Lawsuit against the new Ballpark

[Double A]

The fact is that Da Mare piggy backed this assessment in addition to the cost of building the stadium. Not only that, she increased the assessment as well. I think it's time to contact state legislators and get some legislation enacted to cap assessment district increases, similar to the current 5% maximum annual increase on property taxes. This legislation should also include provisions to prevent the logrolling that happened with this assessment, combining two different issues into a single item, so that they must be voted on separately.

[RecycleMichael]

You are right booworld. I shouldn't have called him a jerk for protesting. He has every right to file a petition in the court and be heard. We do live in a great country.

I just don't know what other word to use. Because he is a lawyer, he has the ability to tie up a sixty million dollar improvement to downtown, a great opportunity for my family to come downtown a couple of dozen times a year, and a magnet for redevelopment.

I understand his argument for the old assessment method being based on a methodology that is flawed. If you come up with some crazy formula to charge people based on how close you are to a pedestrian fountain and they remove that fountain, you have a right to protest.

But why didn't he protest the day the old fountain was removed? Why did he not petition the court the first day the little joke of a fountain they replaced it with first sprayed water?

I almost hope he is successful in protesting the method, as long as it is damn quick. The whole idea is flawed, especially when it allowed a large portion of the property owners to pay a tenth of a penny per square foot. A whole acre at the edge of downtown pays less than 4 bucks a month for improvements. I agree that they probably didn't get much service from DTU at that price, but that is a different conversation.

This formula is fair. All properties are charged the same because they are all increasing in value. Don't say that your business won't be any more successful because of baseball.

Look at the hundreds of millions WE have spent in your three square miles. We have invested in convention centers, performing arts centers, arenas, new sidewalks, new roads, new parks, more security presence, new street lights, new bus station and help for new housing.

I should not have called him a jerk. But what he is doing seems awfully jerky.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

You are right booworld. I shouldn't have called him a jerk for protesting. He has every right to file a petition in the court and be heard. We do live in a great country.

I just don't know what other word to use. Because he is a lawyer, he has the ability to tie up a sixty million dollar improvement to downtown, a great opportunity for my family to come downtown a couple of dozen times a year, and a magnet for redevelopment.

I don't think the protest petition will tie up the process for very long.

Kent Morlan has been an opponent of DTU's management of the current downtown assessment district for years.  As I mentioned in another post, I imagine he was looking forward to its expiration next year.  

I've seen very little protest against the stadium proposal.  I think there might be some forthcoming lawsuits over it, but I'm guessing that all those opposed to the stadium will lose in their efforts, and that they will ultimately be forced to pay the increased assessments for the stadium whether they want to or not.

And I disagree that a uniform assessment rate applied throughout the downtown is fair.  Those properties nearer to the stadium will benefit more.  The petition was signed by the owners of property relatively far from the proposed stadium site.

I thought hacking the Skelly Building to bits and carting all that embodied energy to a landfill was jerky behavior.  But I didn't own the building, and the Tulsa World didn't expect for me to pay an assessment to fund its idea of "improvements" downtown.  Kent Morlan has been around Tulsa for a long time.  Perhaps he sees the renewal and increase of the assessments as jerky behavior.  Since he will be forced to pay them, then he has the right to question them.  

Many of us have ideas about ways to improve downtown, including Kent Morlan.  I don't always agree with him, but I'm glad that he speaks his mind.  If he is expecting you to foot the bill for sidewalks, streets, public facilities, fiber optic cabling, etcetera in "his" neighborhood (and I seriously doubt that he is expecting that), then he is being as selfish as you would be if you expected him to foot the bill for a baseball stadium downtown so your family could enjoy it a couple of times a year.

There seems to be quite a bit of support for a stadium downtown.  Given that fact, how difficult would it be to raise $25 million in private donations or investments?  I'd rather see free market forces drive the process.

 

[RecycleMichael]

You make some compelling arguments, booworld. The downtown property owners probably didn't have a say in the improvements. Who knows, some of them might be annoyed by even something as big as an arena.

We used public dollars to build that arena and we used public dollars to build the PAC. Is this about baseball? Do concerts with the Eagles or operas of the Phantom count more than baseball with the Drillers? Is downtown just for adults and not for families?

This ballpark is just one more great addition to downtown. It will do wonders for that part of our downtown, just like the arena will do for that other part when it opens.

Asking the downtown businesses to pay this time after we all have paid for all the other things seems fair to me.

[AVERAGE JOE]

Having all property owners pay the same rate toward DTU (or some other entity) is fair provided they receive the same level of service. However, I see the logic of having the ballpark-specific portion of the assessment be higher for properties closer to the stadium. Not as imbalanced as the previous/current assessment, though.

Let's also not forget that Morlan wants to bid against DTU to provide those services inside the IDL. This doesn't discredit his argument, but he's not pursuing this for purely philosophical reasons. I'd be thrilled if DTU got the boot, but I'm not sure Morlan is the answer, either.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

Having all property owners pay the same rate toward DTU (or some other entity) is fair provided they receive the same level of service. However, I see the logic of having the ballpark-specific portion of the assessment be higher for properties closer to the stadium. Not as imbalanced as the previous/current assessment, though.

Let's also not forget that Morlan wants to bid against DTU to provide those services inside the IDL. This doesn't discredit his argument, but he's not pursuing this for purely philosophical reasons. I'd be thrilled if DTU got the boot, but I'm not sure Morlan is the answer, either.

I really could empathize with the point the someone made during the City Council meeting about changing the rate of assessment from a flat rate to one based on the assessed value of the property.  I'm a little curious as to why it was hurried in so quickly, but I'm sure FB will be right along to spin..errr....tell me what it might be.

[:O]

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

You make some compelling arguments, booworld. The downtown property owners probably didn't have a say in the improvements. Who knows, some of them might be annoyed by even something as big as an arena.

We used public dollars to build that arena and we used public dollars to build the PAC. Is this about baseball? Do concerts with the Eagles or operas of the Phantom count more than baseball with the Drillers? Is downtown just for adults and not for families?

This ballpark is just one more great addition to downtown. It will do wonders for that part of our downtown, just like the arena will do for that other part when it opens.

Asking the downtown businesses to pay this time after we all have paid for all the other things seems fair to me.

There is no doubt that some downtown property owners are annoyed by the arena.  Some might be annoyed by the PAC, also.

The arena is being funded primarily by a county-wide sales tax which was a approved by a majority of thousands of voters in a county-wide election.  The public approval was the culmination of many months of open meetings and discussion.  The stadium tax was approved by six Tulsans less than two weeks after Mayor Taylor made her presentation explaining the proposed assessment district.  That didn't give much time for public input.

The PAC was funded with a combination of private and public sources.  The deal was somewhat rushed, but not as rushed as last week's downtown stadium proposal.  In 1973, Leta Chapman pledged $3.5 million toward a PAC for Tulsa.  In May of that year, Mayor Robert LaFortune announced that John H. Williams would also donate $3.5 million toward the construction of the PAC, with the stipulation that Tulsans approve a $7 million bond issue by August.  On August 7, 1973, 31,000 Tulsans voted on the measure, with approximately 60% approving.  The ultimate construction cost of the PAC was about 30% more than the architect's estimate.  The Williams Companies agreed to raise an additional $1 million in private money toward the difference if the city would divert public dollars from the sales tax capital fund, from general revenue sharing funds, and from interest on funds already in the bank.  

From what I've read and heard, many Tulsans (including downtown property owners) are in favor of building a new stadium downtown.  The very brief public discussion since June 27th has centered on mainly on financing.  Half of the $60 million will come from private sources.  That's wonderful.  If all Tulsans shared in the $25 million public financing portion, then that would average about $66 per Tulsan.  Many people would be willing to donate $66 or more in order to have a new stadium downtown.

I think it would have been better to have had more Tulsans voluntarily pledging private dollars toward the stadium rather than expecting the owners of downtown property to bear the entire $25 million burden, and I think this likely would have happened given more time for open public meetings and a campaign to raise capital.

So far, I've read of only a few protests against the proposed $30 million/$25 million private/public split -- I'm for letting those protests be heard.  My guess is that there would have been fewer protests against a 40/15 split, and fewer yet against a 45/10 split, and fewer yet with a system of tiered assessments based on distance from the stadium (not as complex as the current varied assessments).

For whatever reason, Kent Morlan and a few others have had the gumption to speak out against an issue which is seemingly very popular with the public.  IMO, Tulsa is a better place because of citizens such as Kent Morlan -- even if I don't agree with what they are saying.  TulsaNow is supposed to be about inclusiveness and "respect, civility and genuine engagement with all points of view."

TulsaNow is supposed to be about "a vibrant, walkable downtown and revitalized core neighborhoods at the heart of a regional strategy."  Kent Morlan is concerned about these issues.  His opinions about what Tulsa's downtown should be and how it ought to operate might be different from your opinions and my opinions, but he has lived and worked in downtown Tulsa for many years.  He genuinely cares about downtown Tulsa, as do many others.

It saddens me to see those with dissenting opinions labeled as jerks, especially on this forum which is supposed to foster respect for a diversity of opinions.  It's not about baseball, and it's not an anti-family issue.  It's about the right of taxpayers to have some control over how they are taxed and how those taxes will be used.  In the case of the stadium tax, there was almost no time for those who will be saddled with much higher taxes for the next 30 years to weigh the costs and benefits.

Footnotes:
 
a.  I didn't live in Tulsa when the PAC was built.  The information above is from a September 19, 1984 Tulsa Tribune article.  The point is that 31,000 Tulsans voted on the bond issue for the PAC.  That's much different than the City Council deciding on an assessment district to fund 42% of the cost of constructing a downtown stadium.

b.  Since it has been 31 years since the opening of the PAC, I'm guessing the bonds for its constuction have been paid off.  I'm not certain about the PAC, but I know that we haven't all paid for the arena -- not yet.  And even after we've paid for the construction of any large public facility, there are significant, ongoing operational costs.

[inteller]

well, I'm sure the mayor will fall over and give him a few mill from the sinking fund.  it works for everyone else.

btw, I think this is awesome.  I just wish these guys had have sued over the BoK sham payoff as well.

[RecycleMichael]

I think it is OK to have dissenting opinions. I believe full and proper discussion of the issues makes us a better community. That is one of the reasons I like this forum and most of the posters I have met through here.

Of course, average citizens could be asked to pay for extra costs to build the stadium. I would pay 66 dollars to help. My family always buys bricks in projects and it is often more than 66 dollars.

Do you really think that this is that much money? The total amount asked is only a million dollars a year. That is spread among hundreds of properties owners. Any amount paid for in this assesment tax will be offset by increased value of their property.

"It's about the right of taxpayers to have some control over how they are taxed and how those taxes will be used. In the case of the stadium tax...", doen't fly. Did Kent protest when the state changed the income tax rates last year? Did Kent go to the city budget meetings and speak up when the Mayor set a plan to run the city? No. Those decisions had much more impact on his wallet and how his taxes are spent.

He spoke at this ballpark financing public meeting as did I. We were given time to make our arguments and the council did a good job listening. We elected them to make hard decisions on our behalf.

I respect Kent and his efforts to have a better downtown. His petition to fight the ballpark is within his right. But he reminds me of the person at the cashier arguing about a extra penny being charged for their groceries while the rest of us are waiting in a long line.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I think it is OK to have dissenting opinions. I believe full and proper discussion of the issues makes us a better community. That is one of the reasons I like this forum and most of the posters I have met through here.

Of course, average citizens could be asked to pay for extra costs to build the stadium. I would pay 66 dollars to help. My family always buys bricks in projects and it is often more than 66 dollars.

Do you really think that this is that much money? The total amount asked is only a million dollars a year. That is spread among hundreds of properties owners. Any amount paid for in this assesment tax will be offset by increased value of their property.

"It's about the right of taxpayers to have some control over how they are taxed and how those taxes will be used. In the case of the stadium tax...", doen't fly. Did Kent protest when the state changed the income tax rates last year? Did Kent go to the city budget meetings and speak up when the Mayor set a plan to run the city? No. Those decisions had much more impact on his wallet and how his taxes are spent.

He spoke at this ballpark financing public meeting as did I. We were given time to make our arguments and the council did a good job listening. We elected them to make hard decisions on our behalf.

I respect Kent and his efforts to have a better downtown. His petition to fight the ballpark is within his right. But he reminds me of the person at the cashier arguing about a extra penny being charged for their groceries while the rest of us are waiting in a long line.

I was editing my earlier post when you posted your reply.  Sorry about that, but to respond to your question about the amount of the new assessments:

Yes, a million dollars per year for 30 years does seem like lots of money to me, even when someone else is being forced to pay it.  But honestly I haven't had enough time to study the issue because it was so rushed.  This proposal was presented and approved within a matter of days.  

I'm not aware of the current and new assessments for those who signed the protest petition.  Obviously they are unhappy with the higher assessments and are not convinced that the benefits of a stadium will be worth the extra taxes.  I was surprised to read last Wednesday that the new assessment on Jim Goodwin's property would be 9 times what it is currently, and then I was even more surprised to read the following morning that his new assessment actually would be 32 times the current amount.  That huge variation had me questioning the facts about the stadium tax.  Many of us, including two or three of the City Councilors, simply haven't had the time to get a grasp on the costs and benefits of the new assessment district.  This issue has not had the "full and proper discussion" which the people paying for it deserve.

Yes, those hagglers at the grocery store cashier lanes can be annoying.  But in this case that's a weak analogy.  I don't know the specific numbers for Kent Morlan's assessments, but the Tulsa World published them for Jim Goodwin's property.  If his grocery bill has been $51.00 for a long time, and he wanted to haggle when the total jumped to $51.01, then I agree -- that would be ridiculous.  But that isn't the case.  Last Wednesday we were led to believe that Jim Goodwin's "grocery" bill would be 800% higher once the stadium tax was added to it.  That means a new "grocery" bill for Jim Goodwin of $459.00, not $51.01.  But then the next day we were told that Jim Goodwin's "grocery" bill would be $1644.11 instead of the current $51.00.  That's not the same as fussing about an extra penny.

Those check-out lane hagglers are irritating, especially when the rest of us are in a big hurry.  When I'm standing behind one of them, I'm often tempted to give them a penny or nickel or dime simply to have the line start moving again.  Would stadium proponents be willing to pay Kent Morlan and a few others the pittance of their assessments to get them to withdraw their protest petition and to shut up?  My guess is yes if it's really such a tiny amount.  I truly think that if the private portion were greater and if the assessments were based on proximity to the stadium, then this proposal would be more equitable.

[TheArtist]

It appears that some of the property on the stadium site, and large chunks of the property around it will be able to be sold, rented etc to help pay down the part of the assessment that is funding the ballpark. So indeed, in a way people, aka, developers will be able to "chip in" so to speak and make it so that the other property owners downtown will not be paying as much. Plus the extra taxes raised by those developments and others will hasten the paydown of the ballpark.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

Originally posted by RecycleMichael



Yes, those hagglers at the grocery store cashier lanes can be annoying.  But in this case that's a weak analogy.  I don't know the specific numbers for Kent Morlan's assessments, but the Tulsa World published them for Jim Goodwin's property.  If his grocery bill has been $51.00 for a long time, and he wanted to haggle when the total jumped to $51.01, then I agree -- that would be ridiculous.  But that isn't the case.  Last Wednesday we were led to believe that Jim Goodwin's "grocery" bill would be 800% higher once the stadium tax was added to it.  That means a new "grocery" bill for Jim Goodwin of $459.00, not $51.01.  But then the next day we were told that Jim Goodwin's "grocery" bill would be $1644.11 instead of the current $51.00.  That's not the same as fussing about an extra penny.

This brings up a question: Why are there such wide discrepancies between properties that are just a block or two apart?

Or is someone greatly exaggerating/lying about the impact of the new assessment district?

If it sucks that bad for Morlan (which I doubt), he can just sell the property and make a handsome profit. There will be plenty of prospective buyers.

I noticed that Michael Sanger's in full support of the ballpark plan. Sanger's a guy I greatly respect, and trust his judgment.

[mrB]

booWorld had an excerpt earlier, but I thought there was more to the article. So, more excerpts below plus Morlan's plan last year for replacing DTU but not the tax to pay for DTU.

quote:
From UrbanTulsa

JULY 2, 2008

Surprise, Surprise!
Better late than never, city finds a place for Drillers Stadium in the Greenwood District
http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A23756

BY BRIAN ERVIN
...
If it's approved, downtown property would be assessed at 6.5 cents per square foot.

Federal facilities, churches and any property that qualifies for a homestead exemption would be exempt.

It would replace the current Downtown Improvement District when it expires June 30, 2009, and would expire in 30 years.

The current district was created in 1978, largely to fund Downtown Tulsa Unlimited, the private, non-profit group with which the city contracts for the upkeep and management of downtown.

If the new district is approved, about $1.1 million would go toward the services currently provided by DTU, except it might not be DTU providing the services.
...

Well, they're getting what they wanted. The city will offer the contract through the public bidding process, which DTU may or not win.
...
Kent Morlan of downtown's Beacon 400 LLC said, "Everybody's scratching their heads about it."

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.

Bunney, though, said the benefit it will bring to Morlan and other downtown property owners is the increased property value that will result.

"If you look at the cases of downtown ballparks around the country, in almost every case, it's helped revitalize the downtown area and, therefore, positively impacted the property values," he said.

Michael Sager, who owns property in the Blue Dome District, concurred.

"I'm very much in favor of the stadium being down there," he told UTW.

"I think, in the big picture, the shock is only today, and five years from now there won't be any shock from it at all," Sager explained.

"I mean, it affects us tremendously, and yet we're willing to be a player in the package," he added.

Despite that "tremendous effect," though, Sager said objections like Morlan's are "nitpicking."

"It pales in comparison to the price of fuel. Six and a half cents doesn't even equal the impact of the utility hike," he said.

Sager noted that the assessment tax increase Morlan complained about wouldn't be born by him alone, but would be spread out among all of his tenants.

"It has a substantial cost impact on us today, which isn't factored into our costs with our tenants, but it will be factored in the future," Sager added.
_____________________________________

JULY 25, 2007

Who Runs Downtown?
That's the question raised by longtime Tulsan and downtown resident Kent Morlan
http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A17682

BY BRIAN ERVIN
...
Morlan has indeed offered the city his services.

In mid-June, he sent Mayor Kathy Taylor a letter expressing his dissatisfaction with the return downtown is getting on the tax dollars given to DTU, and offered his organization's services as an alternative.

"I want to submit a bid on the downtown Tulsa management contract that has been automatically awarded to Downtown Tulsa Unlimited for years without any competitive bidding," he wrote to the Mayor.

"Beacon Services will keep the streets cleaner, will make the streets more attractive and will keep them safer at a lower cost and, it will make our downtown a more competitive retail, commercial and residential part of our City for less," he continued in his correspondence.

Around the time of his correspondence with the Mayor, Morlan said he'd checked with Pat Treadway, section manager of the Mayor's Economic Development Team, to see if the contract between the City and Tul-Center, Inc. (DTU's sister corporation) had been executed, and was told it had not.

While Morlan did attempt to bid for DTU's job, he insists that he isn't in it for himself.

In a February letter in which Morlan voiced his complaints to Norton, he wrote, "I do not want your job and I do not intend to run for public office or be appointed to any board or commission. The only 'dog' that I have in this fight is my investments in my home and my business."

Morlan said he could offer better services at lesser cost, so UTW asked him, How much less? How much would you ask in exchange for those services?

He clarified that the $380,360 "management cost" in DTU's contract would be $100,000 less in his offer, but that money would be directed into other services, such as providing free Wi-Fi in the area and hiring two full-time security guards to patrol the area at all times, so the lump sum wouldn't actually be less, he acknowledged.
,,,

© Copyright 2008, Urban Tulsa Weekly

The businesses and property owners within the IDL will all benefit from the ballpark, either directly in increased retail sales or indirectly in increased property values.

Although on the opposite side of the ballpark, property owners around 11th & Denver and along 10th/11th to the east will see icreased traffic into downtown. These gateways to downtown on the southside will grow and prosper just as those on the north and northeast.

This ball park will be a catalyst that moves Tulsa's downtown forward in a positive direction.

This is TulsaNow!

[Breadburner]

Morlan is a dude'......

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

Originally posted by RecycleMichael



Yes, those hagglers at the grocery store cashier lanes can be annoying.  But in this case that's a weak analogy.  I don't know the specific numbers for Kent Morlan's assessments, but the Tulsa World published them for Jim Goodwin's property.  If his grocery bill has been $51.00 for a long time, and he wanted to haggle when the total jumped to $51.01, then I agree -- that would be ridiculous.  But that isn't the case.  Last Wednesday we were led to believe that Jim Goodwin's "grocery" bill would be 800% higher once the stadium tax was added to it.  That means a new "grocery" bill for Jim Goodwin of $459.00, not $51.01.  But then the next day we were told that Jim Goodwin's "grocery" bill would be $1644.11 instead of the current $51.00.  That's not the same as fussing about an extra penny.

This brings up a question: Why are there such wide discrepancies between properties that are just a block or two apart?

Or is someone greatly exaggerating/lying about the impact of the new assessment district?

If it sucks that bad for Morlan (which I doubt), he can just sell the property and make a handsome profit. There will be plenty of prospective buyers.

I noticed that Michael Sanger's in full support of the ballpark plan. Sanger's a guy I greatly respect, and trust his judgment.

It's Sager. Your sloppy Whirled journalistic standards are showing.