Newest Ballpark Trust Revealing

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Here's the link. Show me where it says what you claim. It only says "the Trust shall acquire only real property located in the area bounded by" those boundaries. It's POWER should be limited to that physical region as well.

The IDL services contract IS CURRENTLY held by DTU. That can easily change, but handing all IDL responsibilites to this Trust is DEFINITELY the wrong move. They can write 40-year contracts to whomever they wish and nobody could do anything about it.

Why do you think the City and a future transportation entity would not work with the ballpark? Besides mass transit is NOT a ballpark function. It's a City function.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by 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?

I'd say you are.

[Wrinkle]

If an IDL business wanted to complain about the services being provided, who would they complain to and what actions are possible?

Now, DTU can be held responsible by the City of Tulsa. If this Trust becomes responsible, they dictate what happens, and what doesn't, and could tell Mr. Businessman to sit on it and spin, and no one could do a thing about it.

[Wrinkle]

Seems to me this agreement should also stipulate and define what happens to the public streets included in the defined area. If the city is to abandon those, there's a process for that, and a process for an entity to request such.

That should happen before any streets are torn up.

[sgrizzle]

I'm guessing Wrinkle is pointing more to Article 3 Section 2 which gives the trust the ability to contract to maintain other properties. Either way, RM is right, this trust as written only gives them control and duties over a couple of blocks and does nothing for the rest of downtown.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I'm guessing Wrinkle is pointing more to Article 3 Section 2 which gives the trust the ability to contract to maintain other properties. Either way, RM is right, this trust as written only gives them control and duties over a couple of blocks and does nothing for the rest of downtown.

That's not what it says:


Article III, Paragraph 2:

"(2) In addition to the foregoing purposes and powers, the Trust shall have the further
purpose and power to engage in other projects related to the Tulsa Stadium
Project and approved by a vote of hvo-thirds of the Trustees, including any
maintenance and improvement of property either owned directly by the Trust or
under maintenance or improvement contract with the Trust."

UPDATE: That's funny, the above was Cut-N-Pasted from Acrobat, but the original document says "two-thirds", not "hvo-thirds".

...wonder what else it changes.

[sgrizzle]

Oh geez, call altrusimsuffers, adobe is controlled by George Kaiser.


Again, It states in Article 1 that the property OWNED will be within set limits. Anything under "maintenance or improvement contract" is a future possibility. Show me the paragraph where it says the city is going to contract everything inside the IDL to the trust?

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

Oh geez, call altrusimsuffers, adobe is controlled by George Kaiser.


Again, It states in Article 1 that the property OWNED will be within set limits. Anything under "maintenance or improvement contract" is a future possibility. Show me the paragraph where it says the city is going to contract everything inside the IDL to the trust?

Just an observation.

It was specifically stated as the intent during the committee meeting on Tuesday.

The Trust agreement wording allows it to happen.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

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

It's raining alright, but it ain't hail. It's a golden shower, a drenching high pressure spray from those in power and the public is getting hosed.

I rather be p*#%ed off, than smile and get p*#%ed on. Then again, I'd rather be an honest naysayer, than a dishonest cheerleader.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

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

It's raining alright, but it ain't hail. It's a golden shower, a drenching high pressure spray from those in power and the public is getting hosed.

One of your more colorful posts to date....

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

Again, It states in Article 1 that the property OWNED will be within set limits. Anything under "maintenance or improvement contract" is a future possibility.

Just to be clear, that's not what it says. It says "...the Trust shall acquire only real property located in the area..."

That would limit the Trust from purchasing property outside the defined region. But, as we both know, most land held by Trust in this town is GIVEN to them.

Basically, any one of Tulsa's many other Trusts, or the City itself could simply pass land to the Trust. And, this practice IS commonplace. Remember, the land at Air Force Plant No. 1 was passed to TAIT from the City in this manner, as was much of the land now held by TDA, TAA, TIA et al.

This limitation extends only to REAL property, as in land or buildings. If the Trust wanted to, say, buy a baseball team, it wouldn't prevent that, or an out of town soccer club, for example.

Is that what we were asking? Or, did we want a Trust to build and operate a baseball stadium, giving them all rights to the very best potential development areas surrounding it, and ownership of the ballpark itself to do so? Or, something else entirely?

They've kind of taken full advantage of an opening here to do almost anything/everything they ever wanted or might think of in the future.


Fox News reported yesterday that TDA had acquired the land for the homeless project at 10 N. Yale via a TDA-Owned LLC called "Good Neighbor Real Estate Investments, LLC".

Offhand, I'd question the ability of any Trust to use public funds for startup corporate entities of any type, especially LLC's since the ownership data can be obscured.

Kind of defeats the purpose of the Trust.

It may be interesting to do a FOI on all Corp's and LLC's established by Trusts in this town. You can bet this wasn't the first time. Of course not, Great Plains Airline was one.

[Wrinkle]

Haven't heard much about today's U&EDC meeting and the "Stadium Trust". A few sound bites with no stated outcome.

The documents attached to the Agenda Item 10 were unchanged from those which were to be presented at last Thursday's Council meeting.

It appears these same documents will be presented at next Thursday's Council meeting and voted upon.

If so, there is no substantial reason to approve receipt of this 'benefit' by the Council as the proposed Trust remains unsatisfactory. For starters, there is little 'benefit' which can be claimed, unless you're one of the 'donors'.

At this point, I recommend disbanding this effort entirely and beginning a new process.

As I've stated previously, this arrangement is _conceptually_ incorrect and needs to be scrapped.

If it risks 'donors' 'contributions', so be it.

I'd also move for a reconsideration vote on the IDL tax which was to have provided the public portion of the funding for this ill-conceived plan. In spite of this taxing method being of questionable legal status, and which will be contested in court, it should be withdrawn.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a dead issue since 'donors' and our City's leadership have demonstrated little interest in satisfying public concerns.

Only our Council can save us from this obtuse, unfair and ill-conceived plan.

[Wrinkle]

Today's the day...

No words on any revisions to the "Trust" agreement. No change of opinion here.

This fiasco needs to stop here.

[RecycleMichael]

That is three posts in a row for wrinkle...

I have high hopes that the trust will be approved tonight. I think the administration has been working with the council to answer their questions. There have been many changes from the original proposal.

The council has done due diligence. The Mayor has raised private dollars to offset building costs. The team is ready to sign. We baseball fans are getting excited.

Don't listen to wrinkle. He was opposed to it from the start, probably only because the mayor was behing it. He opposes the new streets plan, even though it is very similar to the one that he advocated, because it is the mayor's plan.

I "trust" that the council will approve the ballpark trust agreement at tonight's meeting.

Let's play ball.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

That is three posts in a row for wrinkle...

I have high hopes that the trust will be approved tonight. I think the administration has been working with the council to answer their questions. There have been many changes from the original proposal.

The council has done due diligence. The Mayor has raised private dollars to offset building costs. The team is ready to sign. We baseball fans are getting excited.

Don't listen to wrinkle. He was opposed to it from the start, probably only because the mayor was behing it. He opposes the new streets plan, even though it is very similar to the one that he advocated, because it is the mayor's plan.

I "trust" that the council will approve the ballpark trust agreement at tonight's meeting.

Let's play ball.

Your integrity is coming into question, RM. Do you just make up stuff to suit your claim, or are you just a cheerleader for the Trust?

You're wrong that I was against this from the start. I was not. In fact the move from the original site to the current site was welcomed and applauded.

It's mostly this "Trust" Agreement and the acceptance of the so-called 'benefit' of the Trust with which I have problems. It's designed to do much more than build and manage a ballpark and develop the utra-prime real estate of adjoining parcels.

It's Version 33 of a document they wanted signed at Version 1.0 and which still remains very one-sided.

As I stated, the _concept_ being proposed is obtuse, unfair and being foisted upon the public as the only solution. It is not.