120 new Brady District Lofts + retail

[sgrizzle]

Wil Wilkins has presented to the TulsaNow board members and that board wants nothing more than private development to take off in Downtown Tulsa. That's the whole point of the public investment. One board member is on both TulsaNow and the EDC. None of them are on TDA.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by dsjeffries on July 10, 2008

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle on July 10, 2008

Martinson wants to delay a week and says he didn't really know anything before Tuesday (he doesn't read the paper I guess) and that he hasn't had time to read his 8 page document that is posted above.

I read that document in less than 10 minutes this afternoon.  Seriously, is it that hard for him to READ?

It was explained in the responses to Bill Martinson's questions 9 and 12 that the George Kaiser Family Foundation would assist in acquiring necessary adjacent land for the benefit of the Tulsa Stadium Trust.  The City Council approved the proposal less than three weeks ago.  Remember?  

[FOTD]

The synergy in the Brady calls for arts district and not residential. Perhaps, the Pearle or East End are more compatible with a well thought out Master Plan with a school, residential, and support retail.

Disgruntled players move over.....could it be the "developer" did not qualify? Could it be those who are putting up millions want to help the area only on a different scale than schemers and dreamers? Seems to the devil's advocate that those putting their money down for the area deserve control. The city, TDA, is merely facilitating something those in control desire.

You should be more focused on how to move the industrial uses out of Brady......

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

The synergy in the Brady calls for arts district and not residential...

What synergy and says who?

From TDA's Brady Village Infill Plan:

"Land Use.

Encourage high quality residential, office, entertainment, commercial and industrial infill development.  No one single land use dominates or should dominate to the exclusion of other vital businesses, interests and activities.  Brady Village is intended as a higher intensity mixed use urban village..."

[joiei]

The Crossroads area of Kansas City, which is their arts district is very mixed use, art gallerys, artist studios, residents, businesses, restaurants and bars and a movie theater.  At least that is what is there when I go there and the mix makes it a very viable community.

[carltonplace]

Rushed story from the TW: Link to Tulsa World

Ballpark option: eminent domain

MAYOR
Kathy Taylor: Her proposal includes development of mixed-use venues on land surrounding the stadium.

By P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
7/31/2008
Last Modified: 7/31/2008  2:37 AM

The city has land for the stadium, but wants to also secure surrounding property for development.


The city is apparently willing to condemn property, if necessary, around a proposed baseball stadium downtown to secure it for a mixed-use development area.

Mayor Kathy Taylor has proposed a $60 million ballpark project that includes construction of a baseball stadium to house the city's Double A baseball team, the Tulsa Drillers, and development of mixed-use venues on land surrounding the stadium.

Of the $60 million cost, $30 million would come in private donations, $25 million from a downtown property assessment fee, and $5 million from the Drillers' lease.

The project is proposed for the historic Greenwood District, where the stadium would nestle against Interstate 244, bounded by Elgin Avenue, Archer Street and abutting the backside of the stores and offices along Greenwood Avenue.

Backers of the project have said that the private properties directly adjacent to the stadium along Elgin Avenue and Archer Street are being acquired as part of the ballpark master plan and would be transformed into entertainment, retail and residential developments. The actual site of the baseball stadium is on Tulsa Development Authority land so no acquisition is necessary to secure that property.

But the backers have said that it is vital to have the larger footprint to create a successful project and spur further economic development.

The George Kaiser Family Foundation is assisting in acquiring private land around the stadium. The land would be transferred at acquisition cost to a public trust created to govern the ballpark.

All revenues the trust receives from selling or leasing the parcels for private development will go toward retiring the debt on the stadium and future maintenance needs, said Pete Boylan, an adviser to Taylor on the ballpark.

Boylan has said that condemnation is an option that could be used in securing the surrounding land. Condemnation initiated by the city is subject to City Council approval.

In a letter sent Tuesday to Stephen Schuller, the attorney for Novus Homes LLC, a mother-and-son development team, Tulsa Development Authority Chairman Carl Bracy refers to the condemnation process for the land around the ballpark.

The letter describes the ballpark master plan and gives notice that the authority would be terminating the exclusive negotiation rights between it and Novus. Plans had called for the company to create a mixed-use development on a parcel owned by the authority within the master plan area.

The letter states that it would be "unwise" to proceed further with Novus.

"After all, the city has the right of eminent domain (condemnation) and can take whatever properties become necessary for its municipal purposes," the letter states.

Bracy said Wednesday that he mentioned condemnation to let Novus know possible acquisition steps that the city could take even though the authority also owns that parcel.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that acquiring land for economic development could be considered a legitimate public use under condemnation law, but it also noted that state legislatures could craft stricter definitions of "public use" to further limit the power of condemnation.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the Oklahoma Constitution provided more protection for private landowners than the U.S. Constitution did, and that economic development, without any other rationale, does not create a legitimate public purpose or public use.

No city official would respond to calls from the Tulsa World. Taylor was out of the state Wednesday.

Bracy said after conferring with the Mayor's Office that the authority decided to terminate the negotiations with Novus because a lot has changed and "we just want to make sure we consider all avenues so that decisions are made in the best interest of the city."

Novus has had exclusive negotiation rights with the authority since January — long before the ballpark site moved to the Greenwood District. The first proposed site was in the East Village. The authority will discuss the termination with Novus at its Aug. 7 meeting.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

...Not sure what is going on with the TDA, but they're going to lose all credibility if they act with prejudice against the good faith efforts of a developer with a strong track record of smart development in Tulsa...and a sound plan for success.

Currently, people in Tulsa worry (as shown in the recent PLANiTULSA survey of over 1,000 residents) that the comp plan will be "too influenced by people who have a lot of money." (70% of respondents agreed with this statement.)  I certainly hope and believe that this concern proves to be FALSE.  However, if certain members of the TDA are stonewalling this project, it only reinforces this belief.  It adds to the sense of fatalism that hurts Tulsa, by killing off the "can do" attitude of local people who care...and, given the chance, will work to be part of the solution...

...TDA...are you listening?

Yes, I think the TDA is listening.  The City Council approved the stadium project three weeks ago after a public hearing.  The surrounding property is part of the project.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

Rushed story from the TW: Link to Tulsa World

Ballpark option: eminent domain

Rushed story?

Rushed project?

It all depends on how "rushed" is defined.

The World has been publishing articles about the stadium proposal since June 25.  The adjacent land is included in the project.

The City Council approved the stadium project (including the surrounding property) after a public hearing on July 10.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

The synergy in the Brady calls for arts district and not residential. Perhaps, the Pearle or East End are more compatible with a well thought out Master Plan with a school, residential, and support retail.

Disgruntled players move over.....could it be the "developer" did not qualify? Could it be those who are putting up millions want to help the area only on a different scale than schemers and dreamers? Seems to the devil's advocate that those putting their money down for the area deserve control. The city, TDA, is merely facilitating something those in control desire.

You should be more focused on how to move the industrial uses out of Brady......

No, we absolutely want more living in that area. The only way downtown is to actually thrive is if it has lots of residential. An "Urban Village" type atmosphere is one that is pedestrian friendly, family friendly and yes children friendly. The Brady Arts and Greenwood Districts cant just be club zones and tourist destinations. It will never be able to be a self sufficient, complete neighborhood without a heavy dose of residential.

As for the developers. They were playing by the rules, put in a lot of time and money doing what they were supposed to be doing. It is a great development for the area, but now the rules have seemingly changed. They are being ignored so that the process cant continue as it usually does. The guy from the TDA mentioned that the developers have an exclusive contract to negotiate until Sept,,, but nobody is negotiating with the developers. TDA looks to be just running out the clock.  TDA says they are doing this for the best interest of Tulsa. But wouldnt treating everyone fairly be in the best interest of Tulsa? The "donors" may or may not be able to get all of those spaces filled with developments as nice as this.

A bird in the hand, thats just the kind of bird you want, should be in Tulsas interest.

The developers have even mentioned that they would be willing to work with the donors to help fill in the other developments with businesses. (they helped bring in the hotel peple who are redeveloping the Atlas Life building) And they said they were willing to change the design and look of their building to compliment any over all design plan that the donors had in mind for that area. They kept trying to reach out, but keep getting the cold shoulder.  

Basically, to me it looks like a land grab. That spot is now a for sure money maker, and the donors want to have it... So they are going to take it.

TDA should have the same rules, same process and treat everyone the same. Why have rules in the first place if they can be so easily ignored at their whim?  How can developers know what to do if the TDA doesnt have a stable set of rules and procedures and can just ignore them, make them up and change them at any time? How can anyone know they are being treated fairly and not being discriminated against for instance? You can follow the rules all you want, but at any time, for any reason, they can just ignore you, all the work and money you have put in, and brush you aside.  How is that good for Tulsa?

I think Chuck Lamson should grow a pair of balls and be a man and say "Yea, I want the ballpark there, but I am not going to do so at the expense of screwing these good people over." He is definitely one person who could stop this charade and should do so. Its one thing to have a disagreement over the funding mechanism, quite another what is going on with these developers.

I also dont understand why the TDA and others arent even offering out the notion of helping the developers find another property nearby? They are just completely shoving these developers aside, no compromise, no discussion, no nothing. Thats just wrong. Regardless of whether they may have "bigger better" plans, which has yet to be seen,,, why arent they being decent enough to find a helpful solution? How can they be so callous and crude?

I want to hear from RecycleMichael, he has the mayors ear and knows how the system should work. Why isnt he commenting on this?

 

[carltonplace]

I've sent a letter to the office of the mayor. Wonder if I'll get a response?

[FOTD]

Looks like the complaint department is Peter Boylan....aka TV Guide ex insider barred from SEC participation of any kind for life.

In the meantime, this use obviously does not fall in to his master plan.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist
I want to hear from RecycleMichael, he has the mayors ear and knows how the system should work. Why isnt he commenting on this?

I don't have the Mayor's ear anymore than lots of people who write her and go to public meetings, but thank you for saying it.

I haven't discussed this topic enough to have strong opinions. My wife and I talked about it last night and again this morning after reading the Tulsa World story. I didn't feel I knew enough to get involved.

I am also getting a little leery about what I say on this forum. My comments on TulsaNow made the UrbanTulsa this week on a story about a downtown picket line and I pissed off some homeless people. I never realized it, but the homeless have plenty of free time to read newspapers.

I don't have a real good sense of developing property and the behind the scenes work it takes. I don't know how much investment it takes. I did meet the folks from Novus homes and they seem sincere while being disillusioned about the changes. I thought their plan was excellent and would be a great asset to the downtown area.

I can also understand that the area around the ballpark needs to be coordinated. If there is one thing I do know about developing property is that we often just build stuff without seeing how it all fits together. One of the reasons why I am excited about PlaniTulsa is that we should have a master plan to use for deciding how things fit together.

It seems reasonable to slow down on properties directly connected to the ballpark. The comments in the morning paper said that a plan for the whole area is being developed. I would hope that this plan calls for something similar to what is being proposed.

If I were in charge, I would wait until a plan is established, then go back to Novus and let them build on this parcel. I would give them first rights on developing it as long as it fit with the overall plan.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Looks like the complaint department is Peter Boylan....aka TV Guide ex insider barred from SEC participation of any kind for life.

You might want to tell BOK that, he's on the board there.

[Michael71]

I, too, have emailed the list provided by Will in support of his plan.

RecycleMichael, I agree with you that they should have first rights after a master plan has been created

[cannon_fodder]

RM, here's what I don't get:  A citizen of Tulsa has put time, effort, and money into building something.  That something is exactly what the TDA and the Mayor profess we want - high density mixed use development.

Even if it is not exactly what we had in mind (though it seems to be), why not incorporate their plans into the development or work with them to modify their plans to fit into the development?

Instead, the city does all they can to scuttle the project.  When they fight back, the city just comes out and says they'll go nuclear (condemnation/eminent domain) to get control of that property. That's working against citizens, not for them.

I don't understand how these actions could be construed as constructive.  Unless they are serving another purpo$e we don't know about, shutting out a developer makes no sense.  Perhaps it is again a situation where lack of transparency is destroying public confidence in our government.