120 new Brady District Lofts + retail

[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.

[sgrizzle]

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?

[TheLofts@120]

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.

[MDepr2007]

Guess those that you snickered at on that Thursday evening are now getting the last laugh.

Still want to play with your buddies[]

[Renaissance]

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.

[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.

?

[RecycleMichael]

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.

[Renaissance]

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.

[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?

[Renaissance]

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.

[Double A]

Ball park, what ballpark? Lamson still ain't signed s*#t. We gonna build a ballpark without a team to play there?

[booWorld]

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.

[CoffeeBean]

Nothing about this sounds like TDA is honoring the exclusivity part of the negotiation deal.

[Tulsareseacher]

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.

[TheArtist]

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.