City Council - Driller Vote on July 10

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by chlfan

This may have been addressed already but will the surface parking lots be assessed as well? At the same sq. ft. rate?Granted, there is no building on a surface lot but it is real estate and it is generating revenue.Just curious.

This would actually provide an incentive to knock down buildings for surface parking, which would reduce the assessment.

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by TeeDub



The City of Tulsa will owe $217,736.60 annually on its downtown properties, according to an estimate prepared by mayoral economic adviser Mike Bunney. County taxpayers are on the hook for about $138,000 a year. That's not counting land owned by various city and county trust authorities.

http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/PrintFriendly?oid=oid%3A24006

I wonder how much that will be offset by increased sales tax revenue that both the count and city will receive when businesses surrounding the stadium start springing up?

And does that include the new city hall?  What if they have a hard time unloading all the old real estate?  Hmm..  Just questions.

I still support the stadium, both the location, and the way it's being financed.  I think it's the first thing in a long time that I can find minimal fault with.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear


Now tell me, I live downtown, for instance.  How much will I pay annually for my Liberty Towers 2BR 1,100 s.f. condo??

Um, nothing. Liberty Towers is outside the IDL and not part of the district.

If I move over to Central Park Condo's, how much more will I pay?

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by chlfan

This may have been addressed already but will the surface parking lots be assessed as well? At the same sq. ft. rate?Granted, there is no building on a surface lot but it is real estate and it is generating revenue.Just curious.

This would actually provide an incentive to knock down buildings for surface parking, which would reduce the assessment.

So do all property taxes.  Try again.

To answer the original question--this tax is on all land and structures within the IDL.  http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080712_11_A11_hFivel41871

So, a city block of parking is going to measure 160' x 160', which makes 25600 sq ft of real estate.  At $0.065/sq foot, that's $1664/year in total assessment.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by chlfan

This may have been addressed already but will the surface parking lots be assessed as well? At the same sq. ft. rate?Granted, there is no building on a surface lot but it is real estate and it is generating revenue.Just curious.

The assessment would be based upon a combination of the square footage of property plus the square footage of any buildings. So surface parking would be assessed lower, but would still have an increase.  

I don't think it will cause property owners to tear down their buildings simply to get a lower rate.  Part of the problem in the past is that property has been relatively cheap downtown.  With an increase in the basic cost of owning land downtown, property owners will need to increase the income that the property produces.  I am not a business person, but I would guess that a surface parking lot has the lowest rate of return for property.  By raising the tax assessment, those who are holding property without using it (eg, TulsaClub) or who are underutilizing their property will be more likely to sell.  Knocking down buildings would only make sense if suddenly surface lot parking became hugely profitable downtown.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear


Now tell me, I live downtown, for instance.  How much will I pay annually for my Liberty Towers 2BR 1,100 s.f. condo??

Um, nothing. Liberty Towers is outside the IDL and not part of the district.

If I move over to Central Park Condo's, how much more will I pay?

$71.50/year.  

$5.95/month.

I'm going to guess that the presence of the ballpark alone will increase your condo's value by at least 10x that amount annually.  

Decent return on your investment.

If you're into that.

[:O]

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by chlfan

This may have been addressed already but will the surface parking lots be assessed as well? At the same sq. ft. rate?Granted, there is no building on a surface lot but it is real estate and it is generating revenue.Just curious.

The assessment would be based upon a combination of the square footage of property plus the square footage of any buildings. So surface parking would be assessed lower, but would still have an increase.  

I don't think it will cause property owners to tear down their buildings simply to get a lower rate.  Part of the problem in the past is that property has been relatively cheap downtown.  With an increase in the basic cost of owning land downtown, property owners will need to increase the income that the property produces.  I am not a business person, but I would guess that a surface parking lot has the lowest rate of return for property.  By raising the tax assessment, those who are holding property without using it (eg, TulsaClub) or who are underutilizing their property will be more likely to sell.  Knocking down buildings would only make sense if suddenly surface lot parking became hugely profitable downtown.

Funny you mention the Tulsa Club, cause that would be a prime site for a surface parking lot.  The fact remains it would still be assessed at a lower rate than if the building were to remain standing and would generate income for the owner as a pay parking lot for a property not currently generating any income for the owner. Any way you cut it this is an incentive for tear downs and more surface parking. It certainly doesn't provide any incentive for rehabbing and renovating these underutilized buildings.

[MDepr2007]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear


Now tell me, I live downtown, for instance.  How much will I pay annually for my Liberty Towers 2BR 1,100 s.f. condo??

Um, nothing. Liberty Towers is outside the IDL and not part of the district.

If I move over to Central Park Condo's, how much more will I pay?

$71.50/year.  

$5.95/month.

I'm going to guess that the presence of the ballpark alone will increase your condo's value by at least 10x that amount annually.  

Decent return on your investment.

If you're into that.

[:O]

So all the homes around 15th and Yale will go down 10x??  By the way downtown is being taxed I guess I should have included all the way to Admiral and Yale also going down in value with the lose of a ball park [}:)]

[Renaissance]

The values of the homes in the vicinity of the current ballpark are based on factors that don't have a whole lot to do with Drillers Stadium--schools, vicinity to services, neighborhod feel, etc.  If anything, taking ballpark traffic out of those areas will increase their value.

The values of residences downtown, however, are based on factors that will be influenced by the relocation of the Drillers--particularly entertainment options downtown and the general desirability of living somewhere exciting.  It's no stretch to suggest that the value of a $150,000 downtown condominium might be increased by $715 (0.5%) because of the creation of and investment in a nearby entertainment district.

[USRufnex]

Actually, I don't think the the average condo owner at Central Park Condos will see much of a property value increase due the presence of a minor league ballpark a mile away from them...... but I bet they see some real property value increases from being so close to the new arena... benefits from a new arena the entire county's taxpayers ponied up for...

[carltonplace]

quote:Originally posted by Double A
[br
That's just one of many problems with this plan, a little reading comprehension goes a long way. Try it sometime, that is, if you even possess the cognitive capacity.

While I am hesitant to respond to these personal attacks on my intellectual or cognitive capacity, it defies logic that a person who stands weekly in front of the city council speaking in incoherent, noncongruent and unpersuasive circles devoid of logical thought has the gall to attack another's reasoning skills.


I appologize to the Admin.

[USRufnex]

"incoherent, noncongruent and unpersuasive circles devoid of logical thought"

Can Cox Cable use that as a slogan for all it's live broadcasts on TGOV?  []

[PonderInc]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by chlfan

This may have been addressed already but will the surface parking lots be assessed as well? At the same sq. ft. rate?Granted, there is no building on a surface lot but it is real estate and it is generating revenue.Just curious.

The assessment would be based upon a combination of the square footage of property plus the square footage of any buildings. So surface parking would be assessed lower, but would still have an increase.  

I don't think it will cause property owners to tear down their buildings simply to get a lower rate.  Part of the problem in the past is that property has been relatively cheap downtown.  With an increase in the basic cost of owning land downtown, property owners will need to increase the income that the property produces.  I am not a business person, but I would guess that a surface parking lot has the lowest rate of return for property.  By raising the tax assessment, those who are holding property without using it (eg, TulsaClub) or who are underutilizing their property will be more likely to sell.  Knocking down buildings would only make sense if suddenly surface lot parking became hugely profitable downtown.

Too bad the Improvement District wasn't used as a lever to discourage surface parking. Why not discourage what is bad for downtown (surface parking) by charging a premium on wasted, non-productive space?  What if they'd offered a discount for adaptive re-use of older/historic buildings, and charged extra for surface parking.  Thus, McNellies would get a discount (adaptive reuse), and owners of surface parking lots would pay a premium...so that it wouldn't be as profitable to destroy entire city blocks and then just sit on it for decades wondering why downtown doesn't thrive.

I'll just keep dreaming...

[Townsend]

I was under the impression that most of the surface parking downtown was city owned and then leased to American parking et al.  Am I wrong?

[cannon_fodder]

1) An assessment against surface parking would not, in any way, encourage knocking down a building.

Currently, the building will be subject to an assessment.  The alternative to assessing a tax against a parking lot is NOT assessing it.  One would think not assessing the tax against surface parking would be a greater incentive than having  tax on it.

2) Under the new guidelines the cost to a city and county resident has doubled my estimate.  An astounding $1 a year.

Really?  You've wasted more money than that in electricity arguing against it online.