being developed by Rueben Gant and the Greenwood Community Development Corp."
PLANNED being the operative word...
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
call me when they break-ground...
+1
It looks like just the kind of project that I want to see downtown. Not a pie the the sky grand scheme, but something simple that will contribute immensely. A few developments like this (or if the greenwood thing goes down) and you have a new area.
BUT, if following development in Tulsa has taught me anything - it's don't get your hopes up until ground is at least broken.
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
call me when they break-ground...
"the planned $30 million Brownstone project currently being developed by Rueben Gant and the Greenwood Community Development Corp."
PLANNED being the operative word...
Uh, read between the lines . . .
Should actualy read, "will be located directly across Elgin Avenue from the planned $70 million new home of the Tulsa Drillers."
Makes it seems slightly more likely. Unless somebody comes up with a grander use of this adjacent space. And assuming the ballpark goes through.
Now we are talking. If this, the ballpark, the hotel, museum, artist lofts,,, go through, we will finally have the critical mass we need in that area for it to really take off and keep growing.
I'd be interested in living there, hope this actually happens!
I don't trust that rag
Besides, too close to the new ballgame.....and I think it's a diversionary tactic to sell the east end.....just a guess so no attacks.
BTW, never trust a rendering.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
call me when they break-ground...
"the planned $30 million Brownstone project currently being developed by Rueben Gant and the Greenwood Community Development Corp."
PLANNED being the operative word...
Uh, read between the lines . . .
Should actualy read, "will be located directly across Elgin Avenue from the planned $70 million new home of the Tulsa Drillers."
Makes it seems slightly more likely. Unless somebody comes up with a grander use of this adjacent space. And assuming the ballpark goes through.
i did read between the lines...
if these developers are talking about this project in the same breath as rueben's pipe dream, it leads me to believe that none of it will ever happen because either a) they are also delusional or b) they have no clue as to what is really afoot... now if it was the tbj's reference then that is a different story...
dont get me wrong, i'd love to see it but i'm tired of pretty pictures with no real development...
What will happen first?
¿The Tribune loft expansion, or this?
quote:
Originally posted by BKDotCom
What will happen first?
¿The Tribune loft expansion, or this?
yeah, exactly.
neither.
the tribune lofts expansion is dead.
NO need to be negative on it Brunno... just remain reserved. I really HOPE it happens. It looks like the infill I would want in the area if allowed to design it myself. BUT, I remain reserved.
Did anyone ever, seriously think the Tribune Lofts expansion was going to happen? Its absurd. I wouldnt live in the Tribune Lofts if you paid me. This is in a much better location, and is a better design.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
NO need to be negative on it Brunno... just remain reserved. I really HOPE it happens. It looks like the infill I would want in the area if allowed to design it myself. BUT, I remain reserved.
sorry, it is just a reflex now...
i've learned that an idea i like = never gonna happen...
so yeah, i'm a pessimist about t-town development...
pretty pictures and great ideas piss me off...
like i said, call me when the shovels are in the dirt...
Let me see if I understand this -- they plan on using street parking across the street from the ballpark? And they plan on selling these units to Okies?
[xx(]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
call me when they break-ground...
BUT, if following development in Tulsa has taught me anything - it's don't get your hopes up until ground is at least broken.
Developers need to think about Toby Keith's song,
A Little Less Talk and A LOT more action.... They can talk a big game, but executing a plan is a different thing!!
The Journal Record has a much more in-depth article about the development. Here's the last half:
quote:
...Wilkins estimated their prices could range from $135 to $140 per square foot.
"From a personal perspective from my own business, this is often what I hear persons say they want," said Teresa O'Rourke, owner of O'Rourke Real Estate Corp. of Tulsa and a real estate agent for 120 Brady Village. "I used to manage sales at the Village at Central Park (a brownstone project just east of downtown). I would say probably 70 percent of the foot traffic we had in there were interested in lofts."
The value of parking
Downtown condominium and loft projects have gained momentum since the Philtower successfully converted nine floors into condominiums two years ago, at a cost of $3.2 million. Vision 2025 funds have advanced three downtown Tulsa residential projects, including the $38 million relaunch of the Mayo Hotel with an apartment arm, and Michael Sager's $3 million renovation of the 1916 Jacobs Hotel site into the First Street Lofts.
"I think people are going to be driving less and less in the future," said O'Rourke, pointing to rising gasoline prices. "It's all about lifestyle. People want that type of lifestyle where they can walk to places. They just don't want to be stuck out in the middle of nowhere anymore and drive."
Some people question the extent of such housing demand, or the long-term investment value such properties will offer in this era of slowing home sales.
The trailblazer among Tulsa's downtown projects, the Tribune Lofts, recently put on hold for a year plans to convert its leased units into for-sale condominiums. Officials cited a lack of demand from current tenants to buy their spaces. But Tribune developer American Residential Group still has long-range plans for building a five-story condominium project beside the existing structure.
Wilkins does not see this placing a handicap on 120 Brady Village.
"I kind of like their new strategy," she said of ARG's plans. "Keep Tribune one as rentals, build new lofts as owners."
O'Rourke said some would-be Tribune buyers decided against the move due to existing parking arrangements - an issue 120 Brady would address with secure, covered parking.
"With the project opening in 2010 and all the projects that downtown has going toward it, and the fact that nationwide people are flocking in the cities, I would be pretty comfortable in speculating that the resale value will go up," she said of their units.
Retail interest
Wilkins said the 120 Brady Village project now stands in its marketing and financing stage, which the developers hope to finish by August. By then she expects GH2 to finalize cost projections.
"The architects figure it will take another three or four months to finalize documents," she said.
They hope to start construction by the summer of 2009, if the weather does not duplicate heavy late-spring rains seen the last two years.
"We have homes that we have been trying to start for the last three or four months," she said of the primary business line for W3 and Novus, residential housing construction.
With projections of construction taking eight to 10 months, that would allow 120 Brady Village to open its doors in early 2010.
Wilkins has nine individuals or small businesses lined up to invest in the project, with $2.9 million in pledged funds. With construction costs estimated at $16 million to $20 million - "We're hoping in '09 something will level off," she said of construction inflation - Wilkins intends to start the project with 20-percent equity, or 40 percent if she secures early pre-leasing activity on The Shoppes.
She has already held discussions with a local retail interested in 6,000 square feet, and a national shop interested in 4,000 square feet. Others also have expressed interest.
"If needed, we could add an office component, but that would only be if we could only obtain a solid lease," she said.
Just to start out, let me say hello to all, it's great to be able to break into the goings on and all the buzz with downtown revitalization that is taking place within these forums!
It's especially exciting to see the buzz and even the questions that have been posted regarding our proposed project. We have been working on it for quite some time and we hope in the end, it meets and even exceeds the expectations that you as potential buyers and proponents of downtown revitalization and development want to see.
Just a few quick answers to some of the questions I've seen so far and hope this is of help and interest.
1 - I'm happy to say, this is in no way a diversionary tactic to sell the East End nor a pipe dream. What it is is a grass roots endeavor by many local small business owners and investors to design, build and sell something that will help build upon the critical mass that can drive downtown revitalization.
2 - The design is just that, simple, not overpowering and we wanted to keep it that way to draw upon the influences of the area and not disturb it with something that doesnt belong. We will be refining the concept in the coming months as we gather both public opinion and buyer interest. All is a part of keeping the development costs manageable so that buyers will be able to afford these units first and foremost and take pride in the fact that they will own rather than rent.
3 - Third and lastly for now, let me just say that this development was in the planning phases long before rumors of the ballpark location began and is completely independent of either the ballpark or the proposed Greenwood Chamber development, either of which we would love to see but are not dependent upon. We feel this is an excellent location with whatever may go in or around the area. This helps build upon the existing Brady District and provides the very necessary residential component to drive new retail and commercial to the area and help it grow.
We hope as we get closer that you will support the endeavor, spread the word and certainly provide any feedback you feel as necessary...after all, any development in downtown, let alone Tulsa, is a reflection upon its citizens and we encourage all to participate. Thank you for your comments, I hope to read many more.
If you would like to contact me, please feel free to email me at theloftsat120@yahoo.com. Our website is under development with new emails to follow and I will keep you informed as we progress.
Thanks again.
Will
$135 a square foot looks good.
Can I lock into that price?
oh I just love it how these developers come out of the woodwork when their projects are getting criticized. You guys really need to get a "could give a ****" attitude like Bumgarner and some of the other mainstay cronies.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
oh I just love it how these developers come out of the woodwork when their projects are getting criticized. You guys really need to get a "could give a ****" attitude like Bumgarner and some of the other mainstay cronies.
You, sir, should stop pissing in the punch. We're pretty lucky that developers bother to post here at all, much less take the time, like Will, to address specific questions and concerns. It ain't like he just posted his sales brochure. He read the thread and tried to answer questions we'd asked. That's worth a point or two in his favor, I dare say.
+1 Wevus.
I've never read a positive post by Inteller, so criticism from him is fairly worthless.
Glad to hear this project is more than a pipe-dream. I can't wait for it to get off the ground.
Be sure to catch the replay of the 10:00PM newscast for Channel 8 for more information regarding this project and more Brady District development stories.
Thanks
Don't pay attention to the resident ***hole Will. He's on his period 28 days a month.
Thanks for signing up and setting the facts straight. More developers should care what the public thinks and seek their input. I wish you all the best.
So whats up with this?
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080713_11_A4_spancl177563
Why would the city or anyone involved with this ballpark be against this development going in there? It seems like the perfect development for that area. I have been wondering why nobody involved with the ballpark has been mentioning this development. Seems to me they would be touting it as a great deal, a compliment to the ballpark, with the city leaning over backwards to help.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Why would the city or anyone involved with this ballpark be against this development going in there? It seems like the perfect development for that area.
An explanation is offered in this article (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080713_11_A1_spancl864930%22) in today's
Tulsa World.
The backers of the stadium want control of the surrounding properties.
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2008/200807_A1_a4park.jpg)
If there is one thing I've learned from living here a half century its what you've just written. The people who run this joint want control over anything that looks promising. They don't care about details like someone else had a good idea, took a risk and trusted what their local government said. Someone other than the name brands had a good idea, pursued it in a professional and reasonable way but is going to get steamrollered by an authority. Nothing new here other than fresh meat.
You would think that what they want to control, is bringing in EXACTLY what these developers are planning. Unless they have other developers lined up perhaps? That want every inch of that property. Cause otherwise its just insane.
Despite the control nut conspiracy theory, I think there must be something else going on here.
I'm with Artist on this one. 120 had already started moving on the deal with a great idea. Now it will fit in nicely with the ballpark and really jump start development around it.
It seems like poor dealing to attempt to screw someone who was willing to gamble on the area without the stadium. It seems they want control for financial reasons. The rent from the properties they control will help fund the venture and now that the stadium is going in they can command more rent.
Just doesn't seem right to me.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I'm with Artist on this one. 120 had already started moving on the deal with a great idea. Now it will fit in nicely with the ballpark and really jump start development around it.
It seems like poor dealing to attempt to screw someone who was willing to gamble on the area without the stadium. It seems they want control for financial reasons. The rent from the properties they control will help fund the venture and now that the stadium is going in they can command more rent.
Just doesn't seem right to me.
It doesn't seem right because it isn't right. Why would the city try to curtail efforts already underway to build something that is highly desirable? By trying to squash out Will, they're sending a big message to anyone else who might have considered developments around the ballpark: stay away.
I really don't understand why they're making it difficult (by whatever means they're using) for someone to put in the very thing they WANT to go in the area... It's a really self-defeating process. Do you WANT the area to succeed?
Someone already showed the imagination and willingness to take a risk, BEFORE the ballpark deal, and you're trying to stop that? WHY?
Sans details, though, it's hard to tell what's going on.
I hope Will succeeds--I think he's got the full support of everyone on this forum.
Why can't they control all the OTHER properties around 120 Brady? Having 120 Brady actually get built within the next 1-2 years, even without the ballpark finished, can really jumpstart other "city-controlled" developments. If this was some suburban-style apt. complex with a big parking lot at Brady & Elgin I could understand but it's EXACTLY what the City (and most Tulsans) want for the ballpark neighborhood...
The more I learn about the way it appears the city is treating these developers, the worse it sounds. Though I havent heard all sides of the story, it sounds like TDA "those who are supposed to be helping and making it easier" Is now coming up with new requests, asking these developers to do things differently than other developers have had to do in the past. And from what it sounds like, has made it next to impossible for anyone that isnt super wealthy to ever develop in downtown. If they are going to require, from now on, what they are suddenly asking these developers to now do,,, it will kill downtown. Only big money mega projects could ever get built. But we all know we need the small and average developments to make this a real downtown. It seems as though TDA has changed the rules in order to thwart this development. I think these developers only have until early Sept, to get things done before their agreement with TDA runs out, which would be no problem under the usual circumstances, the way its always worked before,,,, but it looks like they are throwing up roadblocks in order to make it difficult or next to impossible for them to be able to get what they "now" need to get done in time.
Again, dont know the whole story, but its really sounding bad. If its true, its probably the worst abuse of power in this city that I have ever heard of. Just has me floored.
Ironically TDA spends decades trying to get people to buy some of their property and when someone finally wants to, They suddlnly want take-back privileges. I haven't heard the whole story but I think it would be a big boon to get "cranes in the air" on a private development ASAP. If you want them to meet certain height/aesthetic requirements, fine, but let them build.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Ironically TDA spends decades trying to get people to buy some of their property and when someone finally wants to, They suddlnly want take-back privileges. I haven't heard the whole story but I think it would be a big boon to get "cranes in the air" on a private development ASAP. If you want them to meet certain height/aesthetic requirements, fine, but let them build.
That makes perfect sense. Therefore it can't possibly happen.[:P]
This sounds like exactly the sort of project that is needed! And I love the idea of a local developer (known for quality infill projects that are senstive to the character of a neighborhood) being the one to break ground first. Tulsans building Tulsa is the way to go! Not sure what is going on with the TDA, but they're going to lose all credibility if they act with prejudice against the good faith efforts of a developer with a strong track record of smart development in Tulsa...and a sound plan for success.
Currently, people in Tulsa worry (as shown in the recent PLANiTULSA survey of over 1,000 residents) that the comp plan will be "too influenced by people who have a lot of money." (70% of respondents agreed with this statement.) I certainly hope and believe that this concern proves to be FALSE. However, if certain members of the TDA are stonewalling this project, it only reinforces this belief. It adds to the sense of fatalism that hurts Tulsa, by killing off the "can do" attitude of local people who care...and, given the chance, will work to be part of the solution.
I am certain that all parties involved only want what's best for Tulsa. I hope that everyone will be able to look at the bigger picture and work collaboratively. It's short-sighted not to.
The worst possible outcome would be to discourage local Tulsans--people with great ideas and the means and passion to get them done--from getting involved and being part of the solution. (I've seen enough of what out-of-state investors do for downtown Tulsa. I like what the "little guys" are doing. And I want to see more!)
I liked a quote from John Fregonese at the TulsaNow/PLANiTULSA event: "You should make it easy for people to do the right thing; and make it hard for people to do the wrong thing."
Another great concept I like is from Alan Hart, who said "Don't think in terms of 'either/or'...think in terms of 'both/and'..." This sort of project would only contribute to downtown, the community, the ballpark...and any future developments that would occur nearby.
TDA...are you listening?
This so totally sucks for Will. I understand the land across the street has become much more valuable to the City with the announcement of the ballpark but a deal is a deal.
http://cfc.ktul.com/videoondemand.cfm?id=19586
Good afternoon everyone. It's been a while since I've posted on our project and felt it was time to fill you in on the goings on that has come to afflict our proposed development.
As many of you know, after announcing our project and our effort to work with the TDA; the Mayor, her staff and the 'donors' to the new Driller Ballpark announced they were moving the ballpark site across the street from us on what was contracted through the TDA to be the Greenwood Chamber development.
Since that announcement, our efforts have been met with every possible opposition from not only the Mayor and her staff but by the TDA themselves. On April 17, the TDA Board of commissioners created Resolution #5443 that granted us additional time to perform due diligence and also directed TDA staff to enter into contract negotiations. Every attempt to contact the TDA attorney through staff as directed was met with no answer by that attorney. We were removed from the agenda at June's TDA meeting without so much as a phone call to inform us as to such. We did make it onto the July agenda only to be told by the TDA attorney that he would not enter into negotiations as he was lacking sufficient information...information that had already been provided to TDA staff well prior to this meeting. We agreed to provide one additional piece of information that was requested at that meeting so we could move forward with negotiations.
To that end, our attorney drafted a contract using TDA's format and presented it for review and comment. We received no answer until yesterday when our attorney received an email from TDA Chairman Carl Bracy.
July 29, 2008
Stephen A. Schuller, Esq.
GABLE & GOTWALS
1100 ONEOK Plaza
One West Fifth Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-4217
Re: Tulsa Development Authority Resolution 5423
Dear Mr. Schuller:
We are in receipt of your correspondence dated July 18, 2008. As you know, the City of Tulsa, and several private donors contributing more than $30 million to a public trust, are developing a master plan for a national class Double A baseball park and associated amenities in the Greenwood and Brady Districts. This master plan incorporates the property in which your clients have expressed an interest. The city believes that the development of a coordinated high-quality, arts, entertainment, educational, and mixed-use development surrounding the ballpark is vital.
At the present time, the land under contract with the Greenwood Community Development Corporation has been set aside as a prospective site of the ball park. We have not seen any plans yet that specify the precise limits and any data concerning the proposals comprising the Master Plan. We therefore have no knowledge of what other properties may be affected or included in the Plan. The ball park may require a larger site or a complete change of land use may be recommended.
After further review and conferring with our attorney, Darven Brown, it is my personal feeling that the Tulsa Development Authority should proceed no further in connection with the marketing activities of any of the property in the vicinity of the baseball site location until we have full information concerning the finalized plans adopted by the city. While the Tulsa Development Authority is a separate entity from the city we have always conducted our business in a manner that we consider to be in the city's best interest. That being the case, it would seem to be unwise for the Tulsa Development Authority to proceed further with any negotiations with your client at this time. After all, the city has the right of eminent domain and can take whatever properties become necessary for its municipal purposes.
Because of the foregoing, I feel that it would be in the best interest of the public and the City of Tulsa to terminate any negotiations and cancel the Resolution now in place. I have asked that this item be placed on the agenda for the regular meeting of the Tulsa Development Authority to be held at 8:30 o'clock a.m., on August 7, at which time you may wish to appear.
Yours truly,
S/Carl Bracy, Chairman
xc: Mr. Leon Davis
Mr. Hurst Swiggart
Mr. George Shahadi
Mr. John D. Clayman
Mr. Melvin R. Gilliam
Ms. Paula Bryant-Ellis
It has always been our intention to create a high quality mixed-use development that would benefit this area of downtown and encourage additional economic growth and development in the area, something we thought the TDA was created to help do by "promoting the revitalization of declining areas and encouraging private reinvestment and economic growth through rehabilitation and redevelopment."
With the proposed ballpark, of which we are an avid supporter (going so far as to be the last speaker in favor of carrying our share of the burden of an assessment to bring the stadium downtown at the city council meeting), we then looked at our project scope in the hopes of maximizing the economic impact we could have in the area. To that end, we brought in a 120-room hotel development that would compliment our building's structure and overall look while still providing space for off street parking for the 42 loft residential tenants as well as the hotel. Further plans then called for a rooftop pool to support the limited service national flag hotel brand as well as supply 6,000 sf for a new national food/entertainment concept that would be new to the market.
Our goal is to bring a high density, high quality mixed use development that would offer several things Tulsa has never seen before in terms of amenities, services, and branding. We feel this is the proper economic engine that can jump start other private development in and around the area and help grow our downtown.
Today it would seem that the 'donors' want control of this surrounding area to benefit not just any developer but only those developers they see as benefiting their own goals and agendas and quite honestly, as a citizen, a businessman and a developer interested in helping this city grow, I find that incredibly bothersome and arrogant on the part of these wealthy donors.
The TDA is an authority that was created to perform its goals and do so in keeping with what is in the best interest of the public and the citizens of Tulsa. I ask you as interested citizens that want to see downtown grow, what is in the best interest of a city demanding growth and encouraging development than a proposal to develop what we have identified and will add to the employment numbers, the sales tax revenues, ad-valorem base and diversity within the area that is so desperately needed?
We will be pursuing all available options at our disposal to encourage the TDA to do the right thing here. Embrace the individual developer that is trying to do the right thing and not allow us to be pushed out by the special interests behind the ballpark trust's plan for surrouding mixed use development.
There are many variables to this story, which I am more than happy to share in more detail should you be interested. I would like to close by encouraging anyone that believes we are on the right path and supports the individual developer to email the TDA and the Mayor in support of our development.
Beyond what is happening to our project potential, make your voices heard so that this doesnt happen to the next developer that wants to help this city grow.
Thank you, I will keep you posted on any additional developments. You can reach me at 902-0760 if you have any questions.
Will Wilkins
120 Development Group, LLC/Novus Homes LLC
Maoyr Kathy Taylor - mayor@cityoftulsa.org
Carl Bracy - carl.bracy.acfx@statefarm.com
George Shahadi - george.shahadi@williams.com
John Clayman - jclayman@fdlaw.com
Melvin Gilliam - mgil070995@aol.com
Darven Brown - dbrown1925@sbcglobal.net
The City wants the land to line the pockets of its selected developers, while those not "in the circle" cannot proceed? Wow. I will email the mayor and Carl Bracy and express my discontent with their decision. If I were you I would go to the local TV stations with your story. I would say the TW but they're part of the "circle"...
quote:
Originally posted by OurTulsa
This so totally sucks for Will. I understand the land across the street has become much more valuable to the City with the announcement of the ballpark but a deal is a deal.
http://cfc.ktul.com/videoondemand.cfm?id=19586
If the TDA F's him it will be interesting to see who gets the land and their relation to the "powers that be".
I'm hoping the local news coverage will help him.
This is pretty damned outrageous behavior by the City. This is the crap that chases away well-intentioned developers and keeps them from ever coming back.
This is a perfect example of why people in Tulsa have expressed discontent with those who have all the money. This is outrageous, and I hope that Fregonese & Associates takes notice of this.
It's absolutely disgusting, and I'll be crafting some letters to the Mayor, TDA et al tonight.
I'm appalled.
Well said all.
A developer was willing to move forward on an uncertain project in HOPES of the area picking up. The area looks like it will pick up, so the city shuts down the projects - it makes no sense at all. I thought we WANTED dense high quality and mixed use development in that area and in that area fast.
It would seem this project could begin construction before the stadium opens. Nothing else will even be proposed until construction is underway... if then. I imagine such behavior will scare away many developers with the feeling that they have to be "in" TO do business in Tulsa.
So the city enters yet ANOTHER real estate market. Quick City Hall, go market the area for developers. Hopefully with better success than the Tower Apartment site, the old city hall, or the other city properties abandoned for the WilTel building. You know, the ones that are sitting empty.
I will be sending my letter. This is not only bad for the developer in this instance, by for any future development in the city. The ONLY reason to deny this project at this point is for others to profit by it. Otherwise, it makes no sense to summarily reject it.
Just realized what may be going on here. 120 Development saw an opportunity to beef up their development by adding a small, nationally-flagged hotel to their project.
quote:
Originally posted by TheLofts@120
With the proposed ballpark, of which we are an avid supporter (going so far as to be the last speaker in favor of carrying our share of the burden of an assessment to bring the stadium downtown at the city council meeting), we then looked at our project scope in the hopes of maximizing the economic impact we could have in the area. To that end, we brought in a 120-room hotel development that would compliment our building's structure and overall look while still providing space for off street parking for the 42 loft residential tenants as well as the hotel. Further plans then called for a rooftop pool to support the limited service national flag hotel brand as well as supply 6,000 sf for a new national food/entertainment concept that would be new to the market.
My guess is there's some other development group out there with closer TDA ties already planning to bring in a larger hotel but on a later timeframe. This "somebody" was depending on also getting a national flag for their development, but whatever hotel chain they were talking to probably preconditioned their participation on exclusive association with the ballpark. Another national hotel brand opening catty-corner to the stadium was going to submarine this idea. So TDA is now blocking it.
Just a theory. There are a million and one possibilities. But 120 Lofts is getting railroaded, and we need to find out why. This may be how the town has done business in the past, but that way sucks, and it has to change.
^
Hmmmm... Nice lawsuit material.
The ins and outs of the Mayor's office business dealings have always been far less than transparent..
Put the questions to several of the folks that wear two hats..
You know.... The folks that are on say... the Economic Development Team with the City of Tulsa.... and also are connected to TulsaNow.
Folks that are part of the PlaniTulsa venture and also connected to TulsaNow.
They might be able to shed some light on the actions taken so far.
My guess... this will be blamed on lack of communication, and understanding the authority of; the various panels and boards....
None of which will be connected too high up the chain of command.
[}:)]
Wil Wilkins has presented to the TulsaNow board members and that board wants nothing more than private development to take off in Downtown Tulsa. That's the whole point of the public investment. One board member is on both TulsaNow and the EDC. None of them are on TDA.
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries on July 10, 2008
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle on July 10, 2008
Martinson wants to delay a week and says he didn't really know anything before Tuesday (he doesn't read the paper I guess) and that he hasn't had time to read his 8 page document that is posted above (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/cityresponsetomartinson.pdf%22).
I read that document (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/cityresponsetomartinson.pdf%22) in less than 10 minutes this afternoon. Seriously, is it that hard for him to READ?
(http://www.cdromshop.com/cdshop/img/p.825247025902.jpg)
It was explained in the responses to Bill Martinson's questions 9 and 12 (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/cityresponsetomartinson.pdf%22) that the George Kaiser Family Foundation would assist in acquiring necessary adjacent land for the benefit of the Tulsa Stadium Trust. The City Council approved the proposal less than three weeks ago. Remember?
The synergy in the Brady calls for arts district and not residential. Perhaps, the Pearle or East End are more compatible with a well thought out Master Plan with a school, residential, and support retail.
Disgruntled players move over.....could it be the "developer" did not qualify? Could it be those who are putting up millions want to help the area only on a different scale than schemers and dreamers? Seems to the devil's advocate that those putting their money down for the area deserve control. The city, TDA, is merely facilitating something those in control desire.
You should be more focused on how to move the industrial uses out of Brady......
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The synergy in the Brady calls for arts district and not residential...
What synergy and says who?
From TDA's Brady Village Infill Plan:
"
Land Use.Encourage high quality
residential, office, entertainment, commercial and
industrial infill development. No one single land use dominates
or should dominate to the exclusion of other vital businesses, interests and activities. Brady Village is intended as a higher intensity
mixed use urban village..."
The Crossroads area of Kansas City, which is their arts district is very mixed use, art gallerys, artist studios, residents, businesses, restaurants and bars and a movie theater. At least that is what is there when I go there and the mix makes it a very viable community.
Rushed story from the TW: Link to Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080731_11_A1_hTheci336589%22)
Ballpark option: eminent domain
MAYOR
Kathy Taylor: Her proposal includes development of mixed-use venues on land surrounding the stadium.
By P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
7/31/2008
Last Modified: 7/31/2008 2:37 AM
The city has land for the stadium, but wants to also secure surrounding property for development.
The city is apparently willing to condemn property, if necessary, around a proposed baseball stadium downtown to secure it for a mixed-use development area.
Mayor Kathy Taylor has proposed a $60 million ballpark project that includes construction of a baseball stadium to house the city's Double A baseball team, the Tulsa Drillers, and development of mixed-use venues on land surrounding the stadium.
Of the $60 million cost, $30 million would come in private donations, $25 million from a downtown property assessment fee, and $5 million from the Drillers' lease.
The project is proposed for the historic Greenwood District, where the stadium would nestle against Interstate 244, bounded by Elgin Avenue, Archer Street and abutting the backside of the stores and offices along Greenwood Avenue.
Backers of the project have said that the private properties directly adjacent to the stadium along Elgin Avenue and Archer Street are being acquired as part of the ballpark master plan and would be transformed into entertainment, retail and residential developments. The actual site of the baseball stadium is on Tulsa Development Authority land so no acquisition is necessary to secure that property.
But the backers have said that it is vital to have the larger footprint to create a successful project and spur further economic development.
The George Kaiser Family Foundation is assisting in acquiring private land around the stadium. The land would be transferred at acquisition cost to a public trust created to govern the ballpark.
All revenues the trust receives from selling or leasing the parcels for private development will go toward retiring the debt on the stadium and future maintenance needs, said Pete Boylan, an adviser to Taylor on the ballpark.
Boylan has said that condemnation is an option that could be used in securing the surrounding land. Condemnation initiated by the city is subject to City Council approval.
In a letter sent Tuesday to Stephen Schuller, the attorney for Novus Homes LLC, a mother-and-son development team, Tulsa Development Authority Chairman Carl Bracy refers to the condemnation process for the land around the ballpark.
The letter describes the ballpark master plan and gives notice that the authority would be terminating the exclusive negotiation rights between it and Novus. Plans had called for the company to create a mixed-use development on a parcel owned by the authority within the master plan area.
The letter states that it would be "unwise" to proceed further with Novus.
"After all, the city has the right of eminent domain (condemnation) and can take whatever properties become necessary for its municipal purposes," the letter states.
Bracy said Wednesday that he mentioned condemnation to let Novus know possible acquisition steps that the city could take even though the authority also owns that parcel.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that acquiring land for economic development could be considered a legitimate public use under condemnation law, but it also noted that state legislatures could craft stricter definitions of "public use" to further limit the power of condemnation.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the Oklahoma Constitution provided more protection for private landowners than the U.S. Constitution did, and that economic development, without any other rationale, does not create a legitimate public purpose or public use.
No city official would respond to calls from the Tulsa World. Taylor was out of the state Wednesday.
Bracy said after conferring with the Mayor's Office that the authority decided to terminate the negotiations with Novus because a lot has changed and "we just want to make sure we consider all avenues so that decisions are made in the best interest of the city."
Novus has had exclusive negotiation rights with the authority since January — long before the ballpark site moved to the Greenwood District. The first proposed site was in the East Village. The authority will discuss the termination with Novus at its Aug. 7 meeting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
...Not sure what is going on with the TDA, but they're going to lose all credibility if they act with prejudice against the good faith efforts of a developer with a strong track record of smart development in Tulsa...and a sound plan for success.
Currently, people in Tulsa worry (as shown in the recent PLANiTULSA survey of over 1,000 residents) that the comp plan will be "too influenced by people who have a lot of money." (70% of respondents agreed with this statement.) I certainly hope and believe that this concern proves to be FALSE. However, if certain members of the TDA are stonewalling this project, it only reinforces this belief. It adds to the sense of fatalism that hurts Tulsa, by killing off the "can do" attitude of local people who care...and, given the chance, will work to be part of the solution...
...TDA...are you listening?
Yes, I think the TDA is listening. The City Council approved the stadium project three weeks ago after a public hearing. The surrounding property is part of the project.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
Rushed story from the TW: Link to Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080731_11_A1_hTheci336589%22)
Ballpark option: eminent domain
Rushed story?
Rushed project?
It all depends on how "rushed" is defined.
The
World has been publishing articles about the stadium proposal since June 25. The adjacent land is included in the project.
The City Council approved the stadium project (including the surrounding property) after a public hearing on July 10.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The synergy in the Brady calls for arts district and not residential. Perhaps, the Pearle or East End are more compatible with a well thought out Master Plan with a school, residential, and support retail.
Disgruntled players move over.....could it be the "developer" did not qualify? Could it be those who are putting up millions want to help the area only on a different scale than schemers and dreamers? Seems to the devil's advocate that those putting their money down for the area deserve control. The city, TDA, is merely facilitating something those in control desire.
You should be more focused on how to move the industrial uses out of Brady......
No, we absolutely want more living in that area. The only way downtown is to actually thrive is if it has lots of residential. An "Urban Village" type atmosphere is one that is pedestrian friendly, family friendly and yes children friendly. The Brady Arts and Greenwood Districts cant just be club zones and tourist destinations. It will never be able to be a self sufficient, complete neighborhood without a heavy dose of residential.
As for the developers. They were playing by the rules, put in a lot of time and money doing what they were supposed to be doing. It is a great development for the area, but now the rules have seemingly changed. They are being ignored so that the process cant continue as it usually does. The guy from the TDA mentioned that the developers have an exclusive contract to negotiate until Sept,,, but nobody is negotiating with the developers. TDA looks to be just running out the clock. TDA says they are doing this for the best interest of Tulsa. But wouldnt treating everyone fairly be in the best interest of Tulsa? The "donors" may or may not be able to get all of those spaces filled with developments as nice as this.
A bird in the hand, thats just the kind of bird you want, should be in Tulsas interest.
The developers have even mentioned that they would be willing to work with the donors to help fill in the other developments with businesses. (they helped bring in the hotel peple who are redeveloping the Atlas Life building) And they said they were willing to change the design and look of their building to compliment any over all design plan that the donors had in mind for that area. They kept trying to reach out, but keep getting the cold shoulder.
Basically, to me it looks like a land grab. That spot is now a for sure money maker, and the donors want to have it... So they are going to take it.
TDA should have the same rules, same process and treat everyone the same. Why have rules in the first place if they can be so easily ignored at their whim? How can developers know what to do if the TDA doesnt have a stable set of rules and procedures and can just ignore them, make them up and change them at any time? How can anyone know they are being treated fairly and not being discriminated against for instance? You can follow the rules all you want, but at any time, for any reason, they can just ignore you, all the work and money you have put in, and brush you aside. How is that good for Tulsa?
I think Chuck Lamson should grow a pair of balls and be a man and say "Yea, I want the ballpark there, but I am not going to do so at the expense of screwing these good people over." He is definitely one person who could stop this charade and should do so. Its one thing to have a disagreement over the funding mechanism, quite another what is going on with these developers.
I also dont understand why the TDA and others arent even offering out the notion of helping the developers find another property nearby? They are just completely shoving these developers aside, no compromise, no discussion, no nothing. Thats just wrong. Regardless of whether they may have "bigger better" plans, which has yet to be seen,,, why arent they being decent enough to find a helpful solution? How can they be so callous and crude?
I want to hear from RecycleMichael, he has the mayors ear and knows how the system should work. Why isnt he commenting on this?
I've sent a letter to the office of the mayor. Wonder if I'll get a response?
Looks like the complaint department is Peter Boylan....aka TV Guide ex insider barred from SEC participation of any kind for life.
In the meantime, this use obviously does not fall in to his master plan.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I want to hear from RecycleMichael, he has the mayors ear and knows how the system should work. Why isnt he commenting on this?
I don't have the Mayor's ear anymore than lots of people who write her and go to public meetings, but thank you for saying it.
I haven't discussed this topic enough to have strong opinions. My wife and I talked about it last night and again this morning after reading the Tulsa World story. I didn't feel I knew enough to get involved.
I am also getting a little leery about what I say on this forum. My comments on TulsaNow made the UrbanTulsa this week on a story about a downtown picket line and I pissed off some homeless people. I never realized it, but the homeless have plenty of free time to read newspapers.
I don't have a real good sense of developing property and the behind the scenes work it takes. I don't know how much investment it takes. I did meet the folks from Novus homes and they seem sincere while being disillusioned about the changes. I thought their plan was excellent and would be a great asset to the downtown area.
I can also understand that the area around the ballpark needs to be coordinated. If there is one thing I do know about developing property is that we often just build stuff without seeing how it all fits together. One of the reasons why I am excited about PlaniTulsa is that we should have a master plan to use for deciding how things fit together.
It seems reasonable to slow down on properties directly connected to the ballpark. The comments in the morning paper said that a plan for the whole area is being developed. I would hope that this plan calls for something similar to what is being proposed.
If I were in charge, I would wait until a plan is established, then go back to Novus and let them build on this parcel. I would give them first rights on developing it as long as it fit with the overall plan.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Looks like the complaint department is Peter Boylan....aka TV Guide ex insider barred from SEC participation of any kind for life.
You might want to tell BOK that, he's on the board there.
I, too, have emailed the list provided by Will in support of his plan.
RecycleMichael, I agree with you that they should have first rights after a master plan has been created
RM, here's what I don't get: A citizen of Tulsa has put time, effort, and money into building something. That something is exactly what the TDA and the Mayor profess we want - high density mixed use development.
Even if it is not exactly what we had in mind (though it seems to be), why not incorporate their plans into the development or work with them to modify their plans to fit into the development?
Instead, the city does all they can to scuttle the project. When they fight back, the city just comes out and says they'll go nuclear (condemnation/eminent domain) to get control of that property. That's working against citizens, not for them.
I don't understand how these actions could be construed as constructive. Unless they are serving another purpo$e we don't know about, shutting out a developer makes no sense. Perhaps it is again a situation where lack of transparency is destroying public confidence in our government.
I am not smart enough to argue on this one...yet.
I have only heard one side.
Audi alteram parten...to hear the other party.
I applaud the effort RM, and look forward to hearing the other side. But the City has a large mouthpiece they can use to talk. They used it to make it clear that they will get that property with no qualifiers, exceptions, or other softening concessions.
A citizen should not have to pester the city to get the whole story.
Sorry for spamming this thread, I'm frustrated.
quote:
I don't understand how these actions could be construed as constructive. Unless they are serving another purpo$e we don't know about, shutting out a developer makes no sense. Perhaps it is again a situation where lack of transparency is destroying public confidence in our government.
You hit the nail on the head there. This is exactly, I mean exactly what is wrong with politics in this city. Exactly, exactly, exactly, exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's too top down. The process needs to be flipped. I think PlaniTulsa is a step in the right direction.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Looks like the complaint department is Peter Boylan....aka TV Guide ex insider barred from SEC participation of any kind for life.
You might want to tell BOK that, he's on the board there.
And that's a mystery unto itself.....
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I applaud the effort RM, and look forward to hearing the other side. But the City has a large mouthpiece they can use to talk. They used it to make it clear that they will get that property with no qualifiers, exceptions, or other softening concessions.
A citizen should not have to pester the city to get the whole story.
Sorry for spamming this thread, I'm frustrated.
Head to lunch and get some of your favs.....then turn wicked. It will terminate the frustration. Trust the devil. It's that or a big fattie.[:P]
Kwueen Kathy chose the nobility in her Kourt over her lowly loyal subjects outside of the walls of her Krystal Kastle and her majesty is willing to use force to take land as a gift to King Kaiser? No good deed goes unpunished in Kwueen Kathy's Kingdom.
On the surface this feels like cronyism, but I have to agree with RM that I want to hear both sides of the story before I decide that something unethical is at play.
This is exactly the type of behaviour that frustrates downtown development over and over again. It always seems like the TDA is somehow involved in blocking RFD on these city parcels while at the same time proffessing that they are looking after the city's interest. How is keeping all of these city owned parcels fallow helping the city in any way?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
A bird in the hand, thats just the kind of bird you want, should be in Tulsas interest.
Does anyone know if it's too late to incorporate a multi-use stadium which would include international women's soccer? Could the City Council establish another trust and another assessment district downtown in order to bring soccer to Greenwood?
Just wondering....
(http://tourmenthe.canalblog.com/images/Body_Paint_Naked_Fifa_Soccer_Girls__01_.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Basically, to me it looks like a land grab. That spot is now a for sure money maker, and the donors want to have it... So they are going to take it.
From the
Tulsa World, June 25, 2008:
"The overall ballpark project, however, extends beyond the stadium, capturing redevelopment opportunities south to the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad tracks and a good portion of the city blocks toward Detroit Avenue.
Taylor would not confirm if the city has contracted land options on any of those sites for redevelopment adjacent to the stadium. But she did say that investors have expressed an interest in being a part of the project."
That article had a map showing the inclusion of the proposed 120 Lofts site. This issue was discussed at a public hearing three weeks ago. The City Council approved the stadium project. Remember?
I get what your saying Michael, but how they are playing it with these developers is wrong. Let them know if they can be a part of it, after all they have been reaching out in all kinds of ways, but they are being ignored. The city could offer some hint that they want to help these people out, another parcel nearby, just say they do indeed want them to be part of the plan but that the exact details of how they want everything to work together is still being worked out. Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks for the patience and offer to help with other parts of the plan as well, we will do everything we can to make sure everyone comes out ahead in this deal and not lose.
But thats not how they are doing it at all. They are just shoving them off to the side and basically saying screw you, we dont care, go away.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Basically, to me it looks like a land grab. That spot is now a for sure money maker, and the donors want to have it... So they are going to take it.
From the Tulsa World, June 25, 2008:
"The overall ballpark project, however, extends beyond the stadium, capturing redevelopment opportunities south to the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad tracks and a good portion of the city blocks toward Detroit Avenue.
Taylor would not confirm if the city has contracted land options on any of those sites for redevelopment adjacent to the stadium. But she did say that investors have expressed an interest in being a part of the project."
That article had a map showing the inclusion of the proposed 120 Lofts site. This issue was discussed at a public hearing three weeks ago. The City Council approved the stadium project. Remember?
Whats your point? You saying the city council approved then, the scuttling of the 120 lofts project. That they knew the city was going to derail their efforts and not work with them?
This story is 100% meant to rile people up. It's largely speculation and rumor everyone on this forum has known for weeks.
Yes, the city and the private investors know that to capitalize they need to make sure they don't end up with a kum-n-go across the street. Yes, the elite like having a lot of influence over their investments. Yes, it sucks for people like Will but there is nothing saying this is some Mayor/City Council/Colonel Sanders conspiracy.
I think Will's developemt should move to Towerview. TDA owes him as much.
It's easy to see it from the 120 Loft developers side, but consider some of the things that might be influencing the city to keep this close to their vest:
-- the project is being sold not simply as a stadium but as a stadium+environs; 120 Lofts may simply not fit into the +environs part of the project as it has been pitched.
-- succesfully guaranteeing some or all of the private funding for the project may actually pivot on the +environs part, and who is allowed to build there.
-- the project isn't greenlit, and so there can't be much public back and forth yet.
Does this excuse poor treatment of good faith efforts? Absolutely not. But I don't think it's farfetched to see why the city might, regrettably, have to play things both vaguely and aggressively to get this done.
CAVEAT: I spent just enough time in Chicago to think that occasionally Richie Daley-style city politics is just kinda what's needed to get things done. And this is very Richie Daley.
Well all I can say is they had better come through with some MAJOR development there, otherwise people are going to be fed up. They had also better come through and help these developers out somehow to make up for the hassle and hurt they have caused these people.
Also the towerview is not a fair exchange. Their development wont work there as well. That spot would work best having a larger "Heavenly Hospitality" type development. There isnt enough other stuff around there to connect to or have synergies with. It would be much better to be a large "self-supporting" type development that can work with the arena.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Basically, to me it looks like a land grab. That spot is now a for sure money maker, and the donors want to have it... So they are going to take it.
From the Tulsa World, June 25, 2008:
"The overall ballpark project, however, extends beyond the stadium, capturing redevelopment opportunities south to the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad tracks and a good portion of the city blocks toward Detroit Avenue.
Taylor would not confirm if the city has contracted land options on any of those sites for redevelopment adjacent to the stadium. But she did say that investors have expressed an interest in being a part of the project."
That article had a map showing the inclusion of the proposed 120 Lofts site. This issue was discussed at a public hearing three weeks ago. The City Council approved the stadium project. Remember?
Whats your point? You saying the city council approved then, the scuttling of the 120 lofts project. That they knew the city was going to derail their efforts and not work with them?
I'm not sure if the City Council knew that the TDA intended to ignore the 120 Lofts developers or not. Three of the nine Councilors wanted more time to study the details of the stadium project, but they were denied that opportunity by the other six.
Bill Martinson asked some good questions. The responses to his questions 9 and 12 indicated that the Tulsa Stadium Trust would be seeking control of adjacent "necessary" property. The 120 Lofts project site has been shown in
Tulsa World articles since June 25th within the boundaries of the stadium project. Seems to me that indicates the Council's approval of the stadium project, which includes some of the surrounding real estate, which includes the 120 Lofts site.
I agree with you. This appears to be a land grab. You have made some wonderfully keen observations, IMO.
Good, insightful post.
Good evening all. It's been energetically pleasing to see all the recent postings regarding our proposed development and the support we've been receiving. Just thought I would fill you in on recent developments and help clear up some comments Ive seen posted.
The Mayor stated this afternoon that she now does not support the use of eminent domain and never has despite the fact that Peter Boylan, as pitchman for this ballpark development and its surrounding lands, represented such at a Brady Village owner's meeting on July 7 in the presence of many of the Mayor's staff. All in all, I believe that to be good news for the surrounding businesses that could have been affected by this effort and are good city stewards with thriving businesses. As the site we are pursuing is currently owned by the TDA, an eminent domain claim would have been needless.
We have maintained that we are pursuing this matter for two reasons, one is to secure the property to build what we had planned all along, even larger in scope with the ballpark in place. This will add to the employment base, bring more residential ownership downtown, add to the sales and ad-valorem tax base and usher in concepts and names that might not be found anywhere else in Tulsa to draw more people to the downtown area and help drive further private development in the area. Two, even if our project falls out due to these current circumstances, we feel its our duty as caring citizens of Tulsa that want to see it grow that such an issue is made public and that this doesnt happen to another developer in the future. The last thing we want is for developers to be in fear of doing business in the City of Tulsa and hope that by bringing this situation to light, we can help overcome that for future developers. We believe in the direction John Fregonese wants to take with the PlaniTULSA but also want the concerns of the citizens that they pointed out discussed...this seemed like a fitting exercise to address that fourth concern among Tulsans about the wealthy and powerful.
To clarify, the City Council on July 10, passed the BID Assessment package to provide additional funding for the ballpark and its construction. It did not approve a master plan as some would suggest. I have spoken with some of the city councilors at length in the last few days and can say with certainty that this is not the case. The properties highlighted surrouding the stadium is what the 'donors' want to see placed into Trust, a Trust controlled by a majority of those donors having donated over $2 million, the Mayor and a downtown property owner. Jack Crowley, city planning advisor and ballpark design consultant, stated to us repeatedly that the parcel we are pursuing was not needed by the donors but simply wanted since they wanted to "control the universe" as he put it during a dsicussion in his office on June 17.
Lastly, every indication suggests that the donors want to develop a mixed-use development very much the same as what we have been proposing. Not surprising since before the ballpark announcement, we shared our design conceptuals, plans and scope with both the Bank of Oklahoma, in particular with Ms. Paula Bryant-Ellis (recently named in TDA correspondence as possibly being a new Board member)and Stanton Doyle of the George Kaiser Family Foundation when we approached them to help provide housing for OSU professors and graduate students in our lofts.
The last comment I'd like to address is regarding our qualifying for such a project and the stability of our financial proposal. With the announcement of the ballpark, we were able to secure the interest of a local hotel developer that wanted to incorporate a 100+ room national flag brand into our development. Securing such a development that would utilize over the required 30% prior lease/purchase committment only strengthened our business model in the eyes of the financial lender and private investors, not to mention having the ballpark across the street. So for purposes of transparency, the quick answer is yes, our proposal as originally stated and as updated with the ballpark development remains intact in all terms and viability.
Hope this helps answer any additional questions, comments or concerns. Again, thank you all for your posts and those that are supporting our efforts, your help has been greatly appreciated!
Will Wilkins
As I said earlier; I think this is a case of one Board or Authority not knowing the powers of the other. or something like that.
Compare this to a Realtor being unaware that the broker has certain plans for a property.
The Realtor, in good faith, opens negotiations and begins a dialogue with a perspective buyer.
Just as things get interesting... the Realtor receives a call from the broker saying "The property has been pulled from MLS and no further negotiations will be done".
The City of Tulsa ie Mayor Taylor, and whoever else was dealing with this matter knew long ago that there were certain sites that were on the table.
The fault goes to the City for not making the TDA aware that they need to attach certain conditions to negotiations in regard to site A, B, or C.
Like...." yes we will negotiate regarding your development.... however if the City choses this location all deals or negotiations are withdrawn."
Whether they intentionally left TDA out of the loop or this was just one of those things where one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.... quien sabe?
One thing that becomes more and more clear, on this forum, conspiracy innuendo is frowned upon.. I fault the mods for that. They allow FB to rant and rave with an answer to everything buried in a conspiracy. So much so that they become quickly annoyed by phrases like a "land grab". Which IMO was not that far fetched an idea.
The TW article regarding "eminent domain" was a slight bit of overkill on the cities behalf. I get this mental picture of a Spanish Conquistador planting a flag on the end of a long pole and declaring "this land is ours.... ours I tell you..!"
What a way for a story about baseball to play out. The All American sport......
Sgrizz... they are not making sure that they don't get stuck with a "kum-and-go across the street"...
They are making sure it is a QT..[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by TheLofts@120
To clarify, the City Council on July 10, passed the BID Assessment package to provide additional funding for the ballpark and its construction. It did not approve a master plan as some would suggest. I have spoken with some of the city councilors at length in the last few days and can say with certainty that this is not the case. The properties highlighted surrouding the stadium is what the 'donors' want to see placed into Trust, a Trust controlled by a majority of those donors having donated over $2 million, the Mayor and a downtown property owner. Jack Crowley, city planning advisor and ballpark design consultant, stated to us repeatedly that the parcel we are pursuing was not needed by the donors but simply wanted since they wanted to "control the universe" as he put it during a discussion in his office on June 17.
I seem to remember several
Tulsa World articles published on or prior to July 10th which showed the surrounding sites as part of the stadium project. There was wording to that effect in an article published around June 25th. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
I also seem to remember Councilor Martinson asking some questions about the stadium proposal and seeing responses to his questions posted prior to the July 10th Council meeting. I think that it was explained in the responses to questions 9 and 12 that the George Kaiser Family Foundation would be assisting in acquisition of adjacent "necessary" properties for the Tulsa Stadium Trust. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I did not attend the July 10th public hearing. What did the City Council actually approve? Does someone have a link to the resolution or ordinance which they can post here?
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
The TW article regarding "eminent domain" was a slight bit of overkill on the cities behalf. I get this mental picture of a Spanish Conquistador planting a flag on the end of a long pole and declaring "this land is ours.... ours I tell you..!"
Well, I think the letter from the TDA to The Lofts @ 120's attorney was more than a slight bit overkill:
"After all, the city has the right of eminent domain and can take whatever properties become necessary for its municipal purposes..."
Why was it necessary to mention eminent domain if the City has no intention of pursuing it?
Just curious though, is the TDA still basically ignoring the developers and throwing up additional roadblocks that they normally dont require? Are they negotiating in good faith as they should be?
The guy from the TDA during the Channel 8 interview, said that the 120 Loft developers had an "exclusive negotiating position" until Sept 4th. Negotiating, as far as my poor little brain understands the concept, generally requires that the 2 parties communicate? So if the TDA is ignoring the developers, that hardly qualifies as "exclusive negotiating".
Just a suggestion Will. Next time you get the opportunity to do a TV interview,,,, pull out the big guns and put your mom on. Let her go ahead and get all emotional and teary eyed... You will instantly have everyones sympathy and the whole town up in arms at how the city is treating that sweet lady. If they are going to play hard ball, you need to do so as well. I promise you, it will work.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Just curious though, is the TDA still basically ignoring the developers and throwing up additional roadblocks that they normally dont require? Are they negotiating in good faith as they should be?
The guy from the TDA during the Channel 8 interview, said that the 120 Loft developers had an "exclusive negotiating position" until Sept 4th. Negotiating, as far as my poor little brain understands the concept, generally requires that the 2 parties communicate? So if the TDA is ignoring the developers, that hardly qualifies as "exclusive negotiating".
Just a suggestion Will. Next time you get the opportunity to do a TV interview,,,, pull out the big guns and put your mom on. Let her go ahead and get all emotional and teary eyed... You will instantly have everyones sympathy and the whole town up in arms at how the city is treating that sweet lady. If they are going to play hard ball, you need to do so as well. I promise you, it will work.
LOL
Have we seen the first pitch at Westpaw Park already?
Let me call it: Low -- and very, very, VERY inside!
"How can people be so heartless?
How can people be so cruel?
Easy to be hard...
Easy to be cold..." ~ Gerome Ragni / James Rado
Oh, you poor misguided Tulsa Now Taylor toadies, you thought you were in Kwueen Kathy's Kourt. Little did you know you were just peasants to her. Reality bites.
Wilkins, you got played like a chump and milked like cereal. Maybe if you had ponied up a few million you might have had a chance. Don't you know that Tulsa is governed by the golden rule, those who have the gold make the rules?
I have laughed my donkey off reading these posts. You all are like naive little children who just found out there's no such thing as fairy godmothers. Maybe you will exercise some critical analysis before blindly co-signing Kathy Taylor's B.S. next time. Nah, you deeply deluded codependent enablers will just make excuses so you can continue in your dysfunctional state of denial, telling yourselves that mommy dearest knows best and you deserve the abuse.
Just another reason I'm proud to be an honest naysayer, instead of a dishonest cheerleader.
Cause I ain't tha one.
The one to get played like a pooh butt,
ya see I'm from the streets and I know wassup.
Street smart whiggas, don't get jacked by golddiggas.
Ya can't milk Double A, Ho, cause I ain't tha one.
(http://constitutionclub.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/champagne-4.jpg)
Woohoo! Yippee!
Three weeks after the fact, and I finally found the stadium district resolution (//%22http://www.tulsacouncil.org:8080/SuperContainer/RawData//8RAU6YY2073200810330/08-1640-1.pdf?a=1%22).
Warning: It's a 37 page file with the estimated assessments for the properties downtown.
When will the Tulsa Stadium Trust be established (if it has not been already)?
Let the champagne flow...
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Oh, you poor misguided Tulsa Now Taylor toadies, you thought you were in Kwueen Kathy's Kourt. Little did you know you were just peasants to her. Reality bites.
Wilkins, you got played like a chump and milked like cereal. Maybe if you had ponied up a few million you might have had a chance. Don't you know that Tulsa is governed by the golden rule, those who have the gold make the rules?
I have laughed my donkey off reading these posts. You all are like naive little children who just found out there's no such thing as fairy godmothers. Maybe you will exercise some critical analysis before blindly co-signing Kathy Taylor's B.S. next time. Nah, you deeply deluded codependent enablers will just make excuses so you can continue in your dysfunctional state of denial, telling yourselves that mommy dearest knows best and you deserve the abuse.
Just another reason I'm proud to be an honest naysayer, instead of a dishonest cheerleader.
Cause I ain't tha one.
The one to get played like a pooh butt,
ya see I'm from the streets and I know wassup.
Street smart whiggas, don't get jacked by golddiggas.
Ya can't milk Double A, Ho, cause I ain't tha one.
Yikes. Need to turn down that narcissism a little.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Oh, you poor misguided Tulsa Now Taylor toadies, you thought you were in Kwueen Kathy's Kourt. Little did you know you were just peasants to her. Reality bites.
Wilkins, you got played like a chump and milked like cereal. Maybe if you had ponied up a few million you might have had a chance. Don't you know that Tulsa is governed by the golden rule, those who have the gold make the rules?
I have laughed my donkey off reading these posts. You all are like naive little children who just found out there's no such thing as fairy godmothers. Maybe you will exercise some critical analysis before blindly co-signing Kathy Taylor's B.S. next time. Nah, you deeply deluded codependent enablers will just make excuses so you can continue in your dysfunctional state of denial, telling yourselves that mommy dearest knows best and you deserve the abuse.
Just another reason I'm proud to be an honest naysayer, instead of a dishonest cheerleader.
Cause I ain't tha one.
The one to get played like a pooh butt,
ya see I'm from the streets and I know wassup.
Street smart whiggas, don't get jacked by golddiggas.
Ya can't milk Double A, Ho, cause I ain't tha one.
My understanding was that autofellatio was a physical impossibility.
Guess I was wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
As I said earlier; I think this is a case of one Board or Authority not knowing the powers of the other. or something like that.
Compare this to a Realtor being unaware that the broker has certain plans for a property.
The Realtor, in good faith, opens negotiations and begins a dialogue with a perspective buyer.
Just as things get interesting... the Realtor receives a call from the broker saying "The property has been pulled from MLS and no further negotiations will be done".
The City of Tulsa ie Mayor Taylor, and whoever else was dealing with this matter knew long ago that there were certain sites that were on the table.
The fault goes to the City for not making the TDA aware that they need to attach certain conditions to negotiations in regard to site A, B, or C.
Like...." yes we will negotiate regarding your development.... however if the City choses this location all deals or negotiations are withdrawn."
Whether they intentionally left TDA out of the loop or this was just one of those things where one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.... quien sabe?
One thing that becomes more and more clear, on this forum, conspiracy innuendo is frowned upon.. I fault the mods for that. They allow FB to rant and rave with an answer to everything buried in a conspiracy. So much so that they become quickly annoyed by phrases like a "land grab". Which IMO was not that far fetched an idea.
The TW article regarding "eminent domain" was a slight bit of overkill on the cities behalf. I get this mental picture of a Spanish Conquistador planting a flag on the end of a long pole and declaring "this land is ours.... ours I tell you..!"
What a way for a story about baseball to play out. The All American sport......
Sgrizz... they are not making sure that they don't get stuck with a "kum-and-go across the street"...
They are making sure it is a QT..[;)]
Yep...heard that yesterday.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Oh, you poor misguided Tulsa Now Taylor toadies, you thought you were in Kwueen Kathy's Kourt. Little did you know you were just peasants to her. Reality bites.
Wilkins, you got played like a chump and milked like cereal. Maybe if you had ponied up a few million you might have had a chance. Don't you know that Tulsa is governed by the golden rule, those who have the gold make the rules?
I have laughed my donkey off reading these posts. You all are like naive little children who just found out there's no such thing as fairy godmothers. Maybe you will exercise some critical analysis before blindly co-signing Kathy Taylor's B.S. next time. Nah, you deeply deluded codependent enablers will just make excuses so you can continue in your dysfunctional state of denial, telling yourselves that mommy dearest knows best and you deserve the abuse.
Just another reason I'm proud to be an honest naysayer, instead of a dishonest cheerleader.
I'll remove my own personal attack here.
I understand that The Donors want to ensure that the surrounding area is developed in an "appropriate" way that maintains the integrity of the historic area, etc, etc. I do too. But, I don't see how the Lofts project and hotel would be out of scope with that goal.
My fear is that if one group controls the design of all surrouding development, we're going to get some sort of Disneyland. A bit too homogenous. A bit too controlled. A bit too "fake historic." And a bit less creative...than if we let talented individuals play a role.
By all means, create some urban design/development guidelines (for ALL of downtown!). Make additional surface parking lots illegal. Ensure that all structured parking is attractive and has ground-floor retail on all street-facing sides. Require all buildings to be built up to the sidewalks in the traditional urban layout. Limit the square footage of "blank walls" facing streets. Protect the historic/older buildings that have managed to survive Tulsa's surface parking blitzkrieg. Encourage mixed uses that will create vibrancy both day and night.
But I sure hope that whoever is in control of development near the stadium has the good sense to allow creative use of space, in addition to protecting the older buildings that remain.
Remember that the Matthews Warehouse is going to be a Contemporary Visual Arts center...not a historic warehouse. A lively array of quality architecture in the vicinity (not just fake, historic-looking infill) can easily "blend" with and compliment the historic buildings...and should be allowed.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
My fear is that if one group controls the design of all surrouding development, we're going to get some sort of Disneyland. A bit too homogenous. A bit too controlled. A bit too "fake historic." And a bit less creative...than if we let talented individuals play a role.
But the stadium project is set up as a very, very exclusive development to be controlled by a very, very exclusive Trust funded by the assessment district approved by the City on July 10th. Remember?
The surrounding land was shown and described as part of the stadium project as early as June 25th on the
Tulsa World's website (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080625_11_Thesi15817%22).
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2008/200806_drillers.jpg)
Prior the City Council vote, Bill Martinson requested more time so he could study the proposal in more detail. But six Councilors were satisfied enough with the proposal to vote for its approval. Remember?
Perhaps those six Councilors saw issues such as urban design standards as mere mouse turds that they didn't want to trip over on their way to embracing the stadium assessment district.
There was a public hearing on this issue more than three weeks ago. A majority of the Councilors were satisfied with the amount of information they were provided, I presume.
My guess is that if the major donors want the stadium project to look like Disneyland, then it will look like Disneyland. If they want tens of thousands of faux brick pavers, then there will be tens of thousands of faux brick pavers. If they want those annoying acorn street lamps up street and down alley, then they will find a way to get them installed.
The City Council has basically given the Tulsa Stadium Trust $25 million to spend as they please. What's to stop the donors from leaving Novus out in the cold? The stadium project includes The Lofts @ 120 site, but not necessarily the Lofts @ 120.
Brrrrrrr.........
(http://www.eeweems.com/capra/_imagery/_wonderful_life/pottersville_470.jpg)
Lamson ain't signed s#*t. Until that happens, nothing's legit.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Lamson ain't signed s#*t. Until that happens, nothing's legit.
I think Will needs to talk to Lamson. Lamson is one person who the donors have to listen to.
What's the ratio of public to private spending at this point for the stadium?
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
What's the ratio of public to private spending at this point for the stadium?
Could you clarify or re-phrase your question?
Do you mean the ultimate intended ratio?
Or the ratio already spent?
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
What's the ratio of public to private spending at this point for the stadium?
$30m Private (Donation)
$5m Private (Rent)
$25m Public (Improvement District)
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
What's the ratio of public to private spending at this point for the stadium?
$30m Private (Donation)
$5m Private (Rent)
$25m Public (Improvement District)
SemRon pledged 7.5 million that it doesn't look like they are gonna make good on. Did somebody else
"Step Up" to fill the gap and make up for that shortfall? Otherwise, it would seem there's 22.5 million in private donations.
Sgrizz answered my question. "Spent" was incorrect on my part; "pledged" is a better descriptor.
I'd heard that it was originally going to be funded almost exclusively by private donations, but obviously that's not true now (ie. all the back-and-forthing about the IDL tax district). Just didn't know what the current projected mix looked like.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
I'd heard that it was originally going to be funded almost exclusively by private donations, but obviously that's not true now (ie. all the back-and-forthing about the IDL tax district). Just didn't know what the current projected mix looked like.
The projected funding mix looks like this:
Donors = approximately 50%
Taxes = approximately 42%
Rent = approximately 8%
The projected control mix of the land on the west side of Elgin between Archer and Brady looks like this:
Tulsa Stadium Trust/Donors = a minimum of 100%
Will Wilkins and his mom = a maximum of zilch
This was part of the proposed stadium project discussed at a public hearing on July 10th and approved by the City Council after the hearing. Remember?
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
What's the ratio of public to private spending at this point for the stadium?
$30m Private (Donation)
$5m Private (Rent)
$25m Public (Improvement District)
SemRon pledged 7.5 million that it doesn't look like they are gonna make good on. Did somebody else "Step Up" to fill the gap and make up for that shortfall? Otherwise, it would seem there's 22.5 million in private donations.
What I was told by someone "in the know" was that Semgroup never really pledged the 7.5M. It was proposed to buy the naming rights for $7.5M but no official agreement was signed. I'm guessing this is because Semgroup realized they couldn't fulfill the obligation and got cold feet. No matter what the reason, they have almost the full $30M pledged currently and should have no issue making up the rest.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
No matter what the reason, they have almost the full $30M pledged currently and should have no issue making up the rest.
How much is almost? Just give me a
ballpark figure. They should have no problem making it up, they've been making it all up as they've gone along(manufactured deadlines, the 120 lofts as part of the proposal, etc.). Why stop now?
Lamson still ain't signed s*#t.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
No matter what the reason, they have almost the full $30M pledged currently and should have no issue making up the rest.
How much is almost? Just give me a ballpark figure. They should have no problem making it up, they've been making it all up as they've gone along(manufactured deadlines, the 120 lofts as part of the proposal, etc.). Why stop now?
Lamson still ain't signed s*#t.
I think they have 28-29M but that is just a "ballpark" guess.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
No matter what the reason, they have almost the full $30M pledged currently and should have no issue making up the rest.
How much is almost? Just give me a ballpark figure. They should have no problem making it up, they've been making it all up as they've gone along(manufactured deadlines, the 120 lofts as part of the proposal, etc.). Why stop now?
Lamson still ain't signed s*#t.
Lamson actually has signed s**t, he's signed an exclusive negotiating rights contract and he's extended it twice. If he wasn't going to sign he would have ended the process instead of extending it and he would have signed the deal with The River District in Jenks.
The last extension expires Thursday, hopefully everything will be signed and done on then Thursday and you can move on to ***** and moan about something else.
For you further information:
This morning I attended the Tulsa City Council Economic and Urban Development Committee Meeting at the request of Councilors Rick Westcott and G.T. Bynum to discuss the situation regarding the TDA's refusal to negotiate terms of a contract for the site as we had proposed for the mixed use development.
This meeting will be rebroadcast tonight I believe starting at either 10:00 or 11:00 PM on TGOV Cox Channel 24.
Additionally, News Channel 8 will be running a story to air I believe as the headline story for the 10:00PM newscast.
Michael Bates has prepared a feature story to run in this week's Urban Tulsa and I'm sure it will be a very good article highlighting a lot of information.
Tulsa World I understand will also run a piece in tomorrow's paper on today's city council meeting.
KFAQ1170's Chris Medlock I understand dedicated most of his 2 hour show today to the issue and I also understand you can listen to podcasts from their website.
Just wanting to keep you informed as to what has been transiring recently with regards to our desire to bring this quality mixed-use development to Downtown Tulsa.
Thanks
Will
Here is the KTUL story:
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0808/541697.html
quote:
The Tulsa city council is probing for answers in a developer's uphill battle to move forward with plans for a downtown building.
"120 Brady Village" would be a mixed-use development located at the corner of Archer and Elgin, directly across the street from the future site of the new ballpark.
NewsChannel 8's Burt Mummolo has been covering this story for weeks and there are still more questions than answers.
Developer Will Wilkins feels as if he's gotten the cold shoulder from the Tulsa Development Authority. It was smooth sailing before the coincidental announcement that the new ballpark would be moving in across the street. What went wrong? Tuesday the Tulsa city council got answers to half their questions.
They listened over the course of an hour, of the trials and tribulations of Will Wilkins attempt at downtown development. "I just want to find out what happened."
Councilor Rick Westcott led the questioning in an effort to find out why 120 Brady Village is facing a TDA roadblock. "Whether their reason is proper or improper they've gotta have a reason for doing that, I want to find out what it is."said Westcott
" I have not seen anything that leads me to believe the TDA is opposed to the Wilkins development."said Mayor Taylor Mayor
Taylor says she supports downtown development, and is puzzled at the perception that someone is out to kill the Wilkins deal.
"There's no.... I don't think there's any reason that to think that anyone's against the Wilkin's, That's what I, I think that stir up has been very odd."said the Mayor.
But also odd, the fact that no one from the TDA appeared at the meeting. "The TDA was not there."said Westcott Was that Surprising asked Burt ? "Very surprising."said Westcott "Did any councilors invite them? That would be my question."asked Mayor Taylor
"We don't have to call them, we've never called them in the past."said Westcott
"What's going on here? Somethings not right here." Bob Sober, retired architect and friend of Wilkins, concerned at the TDA's silence. "This thing just seems to be surrounded by secrecy and its been very disturbing."said Sober
NewsChannel 8 left a message for the TDA, but our call was not returned. We have also made an open records request for all communications pertaining to the TDA and the Wilkins development.
Is something fishy going on? Asked Burt ? "Burt, I've gotta be careful because I have only heard one side, but from what I heard today, it sure looks like something fishy is going on."said Rick Westcott
Mr. Wilkins is set to meet with the TDA on Thursday morning, at which time they may very well put an end to the exclusive negotiation deal that Wilkins currently has for the corner of Archer and Elgin. Thee city council has formally invited the TDA to appear at next week's meeting.
I'm looking forward to the articles World and Urban Tulsa. This situation has to be resolved. This situation shouldn't even be happening AT ALL, and I'm sorry that local developers trying to do good are shoved out by money. Hopefully, Will will win and the development will go forward as planned. And hopefully, it will never again be this hard for good people to do good things in this city. It's not likely, but I'm hopeful.
Here is the Tulsa World Article (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080806_16_A11_hButth528283%22)
Mayor is miffed over remarks by developer
ANGERED
Mayor Kathy Taylor: Wilkins "has made broad statements, pretty serious accusations, without understanding the facts."
By BRIAN BARBER World Staff Writer
8/6/2008
Last Modified: 8/6/2008 2:47 AM
But the developer says he stands by his e-mail regarding donors to a new baseball stadium.
Mayor Kathy Taylor has demanded that a developer retract allegations he made about her and the other donors to a proposed downtown ballpark.
Taylor said Will Wilkins of Novus Homes LLC indicated in an e-mail he circulated Friday to drum up support for his project that the donors stood to profit from the ballpark plan.
The mayor said she met privately Monday with Wilkins about the e-mail and that she had the impression that he was going to retract the statements.
"People have to be responsible for their actions," she said. "I feel like he has made broad statements, pretty serious accusations, without understanding the facts."
But Wilkins told the City Council during Tuesday's committee meetings that after reviewing the specific language of the e-mail with his attorney, he is standing behind it.
Novus entered into an exclusive negotiating period in January with the Tulsa Development Authority to pursue a mixed-use development on a half-block parcel owned by the authority, which is the real estate arm of the city.
Tulsa Development Authority officials approached Novus about the property, along the west side of Elgin Avenue between Brady and Archer streets, after previous development efforts fell through, Wilkins said.
Since then, he has spent about $15,000 putting together the project called 120 Brady Village, which includes commercial, residential and hotel components.
But once the proposed stadium site was moved nearby, all of the surrounding land fell into a master development area that ballpark backers want to control.
The George Kaiser Family Foundation is assisting in acquiring the land around the proposed stadium. It is expected to be transferred at acquisition cost to a public trust created to govern the ballpark.
All revenues the trust receives from selling or leasing the parcels for development will go toward retiring the debt on the stadium and future maintenance needs, officials have said.
Novus now has been notified by Development Authority officials that the negotiation period for the land will be terminated at a Thursday meeting.
In his e-mail, Wilkins said that "interference from the Mayor's administration and the $30 million donors have influenced the TDA to attempt to withdraw from our contract negotiations for the sole gain of the donors."
Half of the ballpark's $60 million cost has been pledged by 27 private donors. Included among them are Taylor and her husband, Bill Lobeck, through their Lobeck Taylor Foundation.
Wilkins drew a distinction for councilors that he used the word "gain," alluding to the land acquisition, not "profit."
Later in the e-mail, however, Wilkins said, "This action is a slap in the face to any developer that has a good idea in improving our downtown and Tulsa in general by saying 'you have a great idea, have spent the time and money to prove it's a great idea but now we're going to take it so we can profit from it.' "
Taylor has obtained a private attorney in the matter, Joel Wohlgemuth, but when asked by the Tulsa World whether she intends to pursue legal action against Wilkins, she said, "Not necessarily."
Taylor said it is important for everyone to realize that the way the stadium trust is structured under Oklahoma law allows for no personal benefit or profit to the donors.
She also said that she and members of her administration are not calling the shots with the Tulsa Development Authority, noting that she does not have a seat on the authority.
For their part, councilors said they weren't interested in getting involved in a "he said, she said debate."
Councilors Rick Westcott and G.T. Bynum said that what the council needs to focus on is whether the developer was treated fairly.
Councilors were frustrated that no one from the Development Authority came to their Tuesday meeting to discuss the situation.
Well he wanted to raise a stink and now he did. He didn't own the property, have a contract on it, or a pending contract on it. He has even stated that "you don't do all the engineering and construction documents until you have a contract because anything can happen" which to me means that this is not entirely unexpected.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Well he wanted to raise a stink and now he did. He didn't own the property, have a contract on it, or a pending contract on it. He has even stated that "you don't do all the engineering and construction documents until you have a contract because anything can happen" which to me means that this is not entirely unexpected.
No, it was entirely unexpected. When the TDA encouraged him to pursue this property in December, no one else was interested, they gave him an exclusive negotiating agreement, and in April they extended that exclusive negotiating period until September, stating they wouldn't be entertaining any other offers during that period. This is the point in the normal process when the TDA and the developer put a contract together.
It would be like the Drillers breaking off their exclusive negotiating deal with the City of Tulsa before it expired because Wichita was making a more enticing offer.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Well he wanted to raise a stink and now he did. He didn't own the property, have a contract on it, or a pending contract on it. He has even stated that "you don't do all the engineering and construction documents until you have a contract because anything can happen" which to me means that this is not entirely unexpected.
No, it was entirely unexpected. When the TDA encouraged him to pursue this property in December, no one else was interested, they gave him an exclusive negotiating agreement, and in April they extended that exclusive negotiating period until September, stating they wouldn't be entertaining any other offers during that period. This is the point in the normal process when the TDA and the developer put a contract together.
It would be like the Drillers breaking off their exclusive negotiating deal with the City of Tulsa before it expired because Wichita was making a more enticing offer.
And has anyone here seen the terms of this negotiating agreement to verify there isn't a clause giving TDA the right to terminate at any time?
Good afternoon all, I thought there might be some comments on here today after the council meeting yesterday, the World article this morning and the Channel 8's segment last night.
Michael, everyone I've spoken with thinks you did an outstanding job on the article btw.
Just wanted to get this forum's feedback on a thought I had this morning and have been posing around. Here it is:
The ballpark backers have maintained that the acquisition of the surrounding land is neccessary for the economics of the ballpark's construction and future maintenance - on top of the $60 Million gathered from the private donations, BID Assessment package and the Driller's lease. Peter Boylan has been reported in a Tulsa World article (entitled "Area Around Stadium Key, Aide Says" from 7/13/2008) as suggesting "that all revenues the Trust receives from selling or leasing the parcels for development will go toward retiring the debt on the stadium and future maintenance costs."
If this is in fact necessary for the economics of the stadium to work, what prevents those same backers from purchasing any other property within close proximity, or within the IDL in general, with the same set up that any revenues generated goes to the same function? Why can they not go one block to the South and acquire the 3.5 AC South of McNellie's, or the red brick warehouse to the West of McNellie's, or the TDA owned parcels to the West or the South of where the old TDA office on Greenwood was?
The simple explaination that is the most probable is that the site we began negotiating on is what the backer's billed as the "million dollar seat" at the BID presentation at the Summit Club on June 27th. This is the single most valuable parcel of land surrounding the stadium, according to the HOK Sports presenter, since it will have a direct view of right hand field made even more spectacular with the ballpark being a sunken field.
If the backer's were only looking at purchasing land for revenue generation as suggested, why not purchase those other lands I mentioned and in doing so, help further redevelopment in the Blue Dome or other areas and still meet the economics they say they need?
Of course, one might argue, why dont I do that? Well, the simple answer is, why should I have to if I was in line first? If the ballpark project does not move forward, my development in the area still will. Just thought I'd clear that up before anyone else asked.
I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Guess those that you snickered at on that Thursday evening are now getting the last laugh.
Still want to play with your buddies[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by TheLofts@120
I'd be interested in your thoughts.
I think you're not getting that parcel of land, since TDA has screwed you out of your contract negotiations and you have no other real legal recourse. It's too valuable and people with more sway than you have their eyes on it. Ostensibly, this is because any profit to be made from development of that land will be going to pay down the ballpark and end the assessment earlier, rather than enrich a private entrepreneur such as yourself.
I think that it might be worth reevaluating other possibilities while you continue to leverage this positive PR to the hilt. Get TDA to give you a piece of property nearby for a price that will result in comparable return. If you can get a sweet enough deal through some kind of "parcel exchange," at least you'll be made whole financially.
Other option is to somehow work out a situation where your plans are incorporated into the "Ballpark Trust" plans. The problem, of course, is ownership and profits. Don't know if that could be worked out or not. Private control of the development of a land parcel would probably require a much higher sum, payable to the trust for stadium construction.
Who knows--these are just my ramblings off the top of my head.
So, the Trust wants to acquire the land from TDA so they can sell it to Will for more than he'd pay now, so he'd be paying for $700,000 (guessing) of the stadium. If the deal went through before the Trust was created, the X amount of dollars would go uncollected and another donor would have to step up.
?
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
...Get TDA to give you a piece of property nearby for a price that will result in comparable return. If you can get a sweet enough deal through some kind of "parcel exchange," at least you'll be made whole financially.
Other option is to somehow work out a situation where your plans are incorporated into the "Ballpark Trust" plans. The problem, of course, is ownership and profits. Don't know if that could be worked out or not. Private control of the development of a land parcel would probably require a much higher sum, payable to the trust for stadium construction.
Very sound advice.
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries
So, the Trust wants to acquire the land from TDA so they can sell it to Will for more than he'd pay now, so he'd be paying for $700,000 (guessing) of the stadium. If the deal went through before the Trust was created, the X amount of dollars would go uncollected and another donor would have to step up.
?
No, I think the Trust wants to acquire the land from TDA so they can develop it themselves and rent the new commercial space to Will's future tenants. By definition, any profits made by the Trust from said rent would be used to pay down the debt on the ballpark.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries
So, the Trust wants to acquire the land from TDA so they can sell it to Will for more than he'd pay now, so he'd be paying for $700,000 (guessing) of the stadium. If the deal went through before the Trust was created, the X amount of dollars would go uncollected and another donor would have to step up.
?
No, I think the Trust wants to acquire the land from TDA so they can develop it themselves and rent the new commercial space to Will's future tenants. By definition, any profits made by the Trust from said rent would be used to pay down the debt on the ballpark.
But why should there be any debt on the ballpark? A 6,000 seat AA ballpark can be built for not much more than $30 million -- Arvest Ballpark in Springdale, Ark., was just finished for $32 million. The donors have pledged $30 million; $5 million will come from the Drillers. That's enough to cover the ballpark, even without the $25 million from the assessment district. Why do they need any other revenues?
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries
So, the Trust wants to acquire the land from TDA so they can sell it to Will for more than he'd pay now, so he'd be paying for $700,000 (guessing) of the stadium. If the deal went through before the Trust was created, the X amount of dollars would go uncollected and another donor would have to step up.
?
No, I think the Trust wants to acquire the land from TDA so they can develop it themselves and rent the new commercial space to Will's future tenants. By definition, any profits made by the Trust from said rent would be used to pay down the debt on the ballpark.
But why should there be any debt on the ballpark? A 6,000 seat AA ballpark can be built for not much more than $30 million -- Arvest Ballpark in Springdale, Ark., was just finished for $32 million. The donors have pledged $30 million; $5 million will come from the Drillers. That's enough to cover the ballpark, even without the $25 million from the assessment district. Why do they need any other revenues?
Because they're control freaks? I don't know. Either that, or the ballpark they're building is going to cost more like $45 million and the excess $15 million would be for development and eventual profit. Seems quite excessive to me, though.
Ball park, what ballpark? Lamson still ain't signed s*#t. We gonna build a ballpark without a team to play there?
quote:
Originally posted by TheLofts@120
I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Has the Tulsa Stadium Trust been established yet? If not, I think you might have three City Councilors on your side already. If you could gain a fourth ally on the Council, perhaps the formation of the Trust could be stalled or perhaps it simply could never be created at all. See Oklahoma Statutes, Title 60, Section 176. A. 3.
If the Trust has been established already, perhaps you could convince four Councilors to not allow the Trust to take on any debt involved in the purchase of the land west of Elgin between Archer and Brady. See Title 60, Section 176. E.
Perhaps somehow you can demonstrate that if the Trust exists for the public benefit, running off developers such as yourself is not a benefit to the public. See Section 176.1. A. 1.
Nothing about this sounds like TDA is honoring the exclusivity part of the negotiation deal.
Does it matter that this developer has a less than stellar development record?
Lots of foreclosures and lots of lawsuits with this guy. I think the TDA did good to get away from these people.
Removed OSCN link as it was altering the page frame and does not appear to be related to "this" Will Wilkins.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries
So, the Trust wants to acquire the land from TDA so they can sell it to Will for more than he'd pay now, so he'd be paying for $700,000 (guessing) of the stadium. If the deal went through before the Trust was created, the X amount of dollars would go uncollected and another donor would have to step up.
?
No, I think the Trust wants to acquire the land from TDA so they can develop it themselves and rent the new commercial space to Will's future tenants. By definition, any profits made by the Trust from said rent would be used to pay down the debt on the ballpark.
But why should there be any debt on the ballpark? A 6,000 seat AA ballpark can be built for not much more than $30 million -- Arvest Ballpark in Springdale, Ark., was just finished for $32 million. The donors have pledged $30 million; $5 million will come from the Drillers. That's enough to cover the ballpark, even without the $25 million from the assessment district. Why do they need any other revenues?
That has always been an interesting question. I thought that this wasnt going to be your run of the mill ballpark. That it would have retail etc. as part of the stadium itself. I would rather there not be a ballpark there if it didnt have ground floor retail on the main E-W street. I had also thought that there was a chance that there would be a museum as part of the ballpark as well. But, doesnt look like there is going to be a Micky Mantle museum, and havent heard anything about the ballpark being partialy "wrapped" with other development. Unless I just missed it, I havent heard the reasoning for the 60mill figure laid out.
I'm new to this forum but I've been reading this thread for awhile. I can't believe how everyone was on this bandwagon without thinking this through. This guy has been very vague about financing. A project this size must cost over $25 million - where is he's getting the money? Any business can tell you that there is a credit crunch and its extremely hard to get financing. Also, why would anyone in their right mind buy a loft or even stay in a hotel in that area before a stadium was planned? What hotel chain would want to be in an area that was old warehouse buildings? And why won't he disclose the hotel name? Just some food for thought. I was hoping that retail and restaurants would go in that prime space by the stadium instead of lofts.
Michael Bates is wrong about the baseball park at Springdale. It cost $60 million not $32 million. That includes the stadium, dirt work, infrastructure, land, etc. Call the contractor and verify.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFuture
I'm new to this forum but I've been reading this thread for awhile. I can't believe how everyone was on this bandwagon without thinking this through. This guy has been very vague about financing. A project this size must cost over $25 million - where is he's getting the money? Any business can tell you that there is a credit crunch and its extremely hard to get financing. Also, why would anyone in their right mind buy a loft or even stay in a hotel in that area before a stadium was planned? What hotel chain would want to be in an area that was old warehouse buildings? And why won't he disclose the hotel name? Just some food for thought. I was hoping that retail and restaurants would go in that prime space by the stadium instead of lofts.
Its a mixed use building. The first floor would have retail and restaurants. It would have BOTH lofts and retail/restaurants. Not to mention there is still pleeeenty of development potential for those things across the street to the south. The hotel came on board after the ballpark was announced and was the same group that these developers worked with for the Atlas Life hotel.
Yes, but where is his money coming from? Did you see the post above from Tulsaresearcher? Everyone was jumping off and writing to the mayor when there is more to this meets the eye.
I would still rather have the proceeds from the property go to the stadium trust to be used to keep the stadium vibrant and first class than to give it to a questionable developer to line his pockets. Just my opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFuture
Michael Bates is wrong about the baseball park at Springdale. It cost $60 million not $32 million. That includes the stadium, dirt work, infrastructure, land, etc. Call the contractor and verify.
Funny how all the anonymous trolls are coming out of the woodwork the night before the TDA meeting....
Northwest Arkansas Times, April 8, 2008 (//%22http://www.nwarktimes.com/story.php?paper=nwat§ion=Editorial&storyid=63944%22):
quote:
From the $ 105 million bond program for road construction approved by Springdale voters in 2003 to Thursday night's premier of the Northwest Arkansas Naturals at Arvest Ballpark - a $ 32 million public facility approved by just 13 votes in July 2006 - voters in Springdale are taking extraordinary steps to move past the city's blue-collar image and full-steam ahead into the 21 st century.
Topeka Capitol Journal, April 20, 2008 (//%22http://blogs.cjonline.com/index.php?entry=7079%22)
quote:
But Springdale, Ark., is betting its minor league baseball venture has all of the correct variables after building a $32 million stadium to lure the Royals' team out of Wichita.
Arvest Ballpark opened April 10 in Springdale with 7,820 fans to witness the Northwest Arkansas Naturals' debut against San Antonio.
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, June 8, 2008 (//%22http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2008/jun/08/springdale-hashes-out-ballpark-maintenanc-20080608/?print%22)
quote:
The lights are bright and the grass is green at Arvest Ballpark.
Hailed as the premier venue in Springdale, the ballpark caters to the beer-and-burger crowd in the stands as well as the cocktail set in the luxury suites.
Elected officials and business leaders say the ballpark is proof that a new day is dawning in traditionally working-class Springdale.
But the question remains: Does the city have enough money to keep its $32 million diamond polished?
Springdale approved $50 million in bonds which covered the ballpark, plus street and sewer improvements in the area around the ballpark. The construction contract for the ballpark was for $32.1 million. (Northwest Arkansas Times, October 5, 2007. (//%22http://nwanews.com/nwat/Sports/57904/%22))
quote:
The Naturals, the double-A affiliate of the Kansas City Royals, will play their first game in the new venue April 10 of next year. A tour of the construction site Thursday revealed the progress made since the city of Springdale awarded the $32.1-million contract to Crossland Construction of Kansas in June.
Ehh -- if we've learned one thing in this city, it's that we need really do need a damn plan before letting something as important as this be developed piece by piece just because someone has a bright idea. I hate to defend anything TDA does, and God knows they've handled the situation craptastically as usual, but really, the discussions with The Lofts started before the ballpark was a done deal, and, it is -- and darn well should be -- "a whole new ball game now."
At this point, it would be completely inappropriate for them to follow through with him just because he was "first in line" without ensuring that the project is the right piece in the right spot and he's the right guy to do it.
IF a development like this what's needed, he should be given the same opportunity as anyone else to compete to develop it, IF he has the background/financing/experience/etc. in place to make a success of it. That seems to be doubtful considering he's never done anything like it and if he is the guy in the court link posted above, he seems to have had a lot of problems meeting commitments in the past (and yikes! he must spend an awful lot of time in court!). But to me, that's not the issue now -- getting a good plan in place should be the priority.
I appreciate the attention Tulsa Now brings to development issues like this in general, but I get frustrated with the willingness by a lot of the leaders here to be all gung ho in support of certain projects without really vetting them thoroughly. I'm no development expert, so I'm not going to claim to know what needs to be built around the ballpark to best bolster its chances of success, but I sure as hell hope SOMEONE who knows what they are doing is working on a plan!
quote:
Originally posted by Tulsareseacher
Does it matter that this developer has a less than stellar development record?
OSCN link removed due to problems with page frame and apparently not relevant to "this" Will Wilkins
Lots of foreclosures and lots of lawsuits with this guy. I think the TDA did good to get away from these people.
That doesn't make alot of sense because Will is no more than 35 yrs. old and some of those first cases date back to 86...that would make him all of 13. But lets say he's 40 that still puts him at 18 when that started. Maybe that's his dad.
Yes the stadium could be built for $32 million but that did not include dirt work, utilities brought to the site, parking lots or drive ways. The stadium would sit in a field without electricity or access. Our 40 million includes utilities, etc. I know people involved in that stadium. You asked why we couldn't build a stadium for $32mil and I answered your question.
You needn't be sarcastic about it - I am not a troll and I don't know anything about a meeting tomorrow. I am tired of people being negative nancys about everything!!
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFuture
Yes the stadium could be built for $32 million but that did not include dirt work, utilities brought to the site, parking lots or drive ways. The stadium would sit in a field without electricity or access. Our 40 million includes utilities, etc. I know people involved in that stadium. You asked why we couldn't build a stadium for $32mil and I answered your question.
You needn't be sarcastic about it - I am not a troll and I don't know anything about a meeting tomorrow. I am tired of people being negative nancys about everything!!
Crossland had a contract for $32.1 million to build a ballpark. Can you link to some online source that says they received more money than that? Doesn't a construction contract usually involve the whole job?
You don't offer any backup for your assertion that Arvest Ballpark cost $60 million, and as an anonymous poster who just now turned up, you don't have any credibility here. Tell us your name and what you do for a living before you expect any of us to believe you know what you're talking about.
The George Kaiser Family Foundation has set up another real estate entity (GKFF Real Estate II, LLC) to acquire the property at 2 North Elgin. It was specifically set up to acquire the properties surrounding the site for the ballpark. This property is going to be donated to a Title 60 Trust but my understanding is it's being set up through Tulsa Community Foundation, not TDA. Although I don't think there is much of a difference.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFuture
Yes the stadium could be built for $32 million but that did not include dirt work, utilities brought to the site, parking lots or drive ways. The stadium would sit in a field without electricity or access. Our 40 million includes utilities, etc. I know people involved in that stadium. You asked why we couldn't build a stadium for $32mil and I answered your question.
You needn't be sarcastic about it - I am not a troll and I don't know anything about a meeting tomorrow. I am tired of people being negative nancys about everything!!
Mayor Taylor?
quote:
I am tired of people being negative nancys about everything!!
The negative nancies are those engaging in very literal backroom politics. They are tone deaf to the needs and expectations of the citizens of Tulsa. They think that their cadre of "stakeholders" can develop the entire ballpark district alone, and they have no idea how wrong they are. You'd think that they would have learned their lesson by now, particuarly after the river debacle--Tulsans don't want to be spoon-fed these things. It's not that much to ask for public, open decision making and a climate where individual developers not already sitting on some board somewhere have a chance to make a meaningful contribution to the redevelopment of downtown. Until the "leaders" of Tulsa figure this out, development downtown and everywhere is going to be stifled, stilted and poorly planned.
I don't know who you are, but you seem to put all your trust in this clique of wealthy, insulated Tulsans who are convinced that their way is the right way and everyone else should get out of the way. This is the same crew who wanted islands in the river and couldn't understand why everyone else thought they were idiots. They aren't infallible and are too often completely out in left field regarding their vision for Tulsa.
I do agree with the comment about this forum being full of negative nancies.
I don't know why it has been this way lately. Maybe it is the heat, maybe it has been the road construction everywhere I drive, maybe it is all President Bush's fault.
But everybody seems to be accusatory, defensive, suspicious and angry.
Negativity...I'm against it.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFuture
Yes the stadium could be built for $32 million but that did not include dirt work, utilities brought to the site, parking lots or drive ways. The stadium would sit in a field without electricity or access. Our 40 million includes utilities, etc. I know people involved in that stadium. You asked why we couldn't build a stadium for $32mil and I answered your question.
You needn't be sarcastic about it - I am not a troll and I don't know anything about a meeting tomorrow. I am tired of people being negative nancys about everything!!
Crossland had a contract for $32.1 million to build a ballpark. Can you link to some online source that says they received more money than that? Doesn't a construction contract usually involve the whole job?
You don't offer any backup for your assertion that Arvest Ballpark cost $60 million, and as an anonymous poster who just now turned up, you don't have any credibility here. Tell us your name and what you do for a living before you expect any of us to believe you know what you're talking about.
Michael, I question it as well, but I suppose there is a possibility that another company could have been contracted for the dirt work and site improvements and Crossland had the contract for the "sticks and bricks."
Crossland has the capability to do a turn-key job including underlying infrastructure, so I'd question the nature of a split contract on this.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Michael, I question it as well, but I suppose there is a possibility that another company could have been contracted for the dirt work and site improvements and Crossland had the contract for the "sticks and bricks."
Crossland has the capability to do a turn-key job including underlying infrastructure, so I'd question the nature of a split contract on this.
I thought Tulsa Hills was split like this.
I think what gets people about this particular topic is that we can all imagine it being us. We can empathize with these developers.
Many of us want to see downtown thriving. We want small developers to go in and take a chance. We can imagine putting in the hard work, money and time Will did. Create a dream, take a risk, do everything your supposed to be doing..... we can then also imagine how it would feel to be suddenly pushed aside, all that work effort and dreams dashed. That would feel horrible.
They were generous enough to reach out and try to work with the ballpark donors. But what they got was a cold shoulder. That would hurt. We can imagine that being us.
Its one thing for the donors and the TDA to get what they want. But the way they went about it in this instance was frankly mean spirited and immoral. They havent reached out to the Wilkenses in any way that I have seen. "Can we help you find some other property in or nearby this ballpark area?" "Perhaps we can work together to improve your development to help it fit our vision?" There are all kinds of possibilities where both could have helped the other. I seems that the developer was reaching out and then getting snubbed. And thats just absurd.
As for the donors having a say in what gets built around the ballpark and there being no "profit" in it for them. Well we all know how much distrust there is in this town. So what about conflict of interest? Do they now get to decide which developer develops there? Developers they like and not the ones they dont? Contractors, businesses, supplier, etc. they like or have ties with, not the ones they dont?
I want the ballpark down there. I want to have great development around it. We have seen as one plan after another has fallen through for one reason or another and can imagine the frustration, we all feel it, and the desire to get it done whatever it takes once and for all... But the way this is going down stinks. This all could be handled in a much much better way. And its being set up in such a fashion that it will CONTINUE to be a source of frustration and anger for years and years to come. There is going to be constant suspicion of cozy dealings with the donors being able to offer up choice spaces to their friends or associated interests. They may not "profit" directly, but they can indirectly.
I just came from the TDA Board meeting. The item on the agenda was to be a discussion regarding Novus Homes Exclusive Negotiating Agreement. It was pushed to the top of the list to discuss as several media were present to cover.
End result was the Board voted 3 in favor and 2 abstaining (after our request to recuse themselves). I had requested that George Shahadi, VP Real Estate for Williams (Donor); Mr. John Clayman, attorney for Dorwart Law Firm (listed player by Tulsa World); and Ms. Paula Bryan-Ellis, recent appointee and with BOKF (Donor) in Community Development and the BOK Vice President to whom we had presented our project, at their request, back in February for possible financing and inclusion into the New Market Tax Credit Program.
On hand from media were Channel 6, Channel 8, Tulsa World, KFAQ's Chris Medlock and Urban Tulsa's Michael Bates. I'm sure you will get a third party perspective from many of these sources so I wont go into much here.
I regret the TDA took this step today, there was nothing to be lost in allowing the original time frame of September 4 to complete negotiations. Of course, negotiations require two willing parties to have dialogue and we have never received that from the TDA staff, attorney, board or any other individual.
Their biggest argument was that they did not have all the information regarding the ballpark plans and how that would relate to this parcel of land. My opinion is that when an authority is charged, as the TDA is, to do what's in the best interest of the public, and it does not take it upon themselves to ask the pertinent questions and get the information they need while having a negotiation, they have failed in their duty to perform.
Again, it's unfortunate that they took this decision which sends a very clear and negative message to other potential developers as to how they could be treated.
I also want to clarify one very important thing in regards to the posts by 'newbies' (yes, I know, I am one too)TulsaResearcher and TulsaFuture regarding purported financial informtion on myself. This is not my financial information at all. There are other William Wilkins within the Tulsa community. I am 34 years old and would have had to been about 6 when some of this information was reported. Myself and my company are in good standing financially and this has afforded us several opportunities to work with the TDA in the past. I was made aware of the source of this information on Tuesday afternoon just prior to an interview. I also made Michael Bates aware of it that evening but chose not to reply on this thread so as to not tip off those that intended to use this information against me at the meeting this morning.
As a Tulsa developer, it is still my intention to pursue my options on this matter and also to continue to find areas within the IDL and the City of Tulsa on which to develop. I still firmly believe in this city and the potential it has for economic growth and redevelopment.
My public releasing of any information has been in the interest of keeping all involved and aware of what has been taking place so that perhaps positive changes can eventually result. I would still encourage each of you to make your voices heard at every opportunity to help this great city flourish.
Again, thank you to all of you that have provided support over the last several months. I will go so far as to say that 120 Brady Village is not dead and we will be looking at our options as we move forward. There will be a city council meeting on this issue again next Tuesday at 10:00 at old City Hall.
Will
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I do agree with the comment about this forum being full of negative nancies.
I don't know why it has been this way lately. Maybe it is the heat, maybe it has been the road construction everywhere I drive, maybe it is all President Bush's fault.
But everybody seems to be accusatory, defensive, suspicious and angry.
Negativity...I'm against it.
Personal attack removed. Please make your point without impugning other members of this forum.
I'm sorry Will. I hope you will find another downtown spot for this development (lots of empty parking lots over at 10th and Cheyenne/Denver or around TCC). You have more support for this type of developement than you think, too bad its public support not city support.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Only when you are not he one spewing it or it is about the administration that you are a toadie for. You are a walking contradiction, you ain't got no right. Maybe it's da Mare's fault.
Speaking of accusatory, defensive, suspicious and angry...
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
I'm sorry Will. I hope you will find another downtown spot for this development (lots of empty parking lots over at 10th and Cheyenne/Denver or around TCC). You have more support for this type of developement than you think, too bad its public support not city support.
Unfortunately, the land around 10th and Cheyenne and Denver is owned by Twenty First Properties / Embark, and they don't seem to want to do much with it. And TCC seems quite happy with its surface parking lots.
This is a decided hose-job in my books. Entrepreneurs like David Sharp, Pete Mayo, Michael Sager, Elliot Nelson, etc. are largely responsible for the Brady area and near environs being viable now. I thnk Will's project is in the same spirit as those who showed early faith in the area and hate to see this taken from him.
Can we get someone to clean up that huge oscn link? it is making the thread a pain in the donkey to read... or is it just me?
Tulsa Development Authority ends negotiations on project in proposed ballpark area (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080807_1__TheTu15863%22)
- [Tulsa World]
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
Tulsa Development Authority ends negotiations on project in proposed ballpark area (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080807_1__TheTu15863%22)
- [Tulsa World]
quote:
Before the vote, an emotional Taylor said she wants the bickering to stop.
"What's happening in our city right now is an attempt at the destruction of each other instead of lifting each other up," said the mayor, who was near tears.
Everyone interested in downtown revitalization should have a seat at the table, Taylor said. But the future development around the ballpark site has to amount to "a beautifully woven fabric."
Wow.
Honestly? Get it together. How tone deaf can she be? It's not hard to see how this narrative has developed. At least counter the narrative with a prepared statement regarding the specific plans/intentions of this "trust" and perhaps an offer of inclusion. Don't cry about destruction and beautiful fabrics--give the entrepreneurs some credit for their vision. How about a multicolored quilt, instead
of a "beautiful fabric?"
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Only when you are not he one spewing it or it is about the administration that you are a toadie for. You are a walking contradiction, you ain't got no right. Maybe it's da Mare's fault.
Speaking of accusatory, defensive, suspicious and angry...
Righteous indignation and condemnation of the naked tyranny of Empress Kathy's and Emperor Kaiser's evil fascist empire. It's like Martin Luther at the Castle Church door or Jesus in the temple casting out the pharisees. Both great naysayers of their time, btw. Ya better believe it, babe.
If you're having girl problems, I feel bad for ya son.
I've got 99 problems, but being Kathy Taylor's b#*ch ain't one.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Only when you are not he one spewing it or it is about the administration that you are a toadie for. You are a walking contradiction, you ain't got no right. Maybe it's da Mare's fault.
Speaking of accusatory, defensive, suspicious and angry...
Righteous indignation and condemnation of the naked tyranny of Empress Kathy's and Emperor Kaiser's evil fascist empire. It's like Martin Luther at the Castle Church door or Jesus in the temple casting out the pharisees. Both great naysayers of their time, btw. Ya better believe it, babe.
If you're having girl problems, I feel bad for ya son.
I've got 99 problems, but being Kathy Taylor's b#*ch ain't one.
Personal attack removed.
Save yourself Floyd.
At this point he is obsessed with me. He will attack me in any thread on any topic. Making him blather about you is not worth it.
Wait a minute, did he just compare himself writing on TulsaNow to Martin Luther and Jesus?
Much as it pains the moderator, personal attack on AA removed.
It's this August heat. I'm going after the Mayor on one side and the "Voice of the Oppressed" on the other. Maybe I'll go eat a popsicle and get off teh internets for a while.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
This is a decided hose-job in my books. Entrepreneurs like David Sharp, Pete Mayo, Michael Sager, Elliot Nelson, etc. are largely responsible for the Brady area and near environs being viable now. I thnk Will's project is in the same spirit as those who showed early faith in the area and hate to see this taken from him.
But how sold out are the above and will they speak out for Will if not?????
quote:
Originally posted by unknown
Can we get someone to clean up that huge oscn link? it is making the thread a pain in the donkey to read... or is it just me?
You're welcome. Thank you for identifying the problem!
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Only when you are not he one spewing it or it is about the administration that you are a toadie for. You are a walking contradiction, you ain't got no right. Maybe it's da Mare's fault.
Speaking of accusatory, defensive, suspicious and angry...
Righteous indignation and condemnation of the naked tyranny of Empress Kathy's and Emperor Kaiser's evil fascist empire. It's like Martin Luther at the Castle Church door or Jesus in the temple casting out the pharisees. Both great naysayers of their time, btw. Ya better believe it, babe.
If you're having girl problems, I feel bad for ya son.
I've got 99 problems, but being Kathy Taylor's b#*ch ain't one.
God you're an idiot.
(http://www.cinemanet.sk/fotky/2004/napoleondynamite/1.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
Tulsa Development Authority ends negotiations on project in proposed ballpark area (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080807_1__TheTu15863%22)
- [Tulsa World]
quote:
Everyone interested in downtown revitalization should have a seat at the table, Taylor said. But the future development around the ballpark site has to amount to "a beautifully woven fabric."
Taylor expressed disappointment with what surrounds the new BOK Center, citing the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office and Storey Wrecker.
With the proposed ballpark, "the time to address this is now," she said.
I recall a lengthy thread on this forum right after the Vision 2025 vote about the best location for the arena. Many people remarked about the drawbacks of the site that was chosen. I think someone even suggested the site now being discussed as the ballpark site, because it was close to existing entertainment areas and OSU-Tulsa.
The way to address the concern about nearby future development is first to pick a site that is already near the kind of development you want -- they've done that by picking the Archer/Elgin site -- and, second, to establish a special zoning district around the ballpark with design and development standards and a means for enforcement. Oklahoma City established such a district in and around Bricktown.
Design standards for downtown were part of the Downtown Tulsa CORE Recommendations (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/news/CORE_Proposals.pdf%22):
quote:
District One of the City of Tulsa's Comprehensive Plan, the Central Business District (CBD), is a district that deserves special consideration; as such, we should develop District Standards for design review to ensure compatible, high-quality development and redevelopment. Recommendations of the existing Comprehensive Plan for District One (downtown) such as district design standards and review should be revisited for present use and coordinated with the Comprehensive Plan Update.
When the CORE Recommendations came under attack from a major downtown property owner and from DTU, Mayor Taylor might have supported the idea and helped to move it forward. Instead, her aide, Susan Neal, encouraged the recommendations to be shelved.
Michael,
Not playing devil's advocate here, just relaying one aspect of ball park costs which will be a higher cost than Springdale if we contract now to build it.
According to one of our vendors, steel prices have gone up by 87% since Jan. 1 this year. I believe it's about double what it was a year ago. There is a possibility of prices falling this fall, but that has been rumored since spring that steel prices would retreat and they have not as of yet.
Our finished product costs have gone up in the neighborhood of 15 to 33% this year, depending on the vendor. Most of what we sell are labor-intensive finished goods, that's why the price of the product itself has not nearly doubled with the price of steel. My shipping costs have about doubled in a year also on any truck freight we ship around the country.
So, there's one other reason to consider why our ballpark may wind up costing more, along with higher diesel costs for construction equipment than what they would have been paying on the project in Springdale. Unfortunately, with out of control commodity markets, it makes it a lot harder to compare costs from one recent finished project to one which would be finished in a couple of years. At least without the help of a scientific calculator. [;)]
IOW- it's not out of the question that we might spend 20 to 30% more to construct an identical ballpark if land aquisition costs and every other variable were identical to that of the Springdale park, based on today's prices for materials and fuel.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
I'm sorry Will. I hope you will find another downtown spot for this development (lots of empty parking lots over at 10th and Cheyenne/Denver or around TCC). You have more support for this type of developement than you think, too bad its public support not city support.
Unfortunately, the land around 10th and Cheyenne and Denver is owned by Twenty First Properties / Embark, and they don't seem to want to do much with it. And TCC seems quite happy with its surface parking lots.
That sucks. Will come on up to Uptown. Boulder Towers has more parking lots than it needs. You can build on both sides of 15th between Carson and Cheyenne.
I still dont get what they apparently expect is going to happen around the ballpark? What is it that the TDA thinks is going to be better that the Wilkinsons couldnt improve their development to be like or that could go in those other spaces nearby? This finely woven fabric, is that to be one huge developer? Many small ones? If its the former I can understand wanting a lot of land because thats one of the reasons previous developments have fallen through because they couldnt get all the property they needed. But here they are saying they will use eminent domain and there is other property by the 120 lofts site that can be used. If its small developments.... what are the criteria such that the 120 lofts are not a good fit anywhere in the development area? Cause surely the 120 loft people would have traded for another spot if it was deemed that the spot they have now is "needed" to make everything work.
Nothing the TDA or the Mayor is saying makes any sense. Sounds like they are grasping at straws or are just completely oblivious.
They are giving us this "Why cant we all get along and do whats best for everyone and the city." plea. But its been them who have shoved aside the hand the Wilkinsons had been extending in order to try to find a fair, sporting, "gentlemanly" solution. Someone should have said to the Wilkinsons... "Hey, we really feel like we need that spot in order for this project to work. Here is why.... We know you have done a lot of work so far, can we work together and (find another spot in the development, or make design changes, or collaborate on making it better to fit what we think is needed, etc. etc.) There are all kinds of possibilities that would have been the proper way to go.
I was brought up that if you make an agreement, say your going to do something. You abide by that, even if it becomes difficult to do so, even if you become hurt by doing so. You keep your word! Even if its not written, you do the right thing by people. These developers were there first, were doing the right things, and whether anyone else likes it or not, whether its convenient or not. You do the right thing by them, and for yourself. Not to mention in this case there are plenty of opportunities to work this out for the benefit of everyone. Not just blow them off and treat them like dirt.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
I'm sorry Will. I hope you will find another downtown spot for this development (lots of empty parking lots over at 10th and Cheyenne/Denver or around TCC). You have more support for this type of developement than you think, too bad its public support not city support.
Unfortunately, the land around 10th and Cheyenne and Denver is owned by Twenty First Properties / Embark, and they don't seem to want to do much with it. And TCC seems quite happy with its surface parking lots.
That sucks. Will come on up to Uptown. Boulder Towers has more parking lots than it needs. You can build on both sides of 15th between Carson and Cheyenne.
Its not just a matter of finding any ol spot thats available. The 120 lofts wasnt just lofts, it was also wanting to be part of a walkable, pedestrian friendly area with its shops and restaurants on the ground floor. It may have been wanting to be the first step in such an area, but it was in an area that had good potential for "reinforcing" compatible development to go around it. Where other similar development was likely to follow. Unfortunately 15th street in that location, isnt likely to see that kind of development in a long long time, if ever. You can argue that, but if you were the developer and it was your time and money, you might be more careful with your arguments. Also they now potentially have a hotel as part of their development, it too will want to be near the activity, so to speak.
I think the 120 lofts project would do well just about anywhere in the Greenwood/Blue Dome/Brady Arts, areas. And the TDA and the donors should be doing the right thing since they werent willing to let the 120 lofts project continue in the old location. Whether they believe its for the "greater good" or not. They should still do the right thing by these developers.
These donors for instance, are prominent leaders in our community. They should be leading, setting a good example, and treating people fairly and magnanimously. Especially towards those who, like themselves, are trying to do good things for Tulsa.
One question...?
I know of the infill development that Novus has done in Brady Heights... very nice.
Part of the "disclosure statement/redevelopment proposal ,provided by TDA, wants to know of "three recent commercial or residential projects completed by the redeveloper and the dates of completion."
Furthermore; they request the name and address of the lending institutions utilized by the developer for the past projects.?
The lending institution and contact for the proposed redevelopment.?
The name address etc. of the person directly in charge of of the construction and completion of the proposed redevelopment..?
Just wondering.....
if you or I were filling this out.... Or one of the builders I am acquainted with were to fill this out.... and there just was not a comparable project with the info submitted.
How far of a reach would it be for the folks to request the following?
quote>Two days later, Leon Davis E-mailed Will Wilkins with a list of 20 items that they must provide to TDA attorney Darven Brown by the Sept. 4 deadline.
The list includes a number of items that they had never seen the TDA request prior to a development contract: "Proposed construction sequencing/phasing.... Preliminary engineering study.... Letter(s) of commitment [from financiers].... Operating pro forma for first 5 years."
Most of these items would be dependent on the completion of construction documents for the project, a process that would involve spending about $400,000 with architects and engineers, too much money to put at risk with no assurance of a contract.<end quote.
Finally.... Did Novus tell TDA they would not provide TDA with the info without a contract in place?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Michael,
Not playing devil's advocate here, just relaying one aspect of ball park costs which will be a higher cost than Springdale if we contract now to build it.
According to one of our vendors, steel prices have gone up by 87% since Jan. 1 this year. I believe it's about double what it was a year ago. There is a possibility of prices falling this fall, but that has been rumored since spring that steel prices would retreat and they have not as of yet.
Our finished product costs have gone up in the neighborhood of 15 to 33% this year, depending on the vendor. Most of what we sell are labor-intensive finished goods, that's why the price of the product itself has not nearly doubled with the price of steel. My shipping costs have about doubled in a year also on any truck freight we ship around the country.
So, there's one other reason to consider why our ballpark may wind up costing more, along with higher diesel costs for construction equipment than what they would have been paying on the project in Springdale. Unfortunately, with out of control commodity markets, it makes it a lot harder to compare costs from one recent finished project to one which would be finished in a couple of years. At least without the help of a scientific calculator. [;)]
IOW- it's not out of the question that we might spend 20 to 30% more to construct an identical ballpark if land aquisition costs and every other variable were identical to that of the Springdale park, based on today's prices for materials and fuel.
Every year the price of steel has risen lately. For some reason alot of the parks built are still close to the same and not 20% to 30% more than the year before parks.
Rico, thanks for the compliments regarding the residences built in Brady Heights. I have always felt it important to keep high-quality, design conscious infill in mind when developing or redeveloping in any particular area.
With regards to your questions, the TDA was provided the "disclosure statement/redevelopment proposal" on January 2, 2008, when we first entered into the exclusive negotiation agreement/period. It included all the requested information you referred to. Additionally, I have completed 3 residential infill projects directly with the TDA over the last 3 years. We also proposed a commercial/office complex just North of Pine & Cincinnatti last year, but that fell through when we could not gain a consensus among the surrounding homeowners when it came to the design and we didnt want to upset anyone.
TDA was made aware of our primary lender as they were also the lender in all 3 direct transactions. Additionally, I had informed TDA's Leon Davis at the April 17, 2008, meeting that I had letters of interest from that lender (ONB) as well as BOK. He said they werent needed at that time. I did also state on the record during the meeting that those institutions were interested in the financing of the project (this was detailed in the meeting minutes). The letters would have provided TDA with all the contact information.
With regards to who would be directly responsible for the project, that was listed as myself.
With regards to the 20 item list provided by Mr. Davis on July 9, 2008...During the previous day's meeting, the Board had only requested a ground level site plan. Then an email with this request for 20 items was received. 25% of the list had already been provided, 2 items spoke to my personal finances (which is personal and invasive to even ask), not my company's. The rest of the items are items that are standardly included in their base contract for redevelopment where a timeline is given to provide that information. This information is gather at considerable cost and after an executed contract is considered to be a risk the developer is willing to take when all parties act in good faith. Please bear i nmind that most of the items, in particular the personal financial ones, have never been asked of any developer prior to and never been a consideration on any previous land purchase and redevelopment project I have done with the TDA. Also, to the best of my knowledge, none of this information was asked of the American REsidential Group for Ttribune II. In fact, they were allowed to contract before providing any exterior elevations, site plans, financials, etc. Just to put this entire 'negotiation' in perspective.
Again, the balance of information requested is a typical condition of their standard executed contract and we stated as much to them. We went so far as to draft a contract using their form to spur negotiation and dialogue, all to no avail. The requirement for negotiaton is that you have two willing parties that can come to the table and negotiate the various terms of the contract. In this case, there was no such communication forthcoming from the TDA at all though we made several attempts.
Hope this helps answer your questions Rico.
Thanks
Will
Thanks for the response Will.
All I can say is it appears that TDA left themselves with quite a bit of "wiggle" room..
Just how stupid is the legal department for the City of Tulsa?
They put their foot in it and although they can wipe it off....the smell is still there.
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by TheLofts@120
Rico, thanks for the compliments regarding the residences built in Brady Heights. I have always felt it important to keep high-quality, design conscious infill in mind when developing or redeveloping in any particular area.
With regards to your questions, the TDA was provided the "disclosure statement/redevelopment proposal" on January 2, 2008, when we first entered into the exclusive negotiation agreement/period. It included all the requested information you referred to. Additionally, I have completed 3 residential infill projects directly with the TDA over the last 3 years. We also proposed a commercial/office complex just North of Pine & Cincinnatti last year, but that fell through when we could not gain a consensus among the surrounding homeowners when it came to the design and we didnt want to upset anyone.
TDA was made aware of our primary lender as they were also the lender in all 3 direct transactions. Additionally, I had informed TDA's Leon Davis at the April 17, 2008, meeting that I had letters of interest from that lender (ONB) as well as BOK. He said they werent needed at that time. I did also state on the record during the meeting that those institutions were interested in the financing of the project (this was detailed in the meeting minutes). The letters would have provided TDA with all the contact information.
With regards to who would be directly responsible for the project, that was listed as myself.
With regards to the 20 item list provided by Mr. Davis on July 9, 2008...During the previous day's meeting, the Board had only requested a ground level site plan. Then an email with this request for 20 items was received. 25% of the list had already been provided, 2 items spoke to my personal finances (which is personal and invasive to even ask), not my company's. The rest of the items are items that are standardly included in their base contract for redevelopment where a timeline is given to provide that information. This information is gather at considerable cost and after an executed contract is considered to be a risk the developer is willing to take when all parties act in good faith. Please bear i nmind that most of the items, in particular the personal financial ones, have never been asked of any developer prior to and never been a consideration on any previous land purchase and redevelopment project I have done with the TDA. Also, to the best of my knowledge, none of this information was asked of the American REsidential Group for Ttribune II. In fact, they were allowed to contract before providing any exterior elevations, site plans, financials, etc. Just to put this entire 'negotiation' in perspective.
Again, the balance of information requested is a typical condition of their standard executed contract and we stated as much to them. We went so far as to draft a contract using their form to spur negotiation and dialogue, all to no avail. The requirement for negotiaton is that you have two willing parties that can come to the table and negotiate the various terms of the contract. In this case, there was no such communication forthcoming from the TDA at all though we made several attempts.
Hope this helps answer your questions Rico.
Thanks
Will
Will, I'm staggered. What you are bringing to the table is exactly what most of the people on this forum are looking for. Rebuilding homes in Brady Heights that compliment the style of existing structures, proposed mixed use developments in the Brady District that combine residential, entertainment, and retail. I wish more developers had your vision. We dream but you do.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Thanks for the response Will.
All I can say is it appears that TDA left themselves with quite a bit of "wiggle" room..
Just how stupid is the legal department for the City of Tulsa?
They put their foot in it and although they can wipe it off....the smell is still there.
[}:)]
Oooh, that smell!
Can't ya smell that smell?
Just scratch the surface and sniff, it's an overpowering odor of the oligarchy, alright.
Somebody should market B.S. scented Kathy Taylor scratch-n-sniffs [:D]
Someone else decided they want to do this project and Mr. Wilkins is getting the old end around.....Pretty sad...But it happens alot in this town.....
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Someone else decided they want to do this project and Mr. Wilkins is getting the old end around.....Pretty sad...But it happens alot in this town.....
Well, at least they could give him a courtesy reach-around while they are doing that...
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Michael,
Not playing devil's advocate here, just relaying one aspect of ball park costs which will be a higher cost than Springdale if we contract now to build it.
According to one of our vendors, steel prices have gone up by 87% since Jan. 1 this year. I believe it's about double what it was a year ago. There is a possibility of prices falling this fall, but that has been rumored since spring that steel prices would retreat and they have not as of yet.
Our finished product costs have gone up in the neighborhood of 15 to 33% this year, depending on the vendor. Most of what we sell are labor-intensive finished goods, that's why the price of the product itself has not nearly doubled with the price of steel. My shipping costs have about doubled in a year also on any truck freight we ship around the country.
So, there's one other reason to consider why our ballpark may wind up costing more, along with higher diesel costs for construction equipment than what they would have been paying on the project in Springdale. Unfortunately, with out of control commodity markets, it makes it a lot harder to compare costs from one recent finished project to one which would be finished in a couple of years. At least without the help of a scientific calculator. [;)]
IOW- it's not out of the question that we might spend 20 to 30% more to construct an identical ballpark if land aquisition costs and every other variable were identical to that of the Springdale park, based on today's prices for materials and fuel.
Every year the price of steel has risen lately. For some reason alot of the parks built are still close to the same and not 20% to 30% more than the year before parks.
Not near as steep as this year, nor coupled with out-of-control fuel prices.
From the outside I see this:
A developer is getting SCREWED! This should NOT be able to happen. It seems to me that this developer was in place first with his plans and then TDA comes in and decides to push him aside.
IMO the ballpark downtown is stuuuupid.
Who goes to Tulsa Drillers games anyway? Come on who?
Leave the damn thing where it is. OR look far far ahead and see it on the banks of the river in Jenks surrounded by an amusement park.
Downtown is not really the place.
There is no parking for all those people who DONT go to the games anyway.
Let The Brady?BlueDome districts continue to "self develop"!!!! That way they will surrvive w/out some head up _ss "council" "authority" screwing it up.
Any council or authority involvement is kiss of death or it seems so in recent past.
Private capitalism wins everytime. Here's what authorities and councils need to concentrate on:
Streets and schools.
But what do I know?
I do not know the developer and am not familar with his recent past projects but he got Shanghai'd on this. I hope some clarity strikes a firebrand hero w/ some vision on some of these "councils/authorities".
Their collective vision is apparent just consider this past story: concern mounts over stains on BOk Center...duh! build a building that has sloped exterior walls...of course it will have stains running down the walls...who didnt know this?...Iam using that to attempt to make a broader point...it seems experience is bending to something besides common actual knowledge. ( I think it's a cool looking building; but knew/pretty sure it would have blemishes on the outside).
It's like the powers that be are trying to throw a party with out proper planning...the results are horrific.
let the flaming begin.
quote:
Originally posted by ARGUS
From the outside I see this:
A developer is getting SCREWED! This should NOT be able to happen. It seems to me that this developer was in place first with his plans and then TDA comes in and decides to push him aside.
IMO the ballpark downtown is stuuuupid.
Who goes to Tulsa Drillers games anyway? Come on who?
Leave the damn thing where it is. OR look far far ahead and see it on the banks of the river in Jenks surrounded by an amusement park.
Downtown is not really the place.
There is no parking for all those people who DONT go to the games anyway.
Let The Brady?BlueDome districts continue to "self develop"!!!! That way they will surrvive w/out some head up _ss "council" "authority" screwing it up.
Any council or authority involvement is kiss of death or it seems so in recent past.
Private capitalism wins everytime. Here's what authorities and councils need to concentrate on:
Streets and schools.
But what do I know?
I do not know the developer and am not familar with his recent past projects but he got Shanghai'd on this. I hope some clarity strikes a firebrand hero w/ some vision on some of these "councils/authorities".
Their collective vision is apparent just consider this past story: concern mounts over stains on BOk Center...duh! build a building that has sloped exterior walls...of course it will have stains running down the walls...who didnt know this?...Iam using that to attempt to make a broader point...it seems experience is bending to something besides common actual knowledge. ( I think it's a cool looking building; but knew/pretty sure it would have blemishes on the outside).
It's like the powers that be are trying to throw a party with out proper planning...the results are horrific.
let the flaming begin.
You asked for it...
I'm guessing your residential zip code is 74037...or maybe even 74137
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by ARGUS
let the flaming begin.
You asked for it...
I'm guessing your residential zip code is 74037...or maybe even 74137
Meh, what's the point?
quote:
Originally posted by ARGUS
From the outside I see this:
A developer is getting SCREWED! This should NOT be able to happen. It seems to me that this developer was in place first with his plans and then TDA comes in and decides to push him aside.
IMO the ballpark downtown is stuuuupid.
Who goes to Tulsa Drillers games anyway? Come on who?
Leave the damn thing where it is. OR look far far ahead and see it on the banks of the river in Jenks surrounded by an amusement park.
Downtown is not really the place.
There is no parking for all those people who DONT go to the games anyway.
Let The Brady?BlueDome districts continue to "self develop"!!!! That way they will surrvive w/out some head up _ss "council" "authority" screwing it up.
Any council or authority involvement is kiss of death or it seems so in recent past.
Private capitalism wins everytime. Here's what authorities and councils need to concentrate on:
Streets and schools.
But what do I know?
I do not know the developer and am not familar with his recent past projects but he got Shanghai'd on this. I hope some clarity strikes a firebrand hero w/ some vision on some of these "councils/authorities".
Their collective vision is apparent just consider this past story: concern mounts over stains on BOk Center...duh! build a building that has sloped exterior walls...of course it will have stains running down the walls...who didnt know this?...Iam using that to attempt to make a broader point...it seems experience is bending to something besides common actual knowledge. ( I think it's a cool looking building; but knew/pretty sure it would have blemishes on the outside).
It's like the powers that be are trying to throw a party with out proper planning...the results are horrific.
let the flaming begin.
What's to flame? You speak the truth.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Someone else decided they want to do this project and Mr. Wilkins is getting the old end around.....Pretty sad...But it happens alot in this town.....
Well, at least they could give him a courtesy reach-around while they are doing that...
That's what I'm saying--his best option now is to push for another parcel in the district.
I'll be interested to see what kind of hotel goes in on that corner, and who puts the deal together. And if Kathy Taylor cries about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Someone else decided they want to do this project and Mr. Wilkins is getting the old end around.....Pretty sad...But it happens alot in this town.....
Well, at least they could give him a courtesy reach-around while they are doing that...
That's what I'm saying--his best option now is to push for another parcel in the district.
I'll be interested to see what kind of hotel goes in on that corner, and who puts the deal together. And if Kathy Taylor cries about it.
Curious if it might be the hotel originally rumored for the old city hall site. Wonder if that would still be built.
As usual I'm going to be a bit contrarian. I notice the developer does not seem too steamed. That's curious. You guys are more angry than he is! Maybe he's more realistic.
We are nurtured on a fantasy that involves a fellow having a good idea, investing hard work and money into it and then reaping a huge bonanza for his efforts. We're impressed when someone does their homework, acts on a hunch and buys the one little parcel of land that the huge corporation neglected to buy before announcing Disneyland is moving in. Thats the dream. Get the big payoff for the better mousetrap or the savvy buy.
The problem is that it mostly happens in folklore, in the movies, on a small scale, or by someone who already has tons of power. Edison stole much of his success from Tesla after hiring him firing him and working to destroy him. That's reality.
But here's the thing. Novus was apparently still in the negotiation phase and TDA wasn't negotiating much. In steps huge amounts of money behind a new stadium but part of the deal is control over outlying parcels. Remember, government is about overwhelming, incontrovertible CONTROL. Its the language of power. If you don't control, you don't have power. When decisions are made in the future applying to this stadium area, they don't want to have to ask Novus for their opinion or permission. They don't appreciate or respond very well to those who ascribe to the fantasy of the little guy.
Realistically, this is too big a committment of money to keep negotiations open and allow a smaller player to jump in. Not saying any of this is right, but its closer to reality.
Exclusive: Drillers stadium deadline comes - no deal yet (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080808_11_Thee628386%22)
Lamson ain't signed s#*t.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
As usual I'm going to be a bit contrarian. I notice the developer does not seem too steamed. That's curious. You guys are more angry than he is! Maybe he's more realistic.
We are nurtured on a fantasy that involves a fellow having a good idea, investing hard work and money into it and then reaping a huge bonanza for his efforts. We're impressed when someone does their homework, acts on a hunch and buys the one little parcel of land that the huge corporation neglected to buy before announcing Disneyland is moving in. Thats the dream. Get the big payoff for the better mousetrap or the savvy buy.
The problem is that it mostly happens in folklore, in the movies, on a small scale, or by someone who already has tons of power. Edison stole much of his success from Tesla after hiring him firing him and working to destroy him. That's reality.
But here's the thing. Novus was apparently still in the negotiation phase and TDA wasn't negotiating much. In steps huge amounts of money behind a new stadium but part of the deal is control over outlying parcels. Remember, government is about overwhelming, incontrovertible CONTROL. Its the language of power. If you don't control, you don't have power. When decisions are made in the future applying to this stadium area, they don't want to have to ask Novus for their opinion or permission. They don't appreciate or respond very well to those who ascribe to the fantasy of the little guy.
Realistically, this is too big a committment of money to keep negotiations open and allow a smaller player to jump in. Not saying any of this is right, but its closer to reality.
He is one of the most laid back people you will meet....It would be out of character for him to be steamed....
And we were all worried about Wally World...
Any body need a reason to boycott the Drillers..?
One just fell in your lap.
TulsaNow carries a lot of muscle when they speak to the Mayor... Don't let anyone tell you any different.
I hope they have made their concerns regarding this action well known at City Hall.
This will change the entire "weave of the fabric" Kathy..
We will have a Faux square block of the best density $money$ can buy.
Aye H20 Disneyland this...[}:)]
Novus is smart. Aye, had I been that smart at 34. He lives to fight another day with allies who once smited him. He knows to pick his battles well.
I hope Kathy's "planned development" around the stadium is better than Main Mall.
YO HOSS....wrong. Yo YO I be livin' in the 105 beeeyactch!
quote:
Originally posted by ARGUS
YO HOSS....wrong. Yo YO I be livin' in the 105 beeeyactch!
close enough to Jenks still...that was my whole point was that you lived further south with your Jenks comments.
Although you do sound a little like you might be 'livin in the 105..beeotch'.
[:O]
quote:
The city and the Tulsa Drillers late Friday agreed to a 10-day extension of exclusive negotiations to move the Double A baseball team downtown.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080808_11_Thee628386
Anyone keeping track of the number of "final deadlines." initially it was May. Than July. Then today. Now we are on to the 18th. 2 balls, 2 strikes and a foul on the development.
Still no men on base, no runs scored (ie. stadium built), and my guess is a recorded error (discourage future developers).
Still disappointed. I waited to hear the "other side" and it was essentially "we are not screwing 120 so others can profit." They never really explained why then they ARE screwing 120 lofts.
Did I miss something? Blah blah TDA's decision. Comprehensive development. Mixed use density. Blah blah. Control.
Ok, great. What in this development lacks those aspects and what can be done to resolve it?
No wonder Bass Pro and all that came with it is in Broken Arrow, the aquarium and major retail developments are now in Jenks, the 66ers are in Bixby, and Bell's will be popping up soon in a suburb near you. Did I mention AA will be having layoffs, several startups have left, and even a couple oil companies moved jobs recently? The suburbs are having massive population growth as Tulsa is stagnant. The schools had a scandal. North Tulsa is still festering. The old city hall and other buildings sit empty. The New City Hall lacks tenants required to make it profitable (ignoring the fact we are STILL paying for other buildings). There has been NO development around the BOk center but-for a small local restaurant. And there has been no good city-driven good news on the job front (eg bringing a new company to town, getting an existing company to do a major expansion, etc.) But at least we finally fixed the streets.
What the hell has Tulsa's government done for us lately?If anyone in government is reading this, I don't have the answers. That's why I elected you. Figure something out. What we are currently doing isn't working.
This is why I vote for Paul Tay. How much worse could he be? And that's a sad, sad statement. At least he would be entertaining.
[edit]PS. Did I mention the people in the comments section of the World are mostly idiots with NO CLUE what they are talking about. "Nothing to do downtown..." "No one goes downtown..." "600 people at Drillers games on free-ticket night..." "Traffic is horrible (after a sporting event, no!)." [/edit]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
...snipped for brevity...
[edit]PS. Did I mention the people in the comments section of the World are mostly idiots with NO CLUE what they are talking about. "Nothing to do downtown..." "No one goes downtown..." "600 people at Drillers games on free-ticket night..." "Traffic is horrible (after a sporting event, no!)." [/edit]
Hmm...when did FB start posting in the comments section?
[:O]
Here's the problem:
From Batesline, where he quotes survey results from PLANiTULSA, where they did a survey of citizens and their perceptions of being included in Tulsa's planning:
quote:
Despite the broad agreement over priorities, the survey revealed a widespread perception of a disconnect between leaders and citizens. These problems were felt most keenly in north, east, and west Tulsa.
"City leaders in Tulsa understand my community's needs." Fifty-two percent of Midtowners and 48 percent of south Tulsans agreed with that statement, but only 27 percent of Northsiders and Westsiders did. Citywide, the statement polled 39 percent agreement, a stunning statement of no confidence in city leadership.
"I do not feel included in the planning process. People like me are always left out." Majorities agreed in north (59 percent), east (52 percent), and west Tulsa (51 percent). Fewer than a third of Midtowners (32 percent) and Southies (31 percent) agreed. Sixty percent of non-whites agreed, versus 38 percent of whites. Forty-four percent was the overall total.
"I'm concerned the plan will be too influenced by those who have a lot of money." Seventy percent of Tulsans agreed with that statement, which received strongest support from Northsiders (80 percent), Westsiders (74 percent), and Eastsiders (71 percent). The statement received a lower level, but still a majority, of support in south Tulsa and Midtown--about 60 percent.
Rather called the skepticism about carrying out the plan "pervasive." It came up both in the in-depth interviews and in the broader survey polling. She said, "A lot of people feel like it doesn't matter how you plan. Folks that have a lot of money, or a lot of influence get to do what they want."
Rather characterized what she was hearing from Tulsans about the planning: "We engage in the public process, we go to these meetings, we do the hard work, but at the end of the day our expectations are not met." She urged action to ensure that this plan has a real chance to avoid that fate.
From the Tulsa World. The last paragraph talks about the forming of the trust:
quote:
Backers of the proposed downtown baseball stadium are targeting properties around the ballpark for quality, mixed-use development, said Pete Boylan, an adviser to Mayor Kathy Taylor.
"One of the things we're trying to ensure is that we get a first-class entertainment district built because if we don't have things for people to do here at night, they're not going to come," he said.
Last week, the City Council approved a downtown assessment district as a funding mechanism that should secure $25 million in funds for a $60 million ballpark that will be home to the Tulsa Drillers, the city's Double A baseball team.
Private donors, some of which put the ballpark proposal together, have committed $30 million, while backers say another $5 million would come from the Drillers' lease.
Tuesday is the deadline on an exclusive negotiation agreement between the city and Drillers owner Chuck Lamson.
The proposed baseball stadium will be located in the historic Greenwood District on land owned by Tulsa Development Authority, a city trust. The stadium would nestle against Interstate 244, bounded by Elgin Avenue and Archer Street and abutting the backside of the stores and offices along Greenwood Avenue.
The district sits between the Blue Dome and Brady districts, which have seen private entertainment and restaurant development.
The properties that will be included in the overall ballpark project total about 3 1/2 city blocks. They are directly west and south of the stadium and are primarily privately owned.
Boylan, who has helped lead the effort on the ballpark project, said the $60 million cost includes the baseball field and the properties.
He said the surrounding area is needed because "the actual site the city owns is too small to house everything needed to make this project work."
Across the country ballparks that have been successful in attendance and as a "driver to generate sales tax revenues and revitalization" include more than just a stadium, he said.
Boylan said the Greenwood site is about one half the size of the original stadium site proposed for the East Village area.
"We have to get control of these properties so that we have a large enough footprint to effect a quality venue," he said. "The last thing we want is seedy stuff around the stadium. A trip to the ballpark needs to be a good family experience."
The stadium is being designed for multiple purposes, ranging from youth soccer to festivals when the Drillers are not playing. The Drillers host 70 home games from April to August.
Boylan said one donor is buying the identified parcels, which will be donated to a public trust that will be created to govern the ballpark.
A list of answers to questions asked by City Councilor Bill Martinson states that the George Kaiser Family Foundation agreed to assist in the acquisition of property for the benefit of the trust. The foundation will transfer the property to the trust at its acquisition cost.
All revenues the trust receives from selling or leasing the parcels for development will go toward retiring the debt on the stadium and future maintenance needs.
"When folks enter the area from different directions of downtown we want them to enter a very cool place where all ages can find something to do," Boylan said.
The concept is to have multilevel developments that provide space, but don't obstruct the views of the downtown skyline from the stadium.
Just south of the John Hope Franklin Reconciliation Park will be a visitors center to help tell the story of the historic Greenwood District, Boylan said.
"Next to it we hope to have a baseball museum, maybe Mickey Mantle," he said.
In one area to the south will be a courtyard with a fountain, he said.
The street-level space of the developments would be designated for a mix of restaurants, retail and bars — "the type of businesses that generate sales tax revenue," Boylan said. The state prevents collection of sales tax on professional sports tickets, he said.
"When you cruise over here we want it to be a whole experience, especially with the stadium being a sunken bowl," he said.
Upper-floor development will vary depending on location. He said it is anticipated the space would be apartments and condos with terraces overlooking the stadium. There also could be potential office and development of a hotel, he said.
Boylan said the trust wants to ensure that the development, whether it involves renovation of existing structures or new construction, fits with the local charm and architectural scheme of the baseball stadium.
The trust will be created under state law and be subject to open meeting laws. It will have seven trustees including the mayor, a downtown property owner and five donors who gave more than $2 million to the ballpark project.
Looks to me the survey was dead-on correct. Doesn't matter what the citizens want, it comes down to those who gave $2M and what they want.
HELLO? City Hall? You listening?
I guess not.
And one more thing.... Since the Mayor is the Mayor, and the Mayor's personal foundation has donated $$ to the ballpark, and the Mayor sits on the ballpark trust.... does a conflict of interest ever arise?
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Here's the problem:
From Batesline, where he quotes survey results from PLANiTULSA, where they did a survey of citizens and their perceptions of being included in Tulsa's planning:
quote:
Despite the broad agreement over priorities, the survey revealed a widespread perception of a disconnect between leaders and citizens. These problems were felt most keenly in north, east, and west Tulsa.
"City leaders in Tulsa understand my community's needs." Fifty-two percent of Midtowners and 48 percent of south Tulsans agreed with that statement, but only 27 percent of Northsiders and Westsiders did. Citywide, the statement polled 39 percent agreement, a stunning statement of no confidence in city leadership.
"I do not feel included in the planning process. People like me are always left out." Majorities agreed in north (59 percent), east (52 percent), and west Tulsa (51 percent). Fewer than a third of Midtowners (32 percent) and Southies (31 percent) agreed. Sixty percent of non-whites agreed, versus 38 percent of whites. Forty-four percent was the overall total.
"I'm concerned the plan will be too influenced by those who have a lot of money." Seventy percent of Tulsans agreed with that statement, which received strongest support from Northsiders (80 percent), Westsiders (74 percent), and Eastsiders (71 percent). The statement received a lower level, but still a majority, of support in south Tulsa and Midtown--about 60 percent.
Rather called the skepticism about carrying out the plan "pervasive." It came up both in the in-depth interviews and in the broader survey polling. She said, "A lot of people feel like it doesn't matter how you plan. Folks that have a lot of money, or a lot of influence get to do what they want."
Rather characterized what she was hearing from Tulsans about the planning: "We engage in the public process, we go to these meetings, we do the hard work, but at the end of the day our expectations are not met." She urged action to ensure that this plan has a real chance to avoid that fate.
From the Tulsa World. The last paragraph talks about the forming of the trust:
quote:
Backers of the proposed downtown baseball stadium are targeting properties around the ballpark for quality, mixed-use development, said Pete Boylan, an adviser to Mayor Kathy Taylor.
"One of the things we're trying to ensure is that we get a first-class entertainment district built because if we don't have things for people to do here at night, they're not going to come," he said.
Last week, the City Council approved a downtown assessment district as a funding mechanism that should secure $25 million in funds for a $60 million ballpark that will be home to the Tulsa Drillers, the city's Double A baseball team.
Private donors, some of which put the ballpark proposal together, have committed $30 million, while backers say another $5 million would come from the Drillers' lease.
Tuesday is the deadline on an exclusive negotiation agreement between the city and Drillers owner Chuck Lamson.
The proposed baseball stadium will be located in the historic Greenwood District on land owned by Tulsa Development Authority, a city trust. The stadium would nestle against Interstate 244, bounded by Elgin Avenue and Archer Street and abutting the backside of the stores and offices along Greenwood Avenue.
The district sits between the Blue Dome and Brady districts, which have seen private entertainment and restaurant development.
The properties that will be included in the overall ballpark project total about 3 1/2 city blocks. They are directly west and south of the stadium and are primarily privately owned.
Boylan, who has helped lead the effort on the ballpark project, said the $60 million cost includes the baseball field and the properties.
He said the surrounding area is needed because "the actual site the city owns is too small to house everything needed to make this project work."
Across the country ballparks that have been successful in attendance and as a "driver to generate sales tax revenues and revitalization" include more than just a stadium, he said.
Boylan said the Greenwood site is about one half the size of the original stadium site proposed for the East Village area.
"We have to get control of these properties so that we have a large enough footprint to effect a quality venue," he said. "The last thing we want is seedy stuff around the stadium. A trip to the ballpark needs to be a good family experience."
The stadium is being designed for multiple purposes, ranging from youth soccer to festivals when the Drillers are not playing. The Drillers host 70 home games from April to August.
Boylan said one donor is buying the identified parcels, which will be donated to a public trust that will be created to govern the ballpark.
A list of answers to questions asked by City Councilor Bill Martinson states that the George Kaiser Family Foundation agreed to assist in the acquisition of property for the benefit of the trust. The foundation will transfer the property to the trust at its acquisition cost.
All revenues the trust receives from selling or leasing the parcels for development will go toward retiring the debt on the stadium and future maintenance needs.
"When folks enter the area from different directions of downtown we want them to enter a very cool place where all ages can find something to do," Boylan said.
The concept is to have multilevel developments that provide space, but don't obstruct the views of the downtown skyline from the stadium.
Just south of the John Hope Franklin Reconciliation Park will be a visitors center to help tell the story of the historic Greenwood District, Boylan said.
"Next to it we hope to have a baseball museum, maybe Mickey Mantle," he said.
In one area to the south will be a courtyard with a fountain, he said.
The street-level space of the developments would be designated for a mix of restaurants, retail and bars — "the type of businesses that generate sales tax revenue," Boylan said. The state prevents collection of sales tax on professional sports tickets, he said.
"When you cruise over here we want it to be a whole experience, especially with the stadium being a sunken bowl," he said.
Upper-floor development will vary depending on location. He said it is anticipated the space would be apartments and condos with terraces overlooking the stadium. There also could be potential office and development of a hotel, he said.
Boylan said the trust wants to ensure that the development, whether it involves renovation of existing structures or new construction, fits with the local charm and architectural scheme of the baseball stadium.
The trust will be created under state law and be subject to open meeting laws. It will have seven trustees including the mayor, a downtown property owner and five donors who gave more than $2 million to the ballpark project.
Looks to me the survey was dead-on correct. Doesn't matter what the citizens want, it comes down to those who gave $2M and what they want.
HELLO? City Hall? You listening?
I guess not.
So five people who personally gave over two million each and a downtown property owner (which would have to be Kanbar since he owns almost half the space downtown) and our elected mayor will serve on the trust.
The Donors are paying for most of the cost of the stadium outright, they deserve a seat. Williams and Kanbar own well over half of downtown and will pay the majority of downtown assessment tax (plus Williams was a major donor as well).
God forbid the people actually paying for the stadium would want a say how it's done.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
So five people who personally gave over two million each and a downtown property owner (which would have to be Kanbar since he owns almost half the space downtown) and our elected mayor will serve on the trust.
The Donors are paying for most of the cost of the stadium outright, they deserve a seat. Williams and Kanbar own well over half of downtown and will pay the majority of downtown assessment tax (plus Williams was a major donor as well).
God forbid the people actually paying for the stadium would want a say how it's done.
We're talking two different things here. I agree... name the stadium Taylor Stadium for all I care. Or name it after all the big donors (Although, since the taxpayers are the largest donors, I'll want my name up there too). But these big money people also want to control all the land around the stadium, which they do not own (yet). That is the problem.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Or name it after all the big donors (Although, since the taxpayers are the largest donors, I'll want my name up there too).
Wilbur Field?
All the taxpayers are not paying for it. Just the property owners in a three square mile area. Do you own property in the inner dispersal loop?
Those in the three mile area are going to benefit. Maybe we should name it after them.
Three Mile Park? Is that too close to Three Mile Island (a closed nuclear plant)?
Swake usually I agree with just about everything you have to comment on... and I agree with you that the "Donors" have every right to say how the ballpark is done.
However; when they wish to have control of the surrounding area that goes a step too far.
Where exactly does the reign of the Trust begin
and end. Maybe it is spelled out in the Trust documents...
Far be it for an Authority or some other City of Tulsa creation to overstep their boundaries as laid out in their documents of formation.
Maybe in the future they may require land for expansion...?
This whole thing stinks to high heaven...
For all I care you can take the Drillers to Jenks with the planned development..
I believe the next logical step to a really nice Downtown development will be the "Gated Community Lofts" that will accompany the square block of faux fashionable urban density.....
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Or name it after all the big donors (Although, since the taxpayers are the largest donors, I'll want my name up there too).
Wilbur Field?
All the taxpayers are not paying for it. Just the property owners in a three square mile area. Do you own property in the inner dispersal loop?
Those in the three mile area are going to benefit. Maybe we should name it after them.
Three Mile Park? Is that too close to Three Mile Island (a closed nuclear plant)?
Those properties within that 3 miles are mostly businesses, who pass along business costs to their customers. The taxpayers are their customers, thus, taxpayers are footing the bill.
Call it what you want. Government placing a 'fee' (without even being able to vote for it, which is a whole other issue) upon a group of people is a tax.
Just to bring you up to date. There will be a 10:00am meeting of the Tulsa City Council tihs mcing Tuesday at old City Hall, Rm 201. The Council has asked that the TDA appear to answer questions they have regarding their actions in the this entire ordeal.
I have posed this to the Council and hope that they will address it at Tuesdays meeting:
The ballpark backers have maintained that the acquisition of the surrounding land is neccessary for the economics of the ballpark's construction and future maintenance - on top of the $60 Million gathered from the private donations, BID Assessment package and the Driller's lease. Peter Boylan has been reported in a Tulsa World article (entitled "Area Around Stadium Key, Aide Says" from 7/13/2008) as suggesting "that all revenues the Trust receives from selling or leasing the parcels for development will go toward retiring the debt on the stadium and future maintenance costs."
If this is in fact necessary for the economics of the stadium to work, what prevents those same backers from purchasing any other property within close proximity or within the IDL in general with the same set up that any revenues generated goes to the same function? Why can they not go one block to the South and acquire the 3.5 AC South of McNellie's, or the red brick warehouse to the West of McNellie's, the TDA owned parcels to the West or the South of where the old TDA office on Greenwood was?
The simple explaination that is the most probable is that the site we began negotiating on is what the backer's billed as the "million dollar seat" at the BID presentation at the Summit Club on June 27th. This is the single most valuable parcel of land surrounding the stadium since it will have a direct view of right hand field made even more spectacular with the ballpark being a sunken field.
If the backer's were only looking at purchasing land for revenue generation as suggested, why not purchase those other lands I mentioned and in doing so, help further redevelopment in the Blue Dome or other areas and still meet the economics they say they need?
Please let me know your thoughts on this.
Thanks, Will
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Or name it after all the big donors (Although, since the taxpayers are the largest donors, I'll want my name up there too).
Wilbur Field?
All the taxpayers are not paying for it. Just the property owners in a three square mile area. Do you own property in the inner dispersal loop?
Those in the three mile area are going to benefit. Maybe we should name it after them.
Three Mile Park? Is that too close to Three Mile Island (a closed nuclear plant)?
Those properties within that 3 miles are mostly businesses, who pass along business costs to their customers. The taxpayers are their customers, thus, taxpayers are footing the bill.
Call it what you want. Government placing a 'fee' (without even being able to vote for it, which is a whole other issue) upon a group of people is a tax.
There's famously very little retail downtown. By far most of the customers of businesses downtown are not local as those are national and international businesses. What little retail that currently exists are the very businesses that stand to gain the most. They aren't going need to raise prices.
Rico,
I understand what you are saying, I would like to see a couple of average citizens added to the trust. And I would also like a statement to the effect that they would like the 120 lofts project to be part of the development in some way, somewhere. But I also think it wise to step back since the scope and use of the area is now changing dramatically. The lofts project is the kind of project we want downtown, but it's also likely that next to the stadium may no longer be the best location. It might be, but some thought and planning need to go into this before that step is taken.
And I don't think this stinks, I think it's finally a step towards planning the area around an attraction before we build. Unlike what has happened with the arena. It's going to take years to develop that area and we don't really have any idea what is going to develop there. The city has zero control of that area. With no real design or use standards a developer can build almost anything right next door. That was very poor planning by LaFortune, again. Land cost for the arena should have included most of the surrounding surface lots and unused buildings. If that had happened, we might be opening a new hotel with the arena on the Towerview site instead of waiting on the old city hall to be leveled so that we have some marketable land for a hotel and then only after the arena opens.
The Lofts -
They can't purchase other property because if you already build the top notch mixed use development you are talking about, they won't be able to profit from the other property as much.
Simple and the only reason I can think of. They want control and input, fine. Then why aren't they setting guidelines and making sure you follow them instead of just saying no?
Taylor can say I'm a conspiracy theorist all she wants (dismiss the public much?), but her explanation does not fit with the actions taken. This is a simple matter of money. The TDA thinks they can make more money with that land in their pocket than with your development on it. Perhaps they think it's altruistic if that money is then used for Tulsa debt retirement, but it still isn't right.
Keep fighting the good fight.
quote:
Originally posted by TheLofts@120
If this is in fact necessary for the economics of the stadium to work, what prevents those same backers from purchasing any other property within close proximity or within the IDL in general with the same set up that any revenues generated goes to the same function? Why can they not go one block to the South and acquire the 3.5 AC South of McNellie's, or the red brick warehouse to the West of McNellie's, the TDA owned parcels to the West or the South of where the old TDA office on Greenwood was?
Earlier in this thread you wrote this
..."Of course, one might argue, why dont I do that? Well, the simple answer is, why should I have to if I was in line first?"So you are advocating that other people move their project, but you don't want to because
you were in line first?
This whole argument by you is based on the premise that
you were in line first?
You had no contract, no evidence of financing, but you were in line first?
I am sorry. I feel sorry for you but you have made a big case out of this whole thing and your only real argument is that you were in line first?
If you really want them to accept another parcel, you should be willing to do the same.
quote:
Originally posted by TheLofts@120
Just to bring you up to date. There will be a 10:00am meeting of the Tulsa City Council tihs mcing Tuesday at old City Hall, Rm 201. The Council has asked that the TDA appear to answer questions they have regarding their actions in the this entire ordeal.
I have posed this to the Council and hope that they will address it at Tuesdays meeting:
The ballpark backers have maintained that the acquisition of the surrounding land is neccessary for the economics of the ballpark's construction and future maintenance - on top of the $60 Million gathered from the private donations, BID Assessment package and the Driller's lease. Peter Boylan has been reported in a Tulsa World article (entitled "Area Around Stadium Key, Aide Says" from 7/13/2008) as suggesting "that all revenues the Trust receives from selling or leasing the parcels for development will go toward retiring the debt on the stadium and future maintenance costs."
If this is in fact necessary for the economics of the stadium to work, what prevents those same backers from purchasing any other property within close proximity or within the IDL in general with the same set up that any revenues generated goes to the same function? Why can they not go one block to the South and acquire the 3.5 AC South of McNellie's, or the red brick warehouse to the West of McNellie's, the TDA owned parcels to the West or the South of where the old TDA office on Greenwood was?
The simple explaination that is the most probable is that the site we began negotiating on is what the backer's billed as the "million dollar seat" at the BID presentation at the Summit Club on June 27th. This is the single most valuable parcel of land surrounding the stadium since it will have a direct view of right hand field made even more spectacular with the ballpark being a sunken field.
If the backer's were only looking at purchasing land for revenue generation as suggested, why not purchase those other lands I mentioned and in doing so, help further redevelopment in the Blue Dome or other areas and still meet the economics they say they need?
Please let me know your thoughts on this.
Thanks, Will
I think one has to be really careful on how this issue is couched. If it gets too broad in the scope, the complaint will lose focus and validity, the basic "right and wrong" of the matter at hand. A lot of things have happened and have been said to cloud the issue and you can end up wandering all over the place and arguing a dozen different things that in the end will have no real traction. I think you have to go back to point A. where things started going wrong.
You were in exclusive negotiations for that property with the TDA, then.... and here is the crux of the matter... they started changing the rules of the game and asked for things they wouldn't normally require. That is where you get them doing something wrong.
The next question becomes, do they have the right to cancel or suspend their contract with you? If so under what circumstances and what are the conditions that they must follow in order to do so. There has to be some regulations governing that matter, it cant just be willy nilly up to their whim? or can it? They may be able to do so legally and say they are "looking after the best over all interests". But again, thats not what they started out doing. In that case its not were they able to do something, its HOW. It was as if they were looking for some way out, the how, and were stumbling around blindly trying to find it, their first "attempts" were horribly wrong, and they were not caring about how that was affecting you, the person they are supposed to be working with.
Once you get past those two things you can also have the arguments of whether or not what they did was the right thing to do, whether it was absolutely necessary to have that property, why they werent reaching out to find some accomodation as you were, etc.
But I would go back to, "This is this is how its supposed to work, how it normally works, and here is what was done to me". Dont get too lost in "why" they did it, focus on "how" they went about it.
In one sense you have answered your own question as to why they havent bought up other properties and let you have the one right across from the stadium. It indeed is the million dollar spot. That is where they will likely be able to make the money. Those other spots wont nab them the amount that will. However, if they were to offer YOU, one of those other spots nearby. I would take it. For those spots will be just as valuable to you as the original spot was before the ballpark went in, now likely even more so. Though granted, not as valuable as that spot is now with the ballpark there.
If your being offered a spot nearby, as I have heard you have been offered? Please take it and build your development. Would love to see it happen. You may not be as likely to get the hotel with it now since it wont be right across from the ballpark, but not sure how likely it was for you to have gotten it under the original circumstances before the ballpark was going in.
Still fight the good fight and make sure that there is some sort of accountability for what happened and how they handled this, the initial screwey "changing the rules, brushing you off, thing". But also get what you, and we all, wanted in the first place. Your development built downtown in an up and coming area with good potential.
Thanks for some of the input, helps give things a third set of eyes upon which to focus on a direction.
I did want to answer just a few quick things that were posted or questioned. Recycle Michael advocated why I want the balpark owners to move their site. Again, we had already been negotiating on that site since January, well before the ballpark planners announced their intentions.
Yes, my arguement is premised on the notion that we were first in line, first and only before a ballpark was announced and first to announce our intention and plans with regards to use mix, partners, developers, hotel and such. Our financial lenders have provided us with letters of intent to provide financial capital for the project subject to the normal terms, due diligencem cost estimates, construction documents, etc etc...all items prepared after en executed contract.
We did not have a contract, what we had was an exclusive negotiation agreement with the TDA. An instrument that is no different from that the Mayor has with the Tulsa Drillers. The intent of which was to eventually enter into contract, again, just as hers. How would Mayor Taylor feel after spending so much time, money and energy advocating for a development to bring about positive growth and change only for Chuck Lamson to say sorry, Im leaving to talk to Jenks in case they can offer something and forget about having that agreement, doesnt mean anything? You may not be aware of this but, TDA staff was directed to enter into direct contract negotiations so as to secure a contract for redevelopment of said property by resultion #5443 on April 17, 2008. Of course it takes two parties to negotiate and one was not there.
And this last item goes to the last question posed by Recycle Michael and WilliamTheArtist (luv the posts by the way). We in fact have offered to look at several different parcel in exchange for backing away from this one. Jack Crowley first approached us on June 4th with the intention of providing us a list of TDA and city owned properties to do just that. We never heard from him again. To date, no offer of another parcel has been made by either the City or TDA. We also stated in Tuesday's TDA meeting that we would have entertained such a notion as well as also look at changing the price that had already been offered back in December. Again, we have made every attempt to reach out and make something work for all parties..its just the other parties chose not to listen or discuss.
Thanks for replying, loftman.
There certainly seems to be property available within a few blocks of the one that you were looking at. Some of it seems to be available from TDA and other through private ownership.
Is there any other blocks where you think your development could work?
I would love to have your mix of buildings/uses just across the tracks to the south or a few blocks to the west of where you proposed. I would also love to see retail/housing/hotel (anything) near the arena.
Taking an opposite view for thought, I can understand why the donors who are giving millions of dollars would want the trust to develop the land directly around the stadium. History shows that the success or failure of a ball park depends on what is around the park. Lets say, what if a developer buys property across the street with intention of building residential/hotel units however, money becomes a problem or he/she decides to sit on it to get more money down the line. Then a new owner screws it up with some sleazy bar/strip club.
Con't --
It could happen and thats a good reason for a committee or trust to have direct approval directly by the stadium. Also, this thread has been very angry and hostile. I am not the mayor nor do I know her or her family - I'm offended that someone suggested that just because I have a different opinion. I also never use my name on the Internet anywhere as do many of the people on this site!
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Or name it after all the big donors (Although, since the taxpayers are the largest donors, I'll want my name up there too).
Wilbur Field?
All the taxpayers are not paying for it. Just the property owners in a three square mile area. Do you own property in the inner dispersal loop?
Those in the three mile area are going to benefit. Maybe we should name it after them.
Three Mile Park? Is that too close to Three Mile Island (a closed nuclear plant)?
Those properties within that 3 miles are mostly businesses, who pass along business costs to their customers. The taxpayers are their customers, thus, taxpayers are footing the bill.
Call it what you want. Government placing a 'fee' (without even being able to vote for it, which is a whole other issue) upon a group of people is a tax.
There's famously very little retail downtown. By far most of the customers of businesses downtown are not local as those are national and international businesses. What little retail that currently exists are the very businesses that stand to gain the most. They aren't going need to raise prices.
Rico,
I understand what you are saying, I would like to see a couple of average citizens added to the trust. And I would also like a statement to the effect that they would like the 120 lofts project to be part of the development in some way, somewhere. But I also think it wise to step back since the scope and use of the area is now changing dramatically. The lofts project is the kind of project we want downtown, but it's also likely that next to the stadium may no longer be the best location. It might be, but some thought and planning need to go into this before that step is taken.
And I don't think this stinks, I think it's finally a step towards planning the area around an attraction before we build. Unlike what has happened with the arena. It's going to take years to develop that area and we don't really have any idea what is going to develop there. The city has zero control of that area. With no real design or use standards a developer can build almost anything right next door. That was very poor planning by LaFortune, again. Land cost for the arena should have included most of the surrounding surface lots and unused buildings. If that had happened, we might be opening a new hotel with the arena on the Towerview site instead of waiting on the old city hall to be leveled so that we have some marketable land for a hotel and then only after the arena opens.
Point Taken...
Someone earlier in this thread referred to
"guidelines that were laid out for development" around Bricktown..
My point is that likely you will have
an individuals concept as to what the "Greenwood and Archer" scene is... I just don't think we all are going to see the same vision..
When you build something you are creating an atmosphere...
If these individuals get their way this may take the shape of an enclosed mall... Everyone breathing the same air everyone walking down the same corridor etc.
Let the few artistic builders we have in Tulsa look at this as a blank canvas...
Lay down guidelines... but don't connect all the dots.
If there were some sort of appropriate guidelines in place, many developers could come in and build and everything would work together to create a great space. The "finely woven tapestry".
Apparently the donors and the TDA do not think that kind of approach is "for the greater good" so to speak.
My guess is that if the ballpark goes in there they think they can attract a major developer, and or larger developments. Seems that one of the reasons we lost one of the larger developments before was because all the property could not be secured. Perhaps they think the most likely chance they have of getting a Global Development type project in the area is to get a large chunk of property under their control. Though I wonder why they couldn't have used imminent domain the last time as they are threatening to use this time?
If Will can get any property between the Ballpark and the Brady Theater on down to the Blue Dome, his project will do very well there. Especially if the ballpark goes in and some major development happens around it. In a few years all of that property is going to be much more valuable and harder to get than it is today.
quote:
Originally posted by TheLofts@120
How would Mayor Taylor feel after spending so much time, money and energy advocating for a development to bring about positive growth and change only for Chuck Lamson to say sorry, Im leaving to talk to Jenks in case they can offer something and forget about having that agreement, doesnt mean anything?
talk is cheap...
get it in writing...
no contract means NO CONTRACT...
without a contract, this is all fairplay...
in business, these types of situations occur everyday...
why is anyone shocked/surprised/appalled?
800 pound gorilla in room asks:
WHO GOES TO THE GAMES ANYWAY?
WHY MOVE IT? WHY PUT IT IN AN AREA THAT HAS NO READILY AVAILABLE LAND?
I go to games. We go to twenty games a year. They average almost 5,000 attendance each game.
Take your gorilla to the zoo.
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by TheLofts@120
How would Mayor Taylor feel after spending so much time, money and energy advocating for a development to bring about positive growth and change only for Chuck Lamson to say sorry, Im leaving to talk to Jenks in case they can offer something and forget about having that agreement, doesnt mean anything?
talk is cheap...
get it in writing...
no contract means NO CONTRACT...
without a contract, this is all fairplay...
in business, these types of situations occur everyday...
why is anyone shocked/surprised/appalled?
Will Wilkins had it in writing. The TDA passed a resolution in January granting them an exclusive negotiating period, and in April they extended the period to September 4. These resolutions were passed by the board, signed by the chairman of the TDA board, and entered into the TDA's minutes.
The City doesn't have a contract with the Drillers either. The Drillers gave the City has the same deal the TDA gave the Wilkinses: a commitment to negotiate in good faith during the period and not to entertain any other offers until the period has expired.
I resolve to lose another 5 lbs. before August 30th. Digitally signed and dated this 10th of August 2008. I will negotiate with myself each day and even throw in some roadwork if necessary to make it happen. If I don't make the date, I may extend the period of time. If someone offers me free food at Oscars Gastropub, well the negotiations may breakdown.
They had permission to negotiate. They decided not to. Not too rare in business.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I resolve to lose another 5 lbs. before August 30th. Digitally signed and dated this 10th of August 2008. I will negotiate with myself each day and even throw in some roadwork if necessary to make it happen. If I don't make the date, I may extend the period of time. If someone offers me free food at Oscars Gastropub, well the negotiations may breakdown.
They had permission to negotiate. They decided not to. Not too rare in business.
The TDA isn't a business. It's a public trust.
So if the Drillers behaved the same way toward the City of Tulsa, it wouldn't trouble you a bit?
I'm kinda curious to know if TulsaNow (The organization not the forum) has taken any sort of an official stance on the action of the TDA....
Or do they plan to??
While on the "TulsaNow organization" topic....
Is the following list of officers current?
TulsaNow Officers
President: Sarah Kobos
Vice President: Carlos Moreno
2nd Vice President: Michael Patton
Secretary: Jamie Jameson
Treasurer: Linda Doty
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
I'm kinda curious to know if TulsaNow (The organization not the forum) has taken any sort of an official stance on the action of the TDA....
Or do they plan to??
While on the "TulsaNow organization" topic....
Is the following list of officers current?
TulsaNow Officers
President: Sarah Kobos
Vice President: Carlos Moreno
2nd Vice President: Michael Patton
Secretary: Jamie Jameson
Treasurer: Linda Doty
Yes, the list you posted is the current list of officers. We also have another half dozen board members. We meet on a monthly basis. Our officer elections are scheduled for November.
Will Wilkins made a presentation to our board last month. We were not asked to have an official position, but many of the board members have posted on this thread.
I don't know if you think we should have a position on this development or any other development. I don't think it is in our best interest to get involved in every issue, but often we have a board discussion about certain issues.
Our process is to have a discussion online, then one board member will make a motion and then we will vote. In the past, we have had positions regarding zoning issues or waivers of rules regarding matters before the planning commission or the board of adjustment.
Last month we agreed as a board to speak up before the board of adjustment regarding an applicant trying to get a waiver on off street parking requirements for a development on 6th and Peoria. Our president spoke to the BOA of our position (as did many others) and the matter passed.
We have another board meeting planned for later in August and have our semi-regular meetings for the general membership planned for later this year.
ok 5k folks go...what about the other points asked?
I don't know why you are arguing, Argus.
Tulsa has a long history of supporting baseball and the team wants a new stadium.
If you want to argue about the stadium, use a different existing thread or start a new one.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
I'm kinda curious to know if TulsaNow (The organization not the forum) has taken any sort of an official stance on the action of the TDA....
Or do they plan to??
While on the "TulsaNow organization" topic....
Is the following list of officers current?
TulsaNow Officers
President: Sarah Kobos
Vice President: Carlos Moreno
2nd Vice President: Michael Patton
Secretary: Jamie Jameson
Treasurer: Linda Doty
Yes, the list you posted is the current list of officers. We also have another half dozen board members. We meet on a monthly basis. Our officer elections are scheduled for November.
Will Wilkins made a presentation to our board last month. We were not asked to have an official position, but many of the board members have posted on this thread.
I don't know if you think we should have a position on this development or any other development. I don't think it is in our best interest to get involved in every issue, but often we have a board discussion about certain issues.
Our process is to have a discussion online, then one board member will make a motion and then we will vote. In the past, we have had positions regarding zoning issues or waivers of rules regarding matters before the planning commission or the board of adjustment.
Last month we agreed as a board to speak up before the board of adjustment regarding an applicant trying to get a waiver on off street parking requirements for a development on 6th and Peoria. Our president spoke to the BOA of our position (as did many others) and the matter passed.
We have another board meeting planned for later in August and have our semi-regular meetings for the general membership planned for later this year.
Thanks.
Went by the new infill Wilkins is doing in Brady Heights today..
The view will say quite a bit.
Just a rumor... I've heard the Tri-Neighborhood Alliance (Brady, Crosbie, and Owen) will be voicing support of the 120 project.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I resolve to lose another 5 lbs. before August 30th. Digitally signed and dated this 10th of August 2008. I will negotiate with myself each day and even throw in some roadwork if necessary to make it happen. If I don't make the date, I may extend the period of time. If someone offers me free food at Oscars Gastropub, well the negotiations may breakdown.
They had permission to negotiate. They decided not to. Not too rare in business.
The TDA isn't a business. It's a public trust.
So if the Drillers behaved the same way toward the City of Tulsa, it wouldn't trouble you a bit?
Semantics. Like the thin lines between cops and crooks, lawyers and mafia. They didn't direct them to negotiate successfully, just negotiate. They did. Now they have likely been directed to stop negotiating and they have.
And no, I wouldn't. I love baseball but made it clear from the beginning that either location was fine with me as long as a minimum of public dollars is involved.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFuture
Con't --
It could happen and thats a good reason for a committee or trust to have direct approval directly by the stadium. Also, this thread has been very angry and hostile. I am not the mayor nor do I know her or her family - I'm offended that someone suggested that just because I have a different opinion. I also never use my name on the Internet anywhere as do many of the people on this site!
Differences of opinion are welcomed here; are what makes this forum interesting and educational. Some posters are justifiably angry by what is percieved as a land grab from a developer with a proposal that many people were excited about..the type of development that most feel would be supported throughout the downtown area, Pearl District, Cherry St, Uptown etc.
I haven't noticed any hostility.
Your posts have an "insidery" quality to them that made me suspect you were someone involved in this matter. You also began posting the same day that I sent an email letter to the mayor with this thread included in the post script. I guess I jumped to a conclusion and I appologize for that.
Welcome to the forum.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I resolve to lose another 5 lbs. before August 30th. Digitally signed and dated this 10th of August 2008. I will negotiate with myself each day and even throw in some roadwork if necessary to make it happen. If I don't make the date, I may extend the period of time. If someone offers me free food at Oscars Gastropub, well the negotiations may breakdown.
They had permission to negotiate. They decided not to. Not too rare in business.
The TDA isn't a business. It's a public trust.
So if the Drillers behaved the same way toward the City of Tulsa, it wouldn't trouble you a bit?
Semantics. Like the thin lines between cops and crooks, lawyers and mafia. They didn't direct them to negotiate successfully, just negotiate. They did. Now they have likely been directed to stop negotiating and they have.
And no, I wouldn't. I love baseball but made it clear from the beginning that either location was fine with me as long as a minimum of public dollars is involved.
Disagree. Unlike the other entities you named, the TDA and the city have a responsibility to encourage smart growth and development. Through their own incompetence, they failed in this instance. Watch those videos from the TDA meeting and then try to tell me the mayor is on top of all the details here. She isn't, and that's the problem. Nobody's steering this ship, and people are getting screwed as a result.
In other words--the anger is that our local government isn't behaving the way it's supposed to and we want it to do better.
I posted in the wrong thread...
I am an idiot and now I have witnesses.
Wrong thread, dude.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
The THA......
RM, onward through the fog.
120 Brady wants to put the homeless next to drillers!?!?!
Newsgasm at 11.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
120 Brady wants to put the homeless next to drillers!?!?!
Newsgasm at 11.
Well played.[;)]
RM - the LOFTMAN got screwed is my point about the stadium; that's my argument in this thread.
Why did he get screwed? A long argument I hope will ensue and bring light to/about(TDA).
Root problem : stadium in wrong location.
What I loved about New York is that it is chocked full of Kaisers and Basses and Gettys. On the world stage these players are a dime a dozen. In New York they are just one of thousands of billionnaires.
Billionnaire to New York: Give me special treatment. New York to Billionnaire: No. Get in line.
Up until then, i'd spent my life in small towns watching the local big money people run over little money people.
I laughed at the recent Tulsa World Editorial. "Stop picking on me and my rich friends."
I left Tulsa for 30 years. Let me tell you what has changed: Other than losing the oil business and a lot of beautiful buildings -- Nothing. Tulsa has yet to grow up. But she's showings signs of maturation.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by TheLofts@120
How would Mayor Taylor feel after spending so much time, money and energy advocating for a development to bring about positive growth and change only for Chuck Lamson to say sorry, Im leaving to talk to Jenks in case they can offer something and forget about having that agreement, doesnt mean anything?
talk is cheap...
get it in writing...
no contract means NO CONTRACT...
without a contract, this is all fairplay...
in business, these types of situations occur everyday...
why is anyone shocked/surprised/appalled?
Will Wilkins had it in writing. The TDA passed a resolution in January granting them an exclusive negotiating period, and in April they extended the period to September 4. These resolutions were passed by the board, signed by the chairman of the TDA board, and entered into the TDA's minutes.
The City doesn't have a contract with the Drillers either. The Drillers gave the City has the same deal the TDA gave the Wilkinses: a commitment to negotiate in good faith during the period and not to entertain any other offers until the period has expired.
still NOT A CONTRACT...
**** happens...
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I resolve to lose another 5 lbs. before August 30th. Digitally signed and dated this 10th of August 2008. I will negotiate with myself each day and even throw in some roadwork if necessary to make it happen. If I don't make the date, I may extend the period of time. If someone offers me free food at Oscars Gastropub, well the negotiations may breakdown.
They had permission to negotiate. They decided not to. Not too rare in business.
The TDA isn't a business. It's a public trust.
So if the Drillers behaved the same way toward the City of Tulsa, it wouldn't trouble you a bit?
Semantics. Like the thin lines between cops and crooks, lawyers and mafia. They didn't direct them to negotiate successfully, just negotiate. They did. Now they have likely been directed to stop negotiating and they have.
And no, I wouldn't. I love baseball but made it clear from the beginning that either location was fine with me as long as a minimum of public dollars is involved.
Disagree. Unlike the other entities you named, the TDA and the city have a responsibility to encourage smart growth and development. Through their own incompetence, they failed in this instance. Watch those videos from the TDA meeting and then try to tell me the mayor is on top of all the details here. She isn't, and that's the problem. Nobody's steering this ship, and people are getting screwed as a result.
In other words--the anger is that our local government isn't behaving the way it's supposed to and we want it to do better.
It would help to watch the videos if I had the opportunity (and a couple quarts of malt liquor). Perhaps they shed light on some incompetence. Just looking at this from an outsiders perspective it looks like he got screwed. I'm just saying it is common for good projects to not materialize both in government and business for lots of reasons even though both parties were negotiating in good faith. No contract was involved, the circumstances changed and negotiations fell through.
What would some of you conspiratorial types have said if Novus was extended the same expected contract terms even though his location was now many times more valuable? Wouldn't you have suspected insider activity from a developer who had past dealings with the city?
Quote >What would some of you conspiratorial types have said if Novus was extended the same expected contract terms even though his location was now many times more valuable? Wouldn't you have suspected insider activity from a developer who had past dealings with the city?< end quote.
Conspiracy is more often than not founded with a small amount of fact.
The facts in this case speak to someone that was
trying to make an investment and contribution to Downtown.
When the 6th and Peoria area, as it is fast becoming, starts selling some rather expensive dirt are you going to fault K and say he had insider knowledge regarding the areas future growth...?
That is sheer lunacy... as is that anyone would think that this developer had an inside edge.
Certainly it was one of the areas rumored.
But that was the extent of it.
This is not how business is done on a daily basis... unless you are speaking of deals with persons of interest on the crime blotter.
Everyone wants to find a reason for this to be OK.. Just the luck of the draw.
This will have a severe impact on how the fledgling architects,builders,developers, to mention a few view the PlaniTulsa scenario and what can be accomplished.
If this fellow were Jamie J. ,looking to build another set of Brownstones with added mixed use,
I have doubts it would be met with any of the resistance we have witnessed on this forum.
This "Forum" ,for the most part, seems to be in denial.
"The "Good ole Boys" are not doing this some benafactors of our future Downtown panacea are."
Bull Sh#t. and yes... it stinks to high heaven.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
If this fellow were Jamie J. ,looking to build another set of Brownstones with added mixed use,
I have doubts it would be met with any of the resistance we have witnessed on this forum.
This "Forum" ,for the most part, seems to be in denial.
Word. Es Verdad. Watch out though, you're just begging for one of Spincyle's self righteous, irrational, totally hypocritical lectures about being positive and accusing you of being a bitter, negative person. Ya know, his typical response to the truths posted on this forum.
I would never say that about Rico. I respect him.
Just an FYI.
The City Council at today's Urban & Economic Development meeting heard from TDA Chairman Carl Bracy, Vice Chairman George Shahadi, TDA/City Staff Hurst Swiggart and City Real Estate Roger Acebo with regards to our situation and how it was handled by the TDA.
Last week I spoke at the committee meeting and today was TDA's opportuity to address the issues I have raised. The Councilors asked very pertinent questions throughout the hour and I believe reached a fair and balanced concensus. I wont go into their statements, you can see and hear those for yourself tonight on KJRH Channel 2, listen to them on KRMG and in the Tulsa World.
TGOV Channel 24 (Cox) will carry a re-broadcast of the committee meeting starting at 9:00pm tonight. Our item on the agenda may not start at 9:00 but should follow soon after.
I noticed the Shah's reappointment got pulled. I wonder if some Sobering (//%22http://www.batesline.com/archives/2008/08/shahadi-must-go.html%22) letters to the Councilors might have had something to do with that?
Quote> still NOT A CONTRACT...
**** happens... <end quote brunoflipper
Stay Tuned (//%22http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0808/542590_video.html?ref=newsstory%22)
Someone correct me if I'm wrong(and I'm sure you will!), whats the difference between a buyer of a home negotiating with a seller and another bid comes in that is better, the seller takes the better bid. What's the difference between that and the Loft's negotiation? Why can he not move somewhere else in the many areas undeveloped downtown. I can assure you that no one will want to live across the street from the stadium with fireworks, loud speakers, etc. all the time. It would be better maybe a few blocks away.
Thanks CarltonPlace for your answer. I don't have any insider info and I only posted that day because I had been reading this forum for about a month now and just wanted to throw in an opposite point of view for thought. I really don't know any of the donors or the mayor but would really like to see Tulsa take off and there is no way without people donating. The people of Tulsa County will not ever have anything here because they will not pay for it like many cities (including OKC)so we need extra help. I hope Will doesn't screw it up for everyone and have the donors back out.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFuture
Thanks CarltonPlace for your answer. I don't have any insider info and I only posted that day because I had been reading this forum for about a month now and just wanted to throw in an opposite point of view for thought. I really don't know any of the donors or the mayor but would really like to see Tulsa take off and there is no way without people donating. The people of Tulsa County will not ever have anything here because they will not pay for it like many cities (including OKC)so we need extra help. I hope Will doesn't screw it up for everyone and have the donors back out.
"Will screw it up".You can't be serious can you...?..Who are you in bed with downtown...?
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFuture
Someone correct me if I'm wrong(and I'm sure you will!), whats the difference between a buyer of a home negotiating with a seller and another bid comes in that is better, the seller takes the better bid. What's the difference between that and the Loft's negotiation?
In theory not much different. But in reality its public vs private interests. Lots of lawyers or realtors who post here can explain the general rules of offer and acceptance but they may not apply in this instance since its a private interest negotiating with a public authority. Since no one is answering your question I will give benefit of my real estate experience and undergraduate law courses. Take it at your own risk!
Your point is well taken by a few of us. It was a negotiation, not a contract, because all the terms had not been agreed to by both parties. There may have been an agreement in principle that they both wanted to execute a contract, but there was no option and no agreement to specific terms. Basically, the bride wanted to know if the suitor was worthy. This would be as though a buyer and seller of a parcel of land agreed that they both were interested in principle to transfer the land for market rate so the buyer could build a house. The buyer spends money to craft an agreement (an offer), assure the seller he is creditworthy and capable of the purchase, and to provide plans for what kind of building he's planning. Suddenly, the seller loses interest. The buyer knows something is up but can't get the seller to divulge. It becomes apparent that the property has a new suitor, an oil company that wants to locate its headquarters there and has expressed interest in the land. Its a better suitor and he commences negotiations with them. It seems to me that the buyer may be entitled to have his expenses re-imbursed since he acted in good faith to follow the sellers demands, but there never was a contract for the sale of the property.
However, in this case the public entity has a larger goal, which was to stimulate development in the area and its actions probably worked against that goal. I believe legally they were ok, politically they screwed up.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFuture
Thanks CarltonPlace for your answer. I don't have any insider info and I only posted that day because I had been reading this forum for about a month now and just wanted to throw in an opposite point of view for thought. I really don't know any of the donors or the mayor but would really like to see Tulsa take off and there is no way without people donating. The people of Tulsa County will not ever have anything here because they will not pay for it like many cities (including OKC)so we need extra help. I hope Will doesn't screw it up for everyone and have the donors back out.
The ballpark is not a done deal, the Novus project could have been had the TDA not changed their mind and pulled the offer to Novus in favor of reserving that property for the ball park donors. This action by the TDA whose members are comprised of volunteers that work for companies on the donor list rubs people the wrong way for the following reasons:
1.
Frustrated Development We are begging for downtown development but there is a perception that building in downtown (and dealing with the TDA) is too difficult. That perception now is now reality in many people's minds.
2.
Ethical Concerns Choosing one's employer over this developer whether real or imagined feels wrong.
3.
Transparency Why can't the ballpark and the development work together? Why won't anyone give a valid reason why they can't. Feels like back room politics
5.
TreatmentWhy did they leave Novus hanging so long and let them continue to spend money and jump through hoops if this final action was what they've intended since the ballpark announcement?
4.
History This isn't the first time that the TDA has acted this way toward a potential buyer. Its no wonder they can't sell and develop a downtown property. What are they holding onto them for? Why did they start empire building? What happened to Jones Lang Lassalle?
Please read the concerns of the City Council in the Tulsa World Article (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080813_11_A13_TheTul643521%22)today
Edited to add: I am in favor of the ballpark
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
This action by the TDA whose members are comprised of volunteers that work for companies on the donor list rubs people the wrong way for the following reasons:
1. Frustrated Development We are begging for downtown development but there is a perception that building in downtown (and dealing with the TDA) is too difficult. That perception now is now reality in many people's minds.
2. Ethical Concerns Choosing one's employer over this developer whether real or imagined feels wrong.
3. Transparency Why can't the ballpark and the development work together? Why won't anyone give a valid reason why they can't. Feels like back room politics
5. TreatmentWhy did they leave Novus hanging so long and let them continue to spend money and jump through hoops if this final action was what they've intended since the ballpark announcement?
4. History This isn't the first time that the TDA has acted this way toward a potential buyer. Its no wonder they can't sell and develop a downtown property. What are they holding onto them for? Why did they start empire building? What happened to Jones Lang Lassalle?
Same goes for Admiral & Yale and Bumgarner's project at 14th and Utica.
I think some old school Tulsa punk rock best describes the general mood of the great unwashed masses currently.
N.O.T.A- Frustration (//%22http://www.myspace.com/realnota%22)
Glad I wash. [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Glad I wash. [:D]
When did that all begin... Thought you learned things in France..?[8D]
Back to topic... Tomorrow is yet another deadline for the Mayor's office and Lamson..
What is the line on the Drillers staying or moving south..???
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Glad I wash. [:D]
When did that all begin... Thought you learned things in France..?[8D]
Back to topic... Tomorrow is yet another deadline for the Mayor's office and Lamson..
What is the line on the Drillers staying or moving south..???
Branleur!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgnac9F3HoE&feature=related
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFuture
Someone correct me if I'm wrong(and I'm sure you will!), whats the difference between a buyer of a home negotiating with a seller and another bid comes in that is better, the seller takes the better bid. What's the difference between that and the Loft's negotiation? Why can he not move somewhere else in the many areas undeveloped downtown. I can assure you that no one will want to live across the street from the stadium with fireworks, loud speakers, etc. all the time. It would be better maybe a few blocks away.
Because Novus had performed the equivalent of putting up earnest money.
And there are very popular residential developments across the street from the San Francisco ball park.
Now, I'm not a land use expert or involved in development in Tulsa but the problem with the Tulsa Way is this:
Rich folks get together and decide what they want for Tulsa then they tell the rest of us what we need and how much it is going to cost us.
And Tulsa is a tiny little small city and there are conflicts right and left. I have done work for four of the people on the donors list this past year and I don't even make an effort to be involved in our civic life. Does it shape your opinion? Sure it does.
Tulsa needs public involvement from beginning to end to achieve the transparency that will put these issues to rest.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
This action by the TDA whose members are comprised of volunteers that work for companies on the donor list rubs people the wrong way for the following reasons:
1. Frustrated Development We are begging for downtown development but there is a perception that building in downtown (and dealing with the TDA) is too difficult. That perception now is now reality in many people's minds.
2. Ethical Concerns Choosing one's employer over this developer whether real or imagined feels wrong.
3. Transparency Why can't the ballpark and the development work together? Why won't anyone give a valid reason why they can't. Feels like back room politics
5. TreatmentWhy did they leave Novus hanging so long and let them continue to spend money and jump through hoops if this final action was what they've intended since the ballpark announcement?
4. History This isn't the first time that the TDA has acted this way toward a potential buyer. Its no wonder they can't sell and develop a downtown property. What are they holding onto them for? Why did they start empire building? What happened to Jones Lang Lassalle?
Same goes for Admiral & Yale and Bumgarner's project at 14th and Utica.
I think some old school Tulsa punk rock best describes the general mood of the great unwashed masses currently.
N.O.T.A- Frustration (//%22http://www.myspace.com/realnota%22)
Heh, Klein is a good friend.
One of the best punk songs ever. Whiskey Rampage is another of my Beer Monger/N.O.T.A. favorites.
Good choice, considering we are talking about TDA.