This from today's Tulsa World...
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080712_11_A11_hFivel41871
Petition seeks to void stadium district
By P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
7/12/2008
Five landowners in a new assessment district for a Drillers ballpark want a judge to intervene. Five downtown property owners filed a petition Friday asking a Tulsa County judge to void a newly adopted assessment district.
The City Council on Thursday approved a resolution to create Tulsa Stadium Improvement District No. 1, which defines the downtown area within the Inner Dispersal Loop as an assessment district. That area has had an assessment district for 29 years that will expire June 30. The new assessment would not take effect until July 1.
The Tulsa Stadium Improvement District will increase the assessment rate to 6.5 cents per square foot on land and structures for nearly all property owners. Currently, the rate varies from 3.5 cents to 0.01 cent, depending on the location of the property from the former Main Mall. Exempt properties include residential with a homestead exemption and those owned by religious organizations and the federal government.
Of the 6.5 cents, 4.3 cents will help fund a proposed ballpark for the Tulsa Drillers that will be in the historic Greenwood District. The remaining 2.2 cents of the assessment will continue to fund current downtown services such as street sweeping and landscaping. The assessment will fund $25 million of the estimated $60 million ballpark project. When the debt of the baseball stadium is paid, the 4.3 cent assessment will be removed, leaving the 2.2 cents for the 30-year life of the district.
The plaintiffs in the petition are listed as T.E. Morlan, who owns units in the Central Park Condominium Association; the E&F Cox Family Trust, which owns property at Seventh Street and Elwood Avenue; Denver Building LLC, which has property at Seventh Street and Denver Avenue; Michael Samara, who owns property at Second Street and Guthrie Avenue; and Better Price Warehouse Sales Co., whose property is in the 1200 block of Frankfort Avenue.
The petition claims that because the assessment was originally created to support and maintain the Main Mall, assessments made since the removal of the mall are "void and unlawful." The petition asks that the city be restrained from entering into "any agreements or taking any action to further the assessment district."
Kent Morlan, who is representing the plaintiffs, could not be reached for comment late Friday. City Attorney Deirdre Dexter said she could not comment on the petition because she had not had time to fully review it. However, she said, it appears that the city can move forward with the assessment district process.
The entire city and county has been investing in downtown. Between the arena, the new roads downtown, the millions in subsidy for new housing, the new parks and walking paths, new telecommunications networks...I figure the amount is well over 200 million dollars in less than four years. This is all in a three square mile area.
Now a plan to build a new ballpark comes out and asks the property owners to pony up one million dollars a year. These folks don't want to pay a penny.
The rest of us have paid for their new roads, an arena (the largest single public investment in the history of our city), new everything for them. Break out the cost and it exceeds 500 dollars per Tulsa citizen. My family of four has invested 2,000 dollars in our downtown in four years.
Kent Moreland has a condo in downtown Tulsa. I have no idea how big it is. Let us assume it is one of the biggest ones in the place...a two bedroom, two bath unit at 1,100 square feet.
His new assessment is going to be $71.50 per year or over 25 years $1,787.50. He will pay less in 25 years than I have paid in four years to fix up his own neighborhood.
What a jerk. He has no problem using my money to fix up his three square miles, but refuses to pay for a ballpark in his neighborhood that my family wants.
He owns two units at central park so double the numbers, but it's still not huge. I'm assuming the first complainant, "T.E. Morlan" is probably his wife so he's not listed on the lawsuit he filed.
It sounds like his complaints are about the expiring assessment district since this one has a new purpose.
So he is complaining about the old assessment district not the new one? Is it that he wants his money back on the years that he was paying in and it wasnt going to the "main mall" like it was set up to do? Or just wants the old assesment district stopped immediately? Which I could assume then means we could start the new one immediately as well then. I dont see how this is against the new ballpark? Does this new assessment district have something in it that says its paying to upkeep the Main Mall? Which indeed would be wrong since it no longer exists. If it does have that language in it, take it out,,, case closed.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
...Now a plan to build a new ballpark comes out and asks the property owners to pony up one million dollars a year. These folks don't want to pay a penny...
The property owners weren't asked, they were told that they'd be paying the higher assessments.
quote:
...What a jerk. [Kent Morlan] has no problem using my money to fix up his three square miles, but refuses to pay for a ballpark in his neighborhood that my family wants.
Kent Morlan has been very vocal about DTU's management of downtown and about capital investments within the IDL. From what I've read, I'd guess that Kent Morlan has a
HUGE problem using your money to fix up "his" neighborhood.
EDIT: Last year, Kent Morlan wrote a letter to the editor of Urban Tulsa Weekly (//%22http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A17802%22) in which he stated that the City ought to use tax dollars to install underground conduits below streets and sidewalks downtown while they are in the process of rebuilding them. I stand corrected. He's outspoken, and that's okay. There isn't anything wrong with taxpayers (such as Kent Morlan, Paul Wilson, and Jim Goodwin) questioning and protesting how their taxes are calculated and spent.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
So he is complaining about the old assessment district not the new one? Is it that he wants his money back on the years that he was paying in and it wasnt going to the "main mall" like it was set up to do? Or just wants the old assesment district stopped immediately? Which I could assume then means we could start the new one immediately as well then. I dont see how this is against the new ballpark?
He has been complaining about DTU's operations (funded by the current assessment) for a long time.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
So he is complaining about the old assessment district not the new one? Is it that he wants his money back on the years that he was paying in and it wasnt going to the "main mall" like it was set up to do? Or just wants the old assesment district stopped immediately? Which I could assume then means we could start the new one immediately as well then. I dont see how this is against the new ballpark?
He has been complaining about DTU's operations (funded by the current assessment) for a long time.
But whats that got to do with the Ballpark and the new assessment district? How was the old assessment district formed, as in did the property owners get a vote?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
So he is complaining about the old assessment district not the new one? Is it that he wants his money back on the years that he was paying in and it wasnt going to the "main mall" like it was set up to do? Or just wants the old assesment district stopped immediately? Which I could assume then means we could start the new one immediately as well then. I dont see how this is against the new ballpark?
Kent Morlan has come out against the current assessments which fund the maintenance of the downtown business improvement district
and against the stadium tax.
Here's an excerpt from a recent
Urban Tulsa Weekly article by Brian Ervin (//%22http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A23756%22):
quote:
Published in Urban Tulsa Weekly, July 2, 2008:
Kent Morlan of downtown's Beacon 400 LLC said, "Everybody's scratching their heads about it [the proposed stadium tax]."
He said the proposed assessment would raise Beacon Services' taxes from the $2,400 it's paying each year for the current Downtown Improvement District to $8,000 per year.
Morlan, who is an attorney--as are most of his tenants in the Beacon building--said, "I'm not going to benefit from the baseball stadium, since I don't sell anything to the public who could come for the games."
Morlan was the most vocal critic of the city's arrangement with DTU and had demanded the opportunity to bid for the contract himself.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
So he is complaining about the old assessment district not the new one? Is it that he wants his money back on the years that he was paying in and it wasnt going to the "main mall" like it was set up to do? Or just wants the old assesment district stopped immediately? Which I could assume then means we could start the new one immediately as well then. I dont see how this is against the new ballpark?
He has been complaining about DTU's operations (funded by the current assessment) for a long time.
But whats that got to do with the Ballpark and the new assessment district? How was the old assessment district formed, as in did the property owners get a vote?
I'm sure that Kent Morlan was looking forward to the expiration of the current assessments, as he thinks they are being squandered by DTU.
The renewed distict will have higher assessments to cover the services that are being provided by DTU plus $25 million for the construction of the stadium. DTU will have the opportunity to bid for the continuance of its contract.
I'm not sure how the current assessment district was formed, and my guess is that property owners did not get to say whether they wanted to be included in it or not.
Keep in mind that the new assessments will be much higher that the current assessments. According to the
Tulsa World, the assessment on Jim Goodwin's property will be 32 times what it is currently. He protested the stadium tax, and his property is near where the stadium will be built.
Usually, taxpayers protest when they think they are not getting a fair value for the taxes they must pay. Obviously, Kent Morlan and Jim Goodwin don't think that having a baseball stadium downtown is worth the increase in their taxes.
I think it's right to question an assessment for a Main Mall that no longer exists.
And, while he may be against the current assessment plan and/or the ballpark, that's not what this suit is about.
Frankly, I'm still po'd about the Main Mall, too.
DTU also has not been doing their job well, so he's right to hound them as well.
I doubt this is the last of the suits, though. Expect one over the taxation issue without public vote.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
I doubt this is the last of the suits, though. Expect one over the taxation issue without public vote.
I was expecting some type of legal maneuver, but I thought it would be about the new assessment rate being uniform over the entire district rather than being based on proximity to the stadium.
My guess is that it will be a losing battle for anyone who dares to protest the higher assessments. Ultimately, they will be forced to pay for the stadium whether they want to or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
I think it's right to question an assessment for a Main Mall that no longer exists.
And, while he may be against the current assessment plan and/or the ballpark, that's not what this suit is about.
Frankly, I'm still po'd about the Main Mall, too.
DTU also has not been doing their job well, so he's right to hound them as well.
I doubt this is the last of the suits, though. Expect one over the taxation issue without public vote.
These are the kinds of issues which build resentment amongst Tulsans rather than harmony and voluntary cooperation. Raising $30 million in private funding for the stadium is a good start, but it would be so much better if the people who really want a baseball stadium downtown paid for it entirely themselves.
Several of the plaintiffs own rental property so their opposition to this really defies logic.
Isn't downtown revitalization what they want? Wouldn't downtown revitalization benefit them?
If they raise rents $10-20 a month to cover this it won't have any negative impact on occupancy.
quote:
Ultimately, they will be forced to pay for the stadium whether they want to or not.
Yes, like I am forced to pay property taxes to fund schools even though I don't have children. Or like I am forced to pay rediculously high car insurance rates even though I rarely drive. Or like I am forced to pay into social security even though I will probably never get to see that money again. Or like I am forced to pay for roads I never even drive on, etc, etc, etc. It's called society, get over it!!!
Well, this is fun. Two things come to mind. One, the assessment district in 1978 has been referred to as an improvement assessment district. What improvements? I worked downtown in 1978. Hasn't improved by most criteria, just changed. The real reason for the assessments was really just maintenance and cosmetics in the downtown area. With that in mind, the Main Mall portion of the assessment was primarily maintenance too wasn't it? Do the plaintiffs think that every time a building is converted to a parking lot that the assessment chould change or disappear?
Two, who was the mayor when the Main Mall was finally taken out? Savage or Lafortune? Did anyone note at that time that the alleged primary reason for the assessment had been dozed?
This kind of sounds like sour grapes. Perhaps the plaintiffs would like to go with a different method of assessing just what their gain or loss will be. Like the increase/decrease of their rental property profitability and appraisal value?
quote:
Originally posted by TheTed
Several of the plaintiffs own rental property so their opposition to this really defies logic.
Isn't downtown revitalization what they want? Wouldn't downtown revitalization benefit them?
If they raise rents $10-20 a month to cover this it won't have any negative impact on occupancy.
I haven't heard much protest about this. But I do think that those who've spoken up about it have every right to do so, and I think it's wrong to categorize them as jerks or illogical. After all, they are being forced to pay for something they don't want.
Four years ago yesterday, World Publishing unveiled its plan for downtown improvements (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=040711_Bu_E1_World3307%22), which consisted of demolishing two buildings to make way for more surface parking lots. The
World wasn't asking for taxpayers to fund the demolition of its buildings or to fork over special assessments for the parking lots. As
Tulsa World Executive Editor Joe Worley emphasized, World Publishing purchased the buildings for its private use, and
World executives had decided that the best use of those buildings was to tear them down.
Although the destruction of the Skelly Building was privately financed by World Publishing, there were protests from Tulsans concerned about losing another historic Art Deco building downtown. As I recall, Kent Morlan did not protest against what the
World was doing 115 feet away from his place of business. As memory serves, he understood World Publishing's reasoning for wanting to create a few parking spaces for customers as an alternative to metered spaces on the street.
What some see as clear logic, others do not.
The
World announced the demolition of a couple of buildings as downtown improvements. Some people disagreed. But the
World executives did not expect 25/60th of cost of their "improvements" to be borne by property owners within the entire IDL.
The baseball stadium to be built in the far northeast corner of downtown has been announced as downtown improvement. But those who will be forced to pay for it against their wishes should have some say in the matter without being dismissed as illogical. I don't see protesting as illogical. I see it as a healthy wariness whenever someone has a scheme to spend someone else's money on an exclusive development deal.
The fact is that Da Mare piggy backed this assessment in addition to the cost of building the stadium. Not only that, she increased the assessment as well. I think it's time to contact state legislators and get some legislation enacted to cap assessment district increases, similar to the current 5% maximum annual increase on property taxes. This legislation should also include provisions to prevent the logrolling that happened with this assessment, combining two different issues into a single item, so that they must be voted on separately.
You are right booworld. I shouldn't have called him a jerk for protesting. He has every right to file a petition in the court and be heard. We do live in a great country.
I just don't know what other word to use. Because he is a lawyer, he has the ability to tie up a sixty million dollar improvement to downtown, a great opportunity for my family to come downtown a couple of dozen times a year, and a magnet for redevelopment.
I understand his argument for the old assessment method being based on a methodology that is flawed. If you come up with some crazy formula to charge people based on how close you are to a pedestrian fountain and they remove that fountain, you have a right to protest.
But why didn't he protest the day the old fountain was removed? Why did he not petition the court the first day the little joke of a fountain they replaced it with first sprayed water?
I almost hope he is successful in protesting the method, as long as it is damn quick. The whole idea is flawed, especially when it allowed a large portion of the property owners to pay a tenth of a penny per square foot. A whole acre at the edge of downtown pays less than 4 bucks a month for improvements. I agree that they probably didn't get much service from DTU at that price, but that is a different conversation.
This formula is fair. All properties are charged the same because they are all increasing in value. Don't say that your business won't be any more successful because of baseball.
Look at the hundreds of millions WE have spent in your three square miles. We have invested in convention centers, performing arts centers, arenas, new sidewalks, new roads, new parks, more security presence, new street lights, new bus station and help for new housing.
I should not have called him a jerk. But what he is doing seems awfully jerky.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
You are right booworld. I shouldn't have called him a jerk for protesting. He has every right to file a petition in the court and be heard. We do live in a great country.
I just don't know what other word to use. Because he is a lawyer, he has the ability to tie up a sixty million dollar improvement to downtown, a great opportunity for my family to come downtown a couple of dozen times a year, and a magnet for redevelopment.
I don't think the protest petition will tie up the process for very long.
Kent Morlan has been an opponent of DTU's management of the current downtown assessment district for years. As I mentioned in another post, I imagine he was looking forward to its expiration next year.
I've seen very little protest against the stadium proposal. I think there might be some forthcoming lawsuits over it, but I'm guessing that all those opposed to the stadium will lose in their efforts, and that they will ultimately be forced to pay the increased assessments for the stadium whether they want to or not.
And I disagree that a uniform assessment rate applied throughout the downtown is fair. Those properties nearer to the stadium will benefit more. The petition was signed by the owners of property relatively far from the proposed stadium site.
I thought hacking the Skelly Building to bits and carting all that embodied energy to a landfill was jerky behavior. But I didn't own the building, and the
Tulsa World didn't expect for me to pay an assessment to fund its idea of "improvements" downtown. Kent Morlan has been around Tulsa for a long time. Perhaps he sees the renewal and increase of the assessments as jerky behavior. Since he will be forced to pay them, then he has the right to question them.
Many of us have ideas about ways to improve downtown, including Kent Morlan. I don't always agree with him, but I'm glad that he speaks his mind. If he is expecting you to foot the bill for sidewalks, streets, public facilities, fiber optic cabling, etcetera in "his" neighborhood (and I seriously doubt that he is expecting that), then he is being as selfish as you would be if you expected him to foot the bill for a baseball stadium downtown so your family could enjoy it a couple of times a year.
There seems to be quite a bit of support for a stadium downtown. Given that fact, how difficult would it be to raise $25 million in private donations or investments? I'd rather see free market forces drive the process.
You make some compelling arguments, booworld. The downtown property owners probably didn't have a say in the improvements. Who knows, some of them might be annoyed by even something as big as an arena.
We used public dollars to build that arena and we used public dollars to build the PAC. Is this about baseball? Do concerts with the Eagles or operas of the Phantom count more than baseball with the Drillers? Is downtown just for adults and not for families?
This ballpark is just one more great addition to downtown. It will do wonders for that part of our downtown, just like the arena will do for that other part when it opens.
Asking the downtown businesses to pay this time after we all have paid for all the other things seems fair to me.
Having all property owners pay the same rate toward DTU (or some other entity) is fair provided they receive the same level of service. However, I see the logic of having the ballpark-specific portion of the assessment be higher for properties closer to the stadium. Not as imbalanced as the previous/current assessment, though.
Let's also not forget that Morlan wants to bid against DTU to provide those services inside the IDL. This doesn't discredit his argument, but he's not pursuing this for purely philosophical reasons. I'd be thrilled if DTU got the boot, but I'm not sure Morlan is the answer, either.
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
Having all property owners pay the same rate toward DTU (or some other entity) is fair provided they receive the same level of service. However, I see the logic of having the ballpark-specific portion of the assessment be higher for properties closer to the stadium. Not as imbalanced as the previous/current assessment, though.
Let's also not forget that Morlan wants to bid against DTU to provide those services inside the IDL. This doesn't discredit his argument, but he's not pursuing this for purely philosophical reasons. I'd be thrilled if DTU got the boot, but I'm not sure Morlan is the answer, either.
I really could empathize with the point the someone made during the City Council meeting about changing the rate of assessment from a flat rate to one based on the assessed value of the property. I'm a little curious as to why it was hurried in so quickly, but I'm sure FB will be right along to spin..errr....tell me what it might be.
[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
You make some compelling arguments, booworld. The downtown property owners probably didn't have a say in the improvements. Who knows, some of them might be annoyed by even something as big as an arena.
We used public dollars to build that arena and we used public dollars to build the PAC. Is this about baseball? Do concerts with the Eagles or operas of the Phantom count more than baseball with the Drillers? Is downtown just for adults and not for families?
This ballpark is just one more great addition to downtown. It will do wonders for that part of our downtown, just like the arena will do for that other part when it opens.
Asking the downtown businesses to pay this time after we all have paid for all the other things seems fair to me.
There is no doubt that some downtown property owners are annoyed by the arena. Some might be annoyed by the PAC, also.
The arena is being funded primarily by a county-wide sales tax which was a approved by a majority of thousands of voters in a county-wide election. The public approval was the culmination of many months of open meetings and discussion. The stadium tax was approved by six Tulsans less than two weeks after Mayor Taylor made her presentation explaining the proposed assessment district. That didn't give much time for public input.
The PAC was funded with a combination of private and public sources. The deal was somewhat rushed, but not as rushed as last week's downtown stadium proposal. In 1973, Leta Chapman pledged $3.5 million toward a PAC for Tulsa. In May of that year, Mayor Robert LaFortune announced that John H. Williams would also donate $3.5 million toward the construction of the PAC, with the stipulation that Tulsans approve a $7 million bond issue by August. On August 7, 1973, 31,000 Tulsans voted on the measure, with approximately 60% approving. The ultimate construction cost of the PAC was about 30% more than the architect's estimate. The Williams Companies agreed to raise an additional $1 million in private money toward the difference if the city would divert public dollars from the sales tax capital fund, from general revenue sharing funds, and from interest on funds already in the bank.
From what I've read and heard, many Tulsans (including downtown property owners) are in favor of building a new stadium downtown. The
very brief public discussion since June 27th has centered on mainly on financing. Half of the $60 million will come from private sources. That's wonderful. If all Tulsans shared in the $25 million public financing portion, then that would average about $66 per Tulsan. Many people would be willing to donate $66 or more in order to have a new stadium downtown.
I think it would have been better to have had more Tulsans voluntarily pledging private dollars toward the stadium rather than expecting the owners of downtown property to bear the entire $25 million burden, and I think this likely would have happened given more time for open public meetings and a campaign to raise capital.
So far, I've read of only a few protests against the proposed $30 million/$25 million private/public split -- I'm for letting those protests be heard. My guess is that there would have been fewer protests against a 40/15 split, and fewer yet against a 45/10 split, and fewer yet with a system of tiered assessments based on distance from the stadium (not as complex as the current varied assessments).
For whatever reason, Kent Morlan and a few others have had the gumption to speak out against an issue which is seemingly very popular with the public. IMO, Tulsa is a better place because of citizens such as Kent Morlan -- even if I don't agree with what they are saying. TulsaNow is supposed to be about inclusiveness and "respect, civility and genuine engagement with
all points of view."
TulsaNow is supposed to be about "a vibrant, walkable downtown and revitalized core neighborhoods at the heart of a regional strategy." Kent Morlan is concerned about these issues. His opinions about what Tulsa's downtown should be and how it ought to operate might be different from your opinions and my opinions, but he has lived and worked in downtown Tulsa for many years. He genuinely cares about downtown Tulsa, as do many others.
It saddens me to see those with dissenting opinions labeled as jerks, especially on this forum which is supposed to foster respect for a diversity of opinions. It's not about baseball, and it's not an anti-family issue. It's about the right of taxpayers to have some control over how they are taxed and how those taxes will be used. In the case of the stadium tax, there was almost no time for those who will be saddled with much higher taxes for the next 30 years to weigh the costs and benefits.
Footnotes:
a. I didn't live in Tulsa when the PAC was built. The information above is from a September 19, 1984
Tulsa Tribune article. The point is that 31,000 Tulsans voted on the bond issue for the PAC. That's much different than the City Council deciding on an assessment district to fund 42% of the cost of constructing a downtown stadium.
b. Since it has been 31 years since the opening of the PAC, I'm guessing the bonds for its constuction have been paid off. I'm not certain about the PAC, but I know that we haven't all paid for the arena -- not yet. And even after we've paid for the construction of any large public facility, there are significant, ongoing operational costs.
well, I'm sure the mayor will fall over and give him a few mill from the sinking fund. it works for everyone else.
btw, I think this is awesome. I just wish these guys had have sued over the BoK sham payoff as well.
I think it is OK to have dissenting opinions. I believe full and proper discussion of the issues makes us a better community. That is one of the reasons I like this forum and most of the posters I have met through here.
Of course, average citizens could be asked to pay for extra costs to build the stadium. I would pay 66 dollars to help. My family always buys bricks in projects and it is often more than 66 dollars.
Do you really think that this is that much money? The total amount asked is only a million dollars a year. That is spread among hundreds of properties owners. Any amount paid for in this assesment tax will be offset by increased value of their property.
"It's about the right of taxpayers to have some control over how they are taxed and how those taxes will be used. In the case of the stadium tax...", doen't fly. Did Kent protest when the state changed the income tax rates last year? Did Kent go to the city budget meetings and speak up when the Mayor set a plan to run the city? No. Those decisions had much more impact on his wallet and how his taxes are spent.
He spoke at this ballpark financing public meeting as did I. We were given time to make our arguments and the council did a good job listening. We elected them to make hard decisions on our behalf.
I respect Kent and his efforts to have a better downtown. His petition to fight the ballpark is within his right. But he reminds me of the person at the cashier arguing about a extra penny being charged for their groceries while the rest of us are waiting in a long line.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I think it is OK to have dissenting opinions. I believe full and proper discussion of the issues makes us a better community. That is one of the reasons I like this forum and most of the posters I have met through here.
Of course, average citizens could be asked to pay for extra costs to build the stadium. I would pay 66 dollars to help. My family always buys bricks in projects and it is often more than 66 dollars.
Do you really think that this is that much money? The total amount asked is only a million dollars a year. That is spread among hundreds of properties owners. Any amount paid for in this assesment tax will be offset by increased value of their property.
"It's about the right of taxpayers to have some control over how they are taxed and how those taxes will be used. In the case of the stadium tax...", doen't fly. Did Kent protest when the state changed the income tax rates last year? Did Kent go to the city budget meetings and speak up when the Mayor set a plan to run the city? No. Those decisions had much more impact on his wallet and how his taxes are spent.
He spoke at this ballpark financing public meeting as did I. We were given time to make our arguments and the council did a good job listening. We elected them to make hard decisions on our behalf.
I respect Kent and his efforts to have a better downtown. His petition to fight the ballpark is within his right. But he reminds me of the person at the cashier arguing about a extra penny being charged for their groceries while the rest of us are waiting in a long line.
I was editing my earlier post when you posted your reply. Sorry about that, but to respond to your question about the amount of the new assessments:
Yes, a million dollars per year for 30 years does seem like lots of money to me, even when someone else is being forced to pay it. But honestly I haven't had enough time to study the issue because it was so rushed. This proposal was presented and approved within a matter of days.
I'm not aware of the current and new assessments for those who signed the protest petition. Obviously they are unhappy with the higher assessments and are not convinced that the benefits of a stadium will be worth the extra taxes. I was surprised to read last Wednesday that the new assessment on Jim Goodwin's property would be 9 times what it is currently, and then I was even more surprised to read the following morning that his new assessment actually would be 32 times the current amount. That huge variation had me questioning the facts about the stadium tax. Many of us, including two or three of the City Councilors, simply haven't had the time to get a grasp on the costs and benefits of the new assessment district. This issue has not had the "full and proper discussion" which the people paying for it deserve.
Yes, those hagglers at the grocery store cashier lanes can be annoying. But in this case that's a weak analogy. I don't know the specific numbers for Kent Morlan's assessments, but the
Tulsa World published them for Jim Goodwin's property. If his grocery bill has been $51.00 for a long time, and he wanted to haggle when the total jumped to $51.01, then I agree -- that would be ridiculous. But that isn't the case. Last Wednesday we were led to believe that Jim Goodwin's "grocery" bill would be 800% higher once the stadium tax was added to it. That means a new "grocery" bill for Jim Goodwin of $459.00, not $51.01. But then the next day we were told that Jim Goodwin's "grocery" bill would be $1644.11 instead of the current $51.00. That's not the same as fussing about an extra penny.
Those check-out lane hagglers are irritating, especially when the rest of us are in a big hurry. When I'm standing behind one of them, I'm often tempted to give them a penny or nickel or dime simply to have the line start moving again. Would stadium proponents be willing to pay Kent Morlan and a few others the pittance of their assessments to get them to withdraw their protest petition and to shut up? My guess is yes if it's really such a tiny amount. I truly think that if the private portion were greater and if the assessments were based on proximity to the stadium, then this proposal would be more equitable.
It appears that some of the property on the stadium site, and large chunks of the property around it will be able to be sold, rented etc to help pay down the part of the assessment that is funding the ballpark. So indeed, in a way people, aka, developers will be able to "chip in" so to speak and make it so that the other property owners downtown will not be paying as much. Plus the extra taxes raised by those developments and others will hasten the paydown of the ballpark.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
QuoteOriginally posted by RecycleMichael
Yes, those hagglers at the grocery store cashier lanes can be annoying. But in this case that's a weak analogy. I don't know the specific numbers for Kent Morlan's assessments, but the Tulsa World published them for Jim Goodwin's property. If his grocery bill has been $51.00 for a long time, and he wanted to haggle when the total jumped to $51.01, then I agree -- that would be ridiculous. But that isn't the case. Last Wednesday we were led to believe that Jim Goodwin's "grocery" bill would be 800% higher once the stadium tax was added to it. That means a new "grocery" bill for Jim Goodwin of $459.00, not $51.01. But then the next day we were told that Jim Goodwin's "grocery" bill would be $1644.11 instead of the current $51.00. That's not the same as fussing about an extra penny.
This brings up a question: Why are there such wide discrepancies between properties that are just a block or two apart?
Or is someone greatly exaggerating/lying about the impact of the new assessment district?
If it sucks that bad for Morlan (which I doubt), he can just sell the property and make a handsome profit. There will be plenty of prospective buyers.
I noticed that Michael Sanger's in full support of the ballpark plan. Sanger's a guy I greatly respect, and trust his judgment.
booWorld had an excerpt earlier, but I thought there was more to the article. So, more excerpts below plus Morlan's plan last year for replacing DTU but not the tax to pay for DTU.
quote:
From UrbanTulsa
JULY 2, 2008
Surprise, Surprise!
Better late than never, city finds a place for Drillers Stadium in the Greenwood District
http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A23756
BY BRIAN ERVIN
...
If it's approved, downtown property would be assessed at 6.5 cents per square foot.
Federal facilities, churches and any property that qualifies for a homestead exemption would be exempt.
It would replace the current Downtown Improvement District when it expires June 30, 2009, and would expire in 30 years.
The current district was created in 1978, largely to fund Downtown Tulsa Unlimited, the private, non-profit group with which the city contracts for the upkeep and management of downtown.
If the new district is approved, about $1.1 million would go toward the services currently provided by DTU, except it might not be DTU providing the services.
...
Well, they're getting what they wanted. The city will offer the contract through the public bidding process, which DTU may or not win.
...
Kent Morlan of downtown's Beacon 400 LLC said, "Everybody's scratching their heads about it."
He said the proposed assessment would raise Beacon Services' taxes from the $2,400 it's paying each year for the current Downtown Improvement District to $8,000 per year.
Morlan, who is an attorney--as are most of his tenants in the Beacon building--said, "I'm not going to benefit from the baseball stadium, since I don't sell anything to the public who could come for the games."
Morlan was the most vocal critic of the city's arrangement with DTU and had demanded the opportunity to bid for the contract himself.
Bunney, though, said the benefit it will bring to Morlan and other downtown property owners is the increased property value that will result.
"If you look at the cases of downtown ballparks around the country, in almost every case, it's helped revitalize the downtown area and, therefore, positively impacted the property values," he said.
Michael Sager, who owns property in the Blue Dome District, concurred.
"I'm very much in favor of the stadium being down there," he told UTW.
"I think, in the big picture, the shock is only today, and five years from now there won't be any shock from it at all," Sager explained.
"I mean, it affects us tremendously, and yet we're willing to be a player in the package," he added.
Despite that "tremendous effect," though, Sager said objections like Morlan's are "nitpicking."
"It pales in comparison to the price of fuel. Six and a half cents doesn't even equal the impact of the utility hike," he said.
Sager noted that the assessment tax increase Morlan complained about wouldn't be born by him alone, but would be spread out among all of his tenants.
"It has a substantial cost impact on us today, which isn't factored into our costs with our tenants, but it will be factored in the future," Sager added.
_____________________________________
JULY 25, 2007
Who Runs Downtown?
That's the question raised by longtime Tulsan and downtown resident Kent Morlan
http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A17682
BY BRIAN ERVIN
...
Morlan has indeed offered the city his services.
In mid-June, he sent Mayor Kathy Taylor a letter expressing his dissatisfaction with the return downtown is getting on the tax dollars given to DTU, and offered his organization's services as an alternative.
"I want to submit a bid on the downtown Tulsa management contract that has been automatically awarded to Downtown Tulsa Unlimited for years without any competitive bidding," he wrote to the Mayor.
"Beacon Services will keep the streets cleaner, will make the streets more attractive and will keep them safer at a lower cost and, it will make our downtown a more competitive retail, commercial and residential part of our City for less," he continued in his correspondence.
Around the time of his correspondence with the Mayor, Morlan said he'd checked with Pat Treadway, section manager of the Mayor's Economic Development Team, to see if the contract between the City and Tul-Center, Inc. (DTU's sister corporation) had been executed, and was told it had not.
While Morlan did attempt to bid for DTU's job, he insists that he isn't in it for himself.
In a February letter in which Morlan voiced his complaints to Norton, he wrote, "I do not want your job and I do not intend to run for public office or be appointed to any board or commission. The only 'dog' that I have in this fight is my investments in my home and my business."
Morlan said he could offer better services at lesser cost, so UTW asked him, How much less? How much would you ask in exchange for those services?
He clarified that the $380,360 "management cost" in DTU's contract would be $100,000 less in his offer, but that money would be directed into other services, such as providing free Wi-Fi in the area and hiring two full-time security guards to patrol the area at all times, so the lump sum wouldn't actually be less, he acknowledged.
,,,
© Copyright 2008, Urban Tulsa Weekly
The businesses and property owners within the IDL will all benefit from the ballpark, either directly in increased retail sales or indirectly in increased property values.
Although on the opposite side of the ballpark, property owners around 11th & Denver and along 10th/11th to the east will see icreased traffic into downtown. These gateways to downtown on the southside will grow and prosper just as those on the north and northeast.
This ball park will be a catalyst that moves Tulsa's downtown forward in a positive direction.
This is
TulsaNow!
Morlan is a dude'......
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
QuoteOriginally posted by RecycleMichael
Yes, those hagglers at the grocery store cashier lanes can be annoying. But in this case that's a weak analogy. I don't know the specific numbers for Kent Morlan's assessments, but the Tulsa World published them for Jim Goodwin's property. If his grocery bill has been $51.00 for a long time, and he wanted to haggle when the total jumped to $51.01, then I agree -- that would be ridiculous. But that isn't the case. Last Wednesday we were led to believe that Jim Goodwin's "grocery" bill would be 800% higher once the stadium tax was added to it. That means a new "grocery" bill for Jim Goodwin of $459.00, not $51.01. But then the next day we were told that Jim Goodwin's "grocery" bill would be $1644.11 instead of the current $51.00. That's not the same as fussing about an extra penny.
This brings up a question: Why are there such wide discrepancies between properties that are just a block or two apart?
Or is someone greatly exaggerating/lying about the impact of the new assessment district?
If it sucks that bad for Morlan (which I doubt), he can just sell the property and make a handsome profit. There will be plenty of prospective buyers.
I noticed that Michael Sanger's in full support of the ballpark plan. Sanger's a guy I greatly respect, and trust his judgment.
It's Sager. Your sloppy Whirled journalistic standards are showing.
The above story says that Kent Moreland is officed in the Beacon Building at 4th and Boulder. Those offices (and parking) are less than 300 yards from the new arena. They are half that distance from the new bus station that we other Tulsans paid for.
The Beacon Building looks to be eight stories tall. The new assessment is going to be $8,000. By looking at a floor plan, I am guessing that they average about 40 individual offices per floor (or more precisely 40 workers per floor). That works out to about two bucks per person per month.
I can see where he wants more service than he is getting currently. He lives and works downtown and has a right to ask for what he is paying for.
I (we) have been spending millions of dollars to fix up his neighborhood. My neighborhood hasn't been getting any of that money. I live in east Tulsa near Mingo creek. Our walking path isn't getting a new facelift...we have no park benches, no new street lights, etc. The only new government spending near my home is a new steel fab building for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife surrounded by chain link fence topped with barb wire.
Nobody wants to pay more in taxes. I understand. But asking the people who benefit the most too pay a little more than the rest of us doesn't seem unreasonable to me. All of us are spending over 200 million and the closest people are paying one million extra. That seems fair to me.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
QuoteOriginally posted by RecycleMichael
This brings up a question: Why are there such wide discrepancies between properties that are just a block or two apart?
Or is someone greatly exaggerating/lying about the impact of the new assessment district?
If it sucks that bad for Morlan (which I doubt), he can just sell the property and make a handsome profit. There will be plenty of prospective buyers.
I noticed that Michael Sanger's in full support of the ballpark plan. Sanger's a guy I greatly respect, and trust his judgment.
That is because "The Tulsa Stadium Improvement District will increase the assessment rate to 6.5 cents per square foot on land and structures for nearly all property owners."
The rate is based off of not only square footage of the underlying real estate but also the square footage of structures.
Has anyone seen a copy of the petition?
Lacking that, I really have no frame of reference for what they are protesting. My guttural response was "deal with it" as it is an improvement to your neighborhood (I'd love to have that much improvement near me for the $72 a year it would cost me). BUT, it appears his objections may be more deep rooted than that.
I can't form a very good opinion without really knowing what the suite is even about.
Well OSCN Tulsa County would be a lot cooler if actual court documents were available, but for everyone's reference so they can follow along with the status of the petition for declaratory action, the OSCN link to the suit is below.
OSCN Link to Suit Status (//%22http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2115281&db=Tulsa%22)
I see that he paid $217.30 to file the petition.
That is almost exactly three years of assessment for his condo.
You can get a copy of the petition at the Clerk's office. I believe there is a $10 fee. But sometimes one is sent to the media or the media gets one and publishes it. Also, sometimes, when a public body is sued they post the petition somewhere.
Just curious if anyone had seen a copy.
- - -
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Do you really think that this is that much money? The total amount asked is only a million dollars a year. That is spread among hundreds of properties owners. Any amount paid for in this assesment tax will be offset by increased value of their property.
But its not a million a year, they have stated the new tax will being in 3.3 million a year... thats $99 million... $70+ million more than the the figure quoted... where is the extra money going?
Doesn't the extra money pay the interest? They start building before they have the $30 million.
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
Let's also not forget that Morlan wants to bid against DTU to provide those services inside the IDL.
That's an interesting revelation. I'd not heard this about Kent Morlan.
I've been out of the loop the last week or so. DTU outlived it's hoped-for purpose a long time ago. It's a mystery to me how Jim Norton has managed to silently stay in that position as long as he has for as little return as downtown has gotten.
quote:
Originally posted by Gold
Doesn't the extra money pay the interest? They start building before they have the $30 million.
I thought only a little over half went to the ballpark, the rest to downtown maintenance that DTU does, but for everything inside the IDL.
quote:
from Tulsa World July 12, 2008
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080712_11_A11_hFivel41871
Of the 6.5 cents, 4.3 cents will help fund a proposed ballpark for the Tulsa Drillers that will be in the historic Greenwood District. The remaining 2.2 cents of the assessment will continue to fund current downtown services such as street sweeping and landscaping. The assessment will fund $25 million of the estimated $60 million ballpark project. When the debt of the baseball stadium is paid, the 4.3 cent assessment will be removed, leaving the 2.2 cents for the 30-year life of the district.
quote:
From UrbanTulsa JULY 2, 2008
http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A23756
If it's approved, downtown property would be assessed at 6.5 cents per square foot.
Federal facilities, churches and any property that qualifies for a homestead exemption would be exempt.
It would replace the current Downtown Improvement District when it expires June 30, 2009, and would expire in 30 years.
The current district was created in 1978, largely to fund Downtown Tulsa Unlimited, the private, non-profit group with which the city contracts for the upkeep and management of downtown.
If the new district is approved, about $1.1 million would go toward the services currently provided by DTU, except it might not be DTU providing the services.
Thanks mrB!
An update (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080718_11_A13_hTheyw971060%22) of sorts on the lawsuit.....