Lawsuit against the new Ballpark

[RecycleMichael]

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.

[sgrizzle]

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.

[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? 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.  

[booWorld]

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 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.  

[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.

[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?

[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?

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:

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.

[booWorld]

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.

[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.

[booWorld]

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.

[booWorld]

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.

[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.

[tshane250]

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!!!

[waterboy]

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?

[booWorld]

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, 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.