Newest Ballpark Trust Revealing

[sgrizzle]

Trusts like this also brought the PAC to downtown.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

That's true.  I agree that we've invested a lot in downtown already.  However, I'm totally pro ballpark, and optimistic that it will be a promising catalyst for more growth.

I want downtown to be fun, diverse and lively...and the more people who come downtown and have something to do (and a reason to stay before and after) the better.  The ballpark makes sense to me...and will generate a lot more ROI than the current grassy field at the corner of Archer and Elgin.

I'm actually proud of the arena, and proud that we built it with our very own tax dollars.  Did you feel the impact on your pocketbook?  (I didn't, and trust me, I don't make the big bucks.)  But did I feel the impact when I was standing outside our awesome new venue on Saturday night?  You betcha!

Tulsa needs a bit of civic pride.  I actually think downtown is going to help provide it.

We don't have to throw caution, accountability, transparency and good government out the window to achieve that goal. Unfortunately, that has been the push on this rush job from the start. I see no harm in the Council taking an extra week to explore any remaining uncertainties or unanswered questions surrounding this Trust. There are still undeniable flaws and potential pitfalls pertaining to the structure, scope, authority and jurisdiction of this trust that could be avoided by a closer inspection, examination, discussion, and deliberation of this trust document.

Personally, I would like to see Charter Change that would require a vote of the people to create any new Authorities, Boards, Trusts, or Commissions.  

[MDepr2007]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

Trusts like this also brought the PAC to downtown.

Thats more apples and oranges comparing....
The trust for the PAC didn't have as much out reaching power and also the PAC was for a different good to feel good ..

[RecycleMichael]

I think the PAC is an excellent example.

Built with a combination of public and private funds in a downtown area designed to be a magnet for growth. It spurred rvitalization of some existing buildings and led to some new buildings including a hotel.

The only difference is the audience.

One is ballet, one is baseball.

I certainly believe that the baseball stadium will achieve the same success as the PAC.

[Double A]

This Ballpark fiasco is just another shining example of the new kind of energy fueling Tulsa, where we're greedy, godly, golden drillers who live by the golden rule- those who have the gold, make the rules.





Intoxicate the 918, Kool-aid for everyone!
Stay gold, pony boys & girls.

[RecycleMichael]

I am all for recycling...but you have posted these same pictures now over a dozen times. We get it, you learned photoshop.

You could at least try to spell all the words correctly.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I think the PAC is an excellent example.

Built with a combination of public and private funds in a downtown area designed to be a magnet for growth. It spurred rvitalization of some existing buildings and led to some new buildings including a hotel.

What revitalization? The block to the east is surface parking. Half of the block to the south is surface parking. The PAC itself sits on the site of the historically significant Hotel Tulsa. The new hotel -- now called the Crowne Plaza -- wasn't built specifically for the PAC, but as part of the overall Williams Center, an urban planning disaster.

I've enjoyed many great performances in the PAC, but let's not overstate its contribution to downtown revitalization. The PAC was there for more than two decades without any nearby restaurants or nightlife.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

Tul-Center (aka DTU) has a contract with the City to provide certain services to downtown property owners, paid for through the Downtown Improvement District.  (DTU also receives funding from their member organizations and fundraising, I believe.)

Their contract will be expiring soon. At the same time, the new Stadium Improvement District will replace the old Downtown Improvement district.  

The city will issue an RFP describing the services that are needed/desired for downtown... and Tul-Center and anyone else can respond to the RFP.  (In the past, their contract has simply been renewed without going out for bid.)

A portion of the money from the Stadium Improvement District will go towards providing downtown services just like in the past.  Another portion of the Stadium Improvement District will go towards building the stadium.  Once the stadium is built, that portion will go away, and the downtown property owners will see the percent they pay for the SID decrease significantly.  (In the meantime, their property values will increase b/c of the stadium. The total $$ in the Stadium Improvement District will be greater b/c of new development spurred by the stadium, the arena and growing downtown coolness.  So downtown services should increase as new tax dollars come into the district.)

Also, all downtown property owners will be paying essentially the same percentage, and should be receiving equal services (unlike today, where the businesses closest to the little fountain get more attention/services than those in the Blue Dome or Brady).

The Trust is not going to be "running downtown."  They will be respsonsible for building a ballpark and developing, for the city's benefit, the surrounding area.  

At least, that's how I understand it.  Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of the above.

Fred Dorwart told Tuesday's Council committee meeting that the trust would be providing downtown services. Medlock had audio, and it was reported in the World.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

That's true.  I agree that we've invested a lot in downtown already.  However, I'm totally pro ballpark, and optimistic that it will be a promising catalyst for more growth.

I want downtown to be fun, diverse and lively...and the more people who come downtown and have something to do (and a reason to stay before and after) the better.  The ballpark makes sense to me...and will generate a lot more ROI than the current grassy field at the corner of Archer and Elgin.

I'm actually proud of the arena, and proud that we built it with our very own tax dollars.  Did you feel the impact on your pocketbook?  (I didn't, and trust me, I don't make the big bucks.)  But did I feel the impact when I was standing outside our awesome new venue on Saturday night?  You betcha!

Tulsa needs a bit of civic pride.  I actually think downtown is going to help provide it.

The ballpark will be a huge deal to downtown, I just don't see why they need to make this so complicated with this trust and encompass surrounding development.  That's how things like the aquarium wind up down in Jenks.  

That is exactly how it happens.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I think the PAC is an excellent example.

Built with a combination of public and private funds in a downtown area designed to be a magnet for growth. It spurred rvitalization of some existing buildings and led to some new buildings including a hotel.

What revitalization? The block to the east is surface parking. Half of the block to the south is surface parking. The PAC itself sits on the site of the historically significant Hotel Tulsa. The new hotel -- now called the Crowne Plaza -- wasn't built specifically for the PAC, but as part of the overall Williams Center, an urban planning disaster.

I've enjoyed many great performances in the PAC, but let's not overstate its contribution to downtown revitalization. The PAC was there for more than two decades without any nearby restaurants or nightlife.

Glad you brought that up. I love the PAC, but for years I have attended performances and then gotten in my car and driven back to South Tulsa with the rest of the patrons.  Only recently have there been any offerings to keep me in the area.

I don't think you can attribute ANY development to the PAC.  Making a connection to the hotel is even a stretch.  

Only by freeing up the development process around a project can you encourage development.  Introducing layers of bureaucracy will freeze that area for a long time.  Trust oversight still represents bureaucracy, no matter how much lipstick you put on it!  [:O]

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71


The ballpark will be a huge deal to downtown, I just don't see why they need to make this so complicated with this trust and encompass surrounding development.  That's how things like the aquarium wind up down in Jenks.  

A. They are adding the surrounding area to keep Steve Kitchell out and to guarantee the land doesn't sit there like the land around the BOK Center has.

B. That is nothing like what happened to the Aquarium. The Aquarium went to Jenks because the people at Riverparks wanted to dictate how the aquarium would be built, operate, and what size it could be. Jenks offered free reign and 12x the amount of land.

[RecycleMichael]

If you read the trust indenture...

The surrounding land that the trust wants to include outside the ballpark is basically a strip of land between Detroit and Elgin and Archer and the expressway.

One 300 foot wide strip of land between the ballpark and Spaghetti Warehouse.

Can anyone name the current businesses in that stretch of land?

I tire of those who act like the trust is going to reign hail over all the world.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

If you read the trust indenture...

The surrounding land that the trust wants to include outside the ballpark is basically a strip of land between Detroit and Elgin and Archer and the expressway.

One 300 foot wide strip of land between the ballpark and Spaghetti Warehouse.

Can anyone name the current businesses in that stretch of land?

I tire of those who act like the trust is going to reign hail over all the world.

The Trust Indenture needs to include a map with these boundaries and legal description as an Appendix.

Really pretty simple.

As of now, there is no such limitation, or even a definition in any form of that you describe.

It should also NOT include a specific area adjacent to the rail tracks as future transportation entity domain for mass-transit.

It should also NOT include the IDL services contract, which should be contracted by the City of Tulsa.

Also, what happens when any particular IDL property owner fails to pay their assessment?

The collections and distribution of the assessment revenues is a City of Tulsa function, not the Trust. That portion dedicated to the stadium is sent to the Trust. The IDL services portion is paid to whomever is contracted for those services by the City of Tulsa per the contract, the balance can be used by the City for other IDL benefit.


Here's the link. Show me where it says what you claim.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle
The Trust Indenture needs to include a map with these boundaries and legal description as an Appendix.

As of now, there is no such limitation, or even a definition in any form of that you describe.

I respectfully disagree. It is spelled out clearly where the boundaries are. I don't disagree that a map would be helpful, but downtown Tulsa is fairly easy to understand to me.

The language say North Detroit street to the west, the railroad right of way to the south, the IDL to the north and the Greenwood district to the east. I think that is easily understood.

It should also NOT include a specific area adjacent to the rail tracks as future transportation entity domain for mass-transit.

Why would you think that the transportation entity of the future would not work with the ballpark? Are you just expecting trouble or grasping at straws?

It should also NOT include the IDL services contract, which should be contracted by the City of Tulsa.

The city currently manages the contract with DTU. Your idea is to keep doing it the way we have been doing it. I disagree.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle
Here's the link. Show me where it says what you claim.

Article 3 paragraph one. The first paragraph under "purpose and powers of the trust".

Am I missing something...or are you?