Consequences of Stadium District?

[DowntownNow]

BTW Michael, my questions that you reposted were anything but barely related.  They point to the heart of the matter and ask you to put yourself in the same position of the downtown property owners..but good attempt at deflecting yet again and not providing any further insight into your stance on the issue.

But let me fill it in for you.  Based on the story posted in the Tulsa World (and that you were interviewed for) the M.E.T. will not have the financial capability, based on today's budgetary figures to pay for its share of the downtown assessment without significantly altering its operational model; making cuts in personnel and services.  Of course thats unless a philanthropic entity steps in, the municipalties up their subsidies or the economy rebounds and brings pricing levels back to last year's figures...all remedies that may not be available to the downtown IDL small business/property owner.

According to that same story you stated: "We're still not out of the woods yet. The prices are starting to go back up, but if they plummet again, we'll be in danger."   You don't think the increased assessment at the levels being indicated could put other businesses and property owners "in danger?"

[RecycleMichael]

Let's stay on the topic of the downtown business improvement district and not my business. It is unfair for you to discuss me when you refuse to let us know who you are.

You say it is ..."weighing more and more to the side that has brought the action." 

How? Have the arguments been heard?

If you base "winning" on the total number of words written, you are going to go undefeated.

[RecycleMichael]

You don't think the increased assessment at the levels being indicated could put other businesses and property owners "in danger?"

Danger? Hyperbole much?

I can't speak for all the properties. The assessment on my downtown warehouse is going up $20 a month.

[TheArtist]

Artist, I'm surprised with you...I believed you to be the more level headed, ask all questions, get the answers kinda guy.  I've never said I dont think the ballpark is a great idea for downtown...but I do question the means and the legal validity by which the ballpark is being funded and the burden it is putting on downtown small business and property owners.  Just because you think its a good idea, along with Michael, doesn't mean its legal and valid.  I think we can all agree its a good idea, but we dont agree on the process or means.

Law is of course open to interpretation, but the language of this law seems pretty straight forward and specific.  If you can't see that then we have an agreement to fundamentally disagree.  If and when the courts decide on the action before them, I suppose we will know which of us is right.

Again, since I dont see where your coming from with your saying something was done illegally, we indeed will have to wait or argue on those points.

Is this an additional burden on property owners downtown? Sure. Would I rather it have not been? Sure. But I also see how it can be a benefit to a great number of people there as well. Speculative that benefit may be, but come on....?  After all you also say the ballpark is a great idea for downtown and presumably its because of the benefits it will bring to downtown.

Questioning the means of how we got this ballpark can essentially be divided into 2 different categories. Was it legal? Was this the best and most appropriate way? (and then there may be a fuzzy line in between)

The first question we have already talked about.

The second question is where I have my doubts and didnt like the way things were done. Again, would rather have had the donors pay the greater sum of just building the ballpark and a much smaller tax (assuming again the tax is legal), and zone to assure proper development around it, not purchase the property to assure proper development. Were things played fast and crudely to get this ballpark done? Looks that way on many fronts. I railed loudly against them pushing out the people who wanted to build the lofts/retail and hotel by the ballpark. But, I can also see where they were coming from.

This whole "game" has shifted and morphed so many times I have lost track of the details lol. From my perspective, as you can see, I dont feel the fire on these issues as you do. Certainly not going to hamper your opinions and actually encourage you to find out what you can and push for what you think is right. Let the law resolve the legal issues, and on the other concerns,,,, I just dont feel the way you do right now. Facts may arise which may reinforce either of our positions in the future. Time will tell as they say.

[waterboy]

If it becomes a question of law, I think Downtnr makes very good points and probably prevails. This is not the improvement of a district, this is creation of a district. If it is a case of pragamatism he would lose. The administration and the downtown movers saw us possibly losing our local team to the suburbs. They would be criticized either way so they went with the dubious method of funding as Artist points out. The case will be judged on law though.

Artist, the reason it wasn't funded the way you preferred is that it would have been a risk with little reward for the donors. Sports venues are not very good investments for communities and serve primarily as an advertising/PR benefit for businesses. Unfortunately the economy doesn't favor that type of private investment right now. The way it ended up, the risk is low for the donors and government backs the investment....all without a vote of the people...but presumably for the good of the people. So, credit them with good intentions and making the best choice out of a lot of poor choices.

The whole process sucks but if it goes to court they have a good case, imo of course. My preference, good socialist that I am,  is that it be put to a vote of the people and the cost spread among us all. If the Tulsa citizens want baseball and the owners can't make it on their own, then we decide their fate. Not a small group of sports enthusiasts and local insiders.

[DowntownNow]

Artist and Waterboy, thank you for making very good arguments, particularly you Waterboy.  That's the point of all this, make points and argue them for discussions sake to account for many views.  I'm glad to see Waterboy address the legal issue of the matter and not just what is good, best and desired becuase I would say all of us in here want that to some degree.  My comments and issues are not that a ballpark is being built, never has been...but has always been about how and the resulting issues that could stem from it.

Speculative that benefit may be, but come on....? 

Again Artist, the law does not allow for "speculation" as a defined special benefit to the property owners of the assessed district.  If you wanted to argue speculation: while one camp says property values will increase, another camp can argue they they will decrease as a result of a higher tax/assessment burden placed on that parcel of property, thus making it harder to sell and perhaps not within the range of fair market value to produce a sale.

[DowntownNow]

RecycleMichael:

Danger? Hyperbole much?

Me, hyperbole much?  Not at all, but your comment is funny...those were your own words from the Tulsa World article.

M.E.T. faces a revenue gap

Patton said he's working hard to come up with the money needed so that he doesn't have to cut back on the 11 recycling drop-off sites — five of which are in Tulsa — special events, public education programs or employees. A 12th collection site is set to open later this month in Coweta.

"Now that Tulsa has stepped forward, there's a sigh of relief," he said. "We're still not out of the woods yet. The prices are starting to go back up, but if they plummet again, we'll be in danger."

[DowntownNow]

Michael,

I am staying on topic, you have yet to find or counter one point I've made in the topic.

My utilizing the MET as an example serves many purposes.  The MET is a downtown property owner, non-exempt from the BID assessment.  And I'm sorry to say, as a Public Trust, the MET is fair game to public scrutiny just as the city government.  As a Public body, the MET is all the more entitled to public scrutiny and in this case, questions, since you seem to wear both hats in this forum. 

There's nothing wrong with using the MET and its current financial situation to demonstrate a point effectively and that you could/should be able to relate to.  There should be no reason not to address my points using the MET, unless of course you feel they invalidate your argument here?

You say it is ..."weighing more and more to the side that has brought the action." 

How? Have the arguments been heard?

The petition was filed before the Courts several months ago.  To date, and after entering on the proponents behalf, neither the City nor Fred Dorwart (proponent lawyer that stepped in) have moved to ask the judge for summary dismissal of the case on the grounds that it has no merit before the court. 

In fact, since you are a man about downtown, find Kent Morlan, the property owner's attorney...he has stated that he pushed the City and Dorwart for enter for summary judgement on the merits but they refused. 

Its not rocket science to deduce that if the case brought before the courts did not have some legal standing, the proponents would have moved to get it tossed out already, so backlash such as this would not be happening.  But thats not the case here, the matter is still moving forward...in my mind, thats a winning edge.

How would you counter that claim?

[DowntownNow]

Here's just some of the properties:

Brix Furniture - From $100/year to $6,346/year or $528.83/mo (Thats a nice car payment on a very nice car)

Oklahoma State Complex - From $5,700/year to $50,000/year or $4166.66/mo (great salary for another downtown employee)

OSU Medical - From $550/year to $84,000/year or $7,000/mo (two additional staff, expanded facilities, new equipment, etc)

Tulsa County - From $14,811/year to $154,660/year or $12,888.33/mo (three good salaries or improved infrastructure, vehicles, property tax decrease, etc)

The County also makes a very good argument against the assessment, outside of the services, in this article:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=65&articleid=20090326_65_A13_Forthe476693&archive=yes

[RecycleMichael]

I asked you to not use my company when arguing with me while you stay anonymous.

Tell us who you are or please refrain from using the M.e.t. to make your points.

I don't think that is too much to ask.

[Wrinkle]

I asked you to not use my company when arguing with me while you stay anonymous.

Tell us who you are or please refrain from using the M.e.t. to make your points.

I don't think that is too much to ask.

 

[Red Arrow]

I asked you to not use my company when arguing with me while you stay anonymous.

Tell us who you are or please refrain from using the M.e.t. to make your points.

I don't think that is too much to ask.

I agree.   ("+1" seems too much like "dittos" on Rush's radio show.)

[waterboy]

Why is anonymity an issue? Michael chose to make his identity public from the outset and knew it opened the door to criticizm and praise. He has received both. When he was interviewed as part of the downtown assessment district it made his views even more important and open to questions. Were he not located downtown it might be different. I have faith he can handle himself adequately.

Not knowing who Downtnr is becomes a matter of curiosity but it doesn't affect his arguments.

[shadows]

After reading all these figures on the final cost of having a ball park down town and the projection of how it will increase the viability of enlarging the value of downtown property I recall an address to the old commission by the attorney for the airport authority on issuing revenue bonds for improvements of the AA facility.  He informed the commissioners that the city would not be responsible for the bonds but if the bonds were to default, if the city did not pay them off then their credit rating would be reduced.

My question is “Why has the city’s credit rating been lowered?”  Is it because in the background there is a rumor that the city is overextending its capability to pay off all these revenue bonds, that are being issued?

The TW has an article that the stimulus money allotted Tulsa will be used on the inter loop bypass that was built to take the through traffic out of the downtown.   Will those people loosing their job and houses be pleased with this usage of the monies appropriated for stabilization of the local  economy when most of the jobs will go to out of town or out of country workers?

A little more than a decade ago the down town was converted to an office complex at which time much of the retail market left.   Those who moved their offices to the downtown section now face a new taxing structure.  If the current plans are to turn the downtown into a recreational area how will this justify their use of downtown office space?    Will the Texas coast get more office workers?

Does any of the downtown elite have the answers? 

[Delmo Gillete]

Please forgive for coming late to this dance - too many posts in this thread to read every word but is the BOK mentioned previously the same BOK that received seven million dollars from the city to settle a lawsuit to which the city was not a party at the time? And wasn't the city council rushed into that approval also? Would this also be the BOK whose name adorns the rust-stained duct-tape arena? And the same BOK who had Kathy Taylor as a board member just prior to her promotion to Queen of Tulsa?
Just wonderin'...