Drillers Ink Deal to Move Downtown

[Wrinkle]

Let's see....$60 million for a $30 million ballpark, $100,000 in annual revenues....makes 0.167% Annual ROI. Twice that if you just count the actual ballpark, making it 0.33% Annual ROI.

But, you might catch a foul ball.

[wilburchannelcat]

Downtown Tulsa is at that awkward, voice-cracking stage of development.  I think that this stadium could send us into full blown puberty.  Just pray that we come out alright.

[MDepr2007]

quote:Originally posted by wilburchannelcat

Downtown Tulsa is at that awkward, voice-cracking stage of development.  I think that this stadium could send us into full blown puberty.  Just pray that we come out alright.

Diversity in the works?

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Let's see....$60 million for a $30 million ballpark, $100,000 in annual revenues....makes 0.167% Annual ROI. Twice that if you just count the actual ballpark, making it 0.33% Annual ROI.

But, you might catch a foul ball.

So one person in one place built a $30M ballpark so that is what ours will be? I pointed out previously that the only minor league downtown subgrade field I can find currently under construction is spec'ed at $50M.

[Renaissance]

The stadium will almost certainly cost more than $30 million, but it will certainly not cost $60 million.  Whether it's 40-20, 45-15, or 50-10, there is a significant allotment for land acquisition and control by the Stadium Trust.  That's what they're driving at.  This trust is being formed to do what, for instance, Global Development Partners was not able to do: build a stadium AND develop the surrounding area.

Sounds like a great plan, but the question comes back to the makeup of the trust board.  Why not put representatives of the general public and the downtown property owners on the trust as well?  For whatever reason, Mayor Taylor, Councilor Gomez and the rest of the interested parties are not interested in negotiating how the trust is created.  They're going to force it on the rest of the City Council and leave it to the Tulsa World to call the council "naysayers" or "obstructionists" if they want to take more time to examine and debate the terms of the trust.  

This is not a question of whether to build a ballpark, or whether to develop the surrounding areas.  It's a question of how.  Frankly, in my mind, the terms of this trust as written approach oligarchy: pay for control.  I'm not saying that the wealthy "donors" have bad motives or intentions, but I'm saying it's a bad way to run a city.

And it's going to get the Mayor voted out.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Why not put representatives of the general public and the downtown property owners on the trust as well?  

The trust may be 4 donors, the serving Mayor, a downtown property owner and one "other" since one of the donors (Lobeck) dropped out of the trust.

I haven't heard anything on what they are going to do with that remaining spot nor if the trust has changed in the last month since it was originally discussed, have you?

[Townsend]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Why not put representatives of the general public and the downtown property owners on the trust as well?  

The trust may be 4 donors, the serving Mayor, a downtown property owner and one "other" since one of the donors (Lobeck) dropped out of the trust.

I haven't heard anything on what they are going to do with that remaining spot nor if the trust has changed in the last month since it was originally discussed, have you?

I believe the trust is now 9 members.  I was unable to find the link but I'm almost positive that's what I heard on local this morning.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Sounds like a great plan, but the question comes back to the makeup of the trust board.  Why not put representatives of the general public and the downtown property owners on the trust as well?  For whatever reason, Mayor Taylor, Councilor Gomez and the rest of the interested parties are not interested in negotiating how the trust is created.  

I wouldn't say they are unwilling to change,

In fact the trust has been changed.

http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=8898022

Time to get off the tinfoil hat brigade

[sgrizzle]

Nine is a good number. 4 donors, one non-donor and the mayor to tie-break.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Sounds like a great plan, but the question comes back to the makeup of the trust board.  Why not put representatives of the general public and the downtown property owners on the trust as well?  For whatever reason, Mayor Taylor, Councilor Gomez and the rest of the interested parties are not interested in negotiating how the trust is created.  

I wouldn't say they are unwilling to change,

In fact the trust has been changed.

http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=8898022

Time to get off the tinfoil hat brigade

Thanks for the link.  Good to see they're negotiating.  I'll be interested to see if they keep the 12 year terms for the pay-to-play members (aka "donors").

But it's not tinfoil hats, dude.  It's recognitiion of the operational style of big money in this town that wants its way and is deliberately blind to constructive criticism until smacked in the face with reality.  I'm not talking conspiracy--I'm talking politics.  I know what a Saturday morning press conference saying, "we've got a deal if we get a trust approved NOW" is for.  It's not progress, it's pressure, and I'm calling it out not to be contrarian but to be a realist.

If you and others on this forum can't see how tone-deaf City Hall's handling of this entire situation has been, I can't help you.  But I'm glad to see they're coming around now to compromise and not putting the Council in an impossible position.  It looked for a moment like they might.

See you at the ball game.

[sgrizzle]

Sorry, but I for one believe that if people want to build a nice stadium and surrounding district, pay for 50% of it out of pocket with no hopes of return, and then take 8.5% from the people who benefit the most (Drillers) and the other 41% from the people downtown, most of which who have begged for money to be spent downtown while doing their best to hinder development and in the end the citizens get a great new place to enjoy and it didn't cost them one dime? I think they can put The Rothchilds, The Getty, The Queen, and Colonel Sanders on the board if they want to.

[swake]

I don't get what the complaint is about the stadium and trust now. The trust term length is also being shortened if you read the article. More downtown property owners are being added, the mayors husband will not be on the board despite giving over $2 million dollars to the project.

I understand that there are hurt feelings over the Novus project, but all they had was a deal to negotiate, there was no real agreement to buy the land yet. And since the scope of development in the area was changing so radically I still say it was a good idea to step back and look at the whole area and what development is possible in the area around the stadium before making a deal with Novus. I think Novus would have had a good chance of seeing their project go forward once that reassessment had happened if they had been patient and cooperative, but instead they threw a hissy fit which in the end is only going to guarantee that they have no chance of ever getting a deal done with the city or the stadium authority anywhere, ever. Suing over conflicts of interest with donors (not investors, donors) to a city trust and filing injunctions to enforce an agreement to "exclusively negotiate" don't just border on the inane.

What they should have done is held a press conference to say that they understood the need to step back and look at what the area around the stadium needs and that they looked forward to working with the trust and hoped that their early recognition of the possibilities for development in the area would give them first position to be able to participate in that development. They should have said that they were very willing to adapt and even expand their planned development in order to take full advantage of the new possibilities now available with a stadium next door. They could have talked with the mayor and have stood with her and Chuck Lamson at the press conference saying they were the first developer that wanted to take advantage of the stadium and want to help rebuild downtown. Taylor is wanting to say that the stadium will help with revitalizing downtown, how better to show that than to have a willing and ready developer present at the press conference announcing the agreement?

If they had done even part of that would their development have gotten done? I don't know but the odds would have been pretty good that they could have done something somewhere in the area of the stadium. What they have now is no shot. They poisoned their own well.

[carltonplace]

good point swake, but you can't blame Novus for being a little ticked off. Remember? No one would return correspondence for months and then after increasing pressure from the public and from local news they got a letter from the TDA's lawyer. That should have been handled better.

I think its time to forgive and forget. Novus should drop the suit and trust should open negotiations with them once they take the land over from the T(non)DA. Novus plan was a good one, they shouldn't be blacklisted because of their understandable (but probably over reacted) response to status quo bureaucracy.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

good point swake, but you can't blame Novus for being a little ticked off. Remember? No one would return correspondence for months and then after increasing pressure from the public and from local news they got a letter from the TDA's lawyer. That should have been handled better.

I think its time to forgive and forget. Novus should drop the suit and trust should open negotiations with them once they take the land over from the T(non)DA. Novus plan was a good one, they shouldn't be blacklisted because of their understandable (but probably over reacted) response to status quo bureaucracy.

I also think it was poorly handled.  The city has several parcels of near-by land that they could work with Novus on  developing as an asset to the district.   I think the city should go out of their way to make sure that the incident with Novus doesn't become yet another PR fiasco that developers will use as a case-study on why not to attempt a downtown project.  

It would be relatively easy to turn this incident into a huge PR opportunity for the city.  Novus is being watched, and if the city moves to make nice, and cover the expenses incurred by this small developer who thought he had a project, then the large developers will take notice.  

If however Novus has to litigate for the time and money he spent satisfying the requirements of a city that had no intension of allowing his project to take place (without disclosing their intent), then this incident will serve as a warning to others.

It seems like a relatively simple decision.  

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by swake

I don't get what the complaint is about the stadium and trust now. The trust term length is also being shortened if you read the article. More downtown property owners are being added, the mayors husband will not be on the board despite giving over $2 million dollars to the project.

Pending details, I'm satisfied with the structure of the trust per se.  I still think in retrospect that it's an odd way to structure the development of the stadium/surrounding area.  Best case is that it is able to cut through various bureaucracies and move quickly to develop the district.  Worst case is that it abuses the power its being granted, treats unfavored developers unfairly, and as a result gets hung up in litigation battles that take up the attention and energy of the trustees.

It's silly to pretend the TDA and Mayor's office are blameless here.  Novus had dibs on the prime property and got pushed off in an abrupt, potentially tortious manner.  Now, this is the way things go--maybe the trust's plans will be far superior to Novus's.  Maybe the donor's hotel brand will be much nicer than Novus's, and maybe whatever is built on that corner will be a true centerpiece in the district rather than a prime set of lofts.  But what we know for sure is that Wilkinson got treated very badly by an agency that is supposed to be very development-friendly.  If he had not made a lot of noise, he was going to get pushed entirely to the wayside.  At least now he has the PR and litigation leverage to demand a piece of the pie.  Otherwise, by all indications, he was going to be told to take a hike.

It's done now.  The adjustments to the trust will make it likely to pass on Thursday; the TDA and newly-formed trust will settle out with Novus by making nice and giving him a sweet deal on an alternative property; and dirt will start moving this fall.  Play ball.