120 new Brady District Lofts + retail

[Hoss]

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]

[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.

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?

[swake]

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.

[Wilbur]

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.

[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)?

[Rico]

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.....  

[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.

[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

[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.

[cannon_fodder]

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.

[RecycleMichael]

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.

[TheArtist]

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.

[TheLofts@120]

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.

[RecycleMichael]

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.

[TulsaFuture]

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.