Demolition of Fields Downs Randolph in Downtown

[cannon_fodder]

At the second meeting before the Council, the owner again stood to protest and when questioned by Eagleton as to the reason, the owner simply stated it was cost prohibitive to remodel due to roof failure and asbestos.  He cited no other reason or the assessment being a factor, though he did object to the assessment.

So the owner was unable to sell the building without repairing it.  But it was cost prohibitive to repair the building.  Ergo, the owner was unable to sell the building.

They can blame the new tax if they want to, but it doesn't really add up.  If it has been on the market for sometime without selling and the above statements are true, then the owner simply wasn't ever going to sell it for the price they were asking.  I wonder if leveling the property will increase the value and help them make their money back?

However, I do agree that the "level the building to save money" theory might actually appeal to many of the seemingly the backasswards property owners downtown.  I hope the loophole is somehow closed.  I rally can't believe we are still destroying whats left of our downtown even as most cities are doing everything that can to rebuild theirs and we dump money into ours.

[AVERAGE JOE]

The asbestos argument doesn't add up because it has to be abated prior to demolition. If it's too costly to abate the asbestos and rehab the building to use it, it certainly has to be too expensive to abate the asbestos to tear it down and have no building. And to spend the thousands of dollars on abatement to avoid the BID assessment is flimsy reasoning at best. The assessment on this property would be around $6,000 annually. The abatement/demo costs would be such that it would be a decade or more before the owner breaks even on the BID savings. So that's just a convenient excuse.

Bottom line -- the owner could put minimal investment in fixing up 10,000 sq feet, lease it for warehouse storage for $1/foot and make money on the deal, BID and everything.

What downtown really needs is fewer lousy owners, not fewer buildings. Maybe the latter will lead to the former in this case.

[sgrizzle]

The building has been for sale for quite some time with no takers. 

I fear the lack of "for sale" sign, agent or listing might've been a hindrance.

[JoeMommaBlake]

I agree with sgrizzle. I drive past that building nearly every day and have never seen a FOR SALE sign. I know several people who have expressed interest recently in buying downtown. Seems like someone is missing out on the market here.

It seems unlikely that it's cheaper to demolish a building and pave a lot than it is to repair a roof and remove asbestos. Even if I'm wrong with that statement, I'd say it's unlikely that a piece of property at 6th street surrounded by other empty lots is more appealing to buyers as a lot than as a building. Furthermore, as was mentioned, it doesn't seem like a bad investment to rent it as cheap warehouse space in the interim.

This whole thing is a sham...and a shame.

I'd love to know what their "asking price" was.

[TURobY]

I'd love to know what their "asking price" was.

According to CBRE (the realtor):
Location: 519 E. 7th
Asking Price: $1,711,546
Lot Size: 2.12 AC
Info: Existing Building to be Torn Down in 60 Days

[JoeMommaBlake]

Wow. That was quick. Thanks. I hate to see that building go. It's pretty cool.

Anybody have 1.7 million?

[DowntownNow]

Actually AverageJoe...according to the County Assessors office, the Fields building has 92,517sf of lot and 95,361sf of structure on it.  Total: 187,878sf x .065/sf for BID Assessment = 12,212.07/year or 1,017.67/mo.

That is on top of a property tax that last year was $9874.00 or $822.83/mo...so all total, those property owners that have not been able to lease (especially given all the vacant space available downtown) or sell that property have to fork over $1,840.50/mo just in taxes and assessment.  Thats equivalent to a huge house payment, 5 average priced car payments, etc.

The striking thing here is that the BID Assessment is 124% of the property taxes!

Eliminating the structure, they will virtually cut the BID assessment in half...closer to AverageJoe's figure.

AverageJow stated: What downtown really needs is fewer lousy owners, not fewer buildings.

We should all keep in mind that most of the property owners either have been long standing owners in downtown, sometimes for decades and others may have purchased property as investment when no one else wanted to or even looked to invest in downtown.  We all say downtown is at the cusp of turning around...and thats true, but by the same token, downtown is just now turning around to where people want to invest and are willing to buy these buildings that have sat for so long through no fault of the owners.  Of course, thats more true of areas like Blue Dome and Brady, the Central Business District...but not so much the outlying areas...yet.  Theres a reason JoeMamma's chose to go to Blue Dome and not the Fields Building after all.

[cannon_fodder]

Downtownnow:

Using your figures (which I have no reason to doubt) the annual taxes are  $22,086.07.

Using the owners math, the property is worth $1,700,000.00.

Doing a little of my own math, that's an effective tax rate of 1.2%.   This owners is really saying that a tax rate at 1.2% of the actual value of the property is simply too much?  I pay a similar rate on my homestead - which has special exemptions lowering the tax rate. 

I understand the reasoning behind the decision.  It's business.  The owner wants to make money and the way the system is set up it could potentially make more money by razing the lot.  I don't have a vested business interest in the property, my interest is in seeing a vibrant and interesting downtown.  So this owners decision doesn't help me any, we have different interests.

But the argument could go the other way.  By buying up, holding on to, and allowing property to deteriorate while sitting vacant (sometimes for decades) these owners very well may have shot themselves in the foot.  As property values have sky rocketed in downtown OKC, Dallas, KC, Omaha, Des Moines and other metro areas as they again came alive - Tulsa is just now starting to move.  My thought is the deteriorated buildings with disinterested owners is a contributing factor to the overall stagnation of downtown. 

So I do fault the owners for having structures that just sit.  They bought an investment property and just let it deteriorate.  Most have done nothing to turn a profit on the buildings or to encourage development other than just wait for someone else to do something to make them money.  When too many properties attempt that maneuver together you end up with a downtown that is devoid of life, full of empty lots, and with a flat property value.
- - -

In your opinion, does the destruction of buildings help or hurt the effort to revitalize Downtown Now?  What would you do to try and keep downtown moving or accelerate the movement towards an economically and holistically energetic downtown?  I am well aware of what ideas you think are bad ones, but then what is the solution?

I'm not trying to be an donkey either, I'm really curious to know what methods you think will help achieve our common goal.

[swake]

Her asking price goes to show how legitimate the BID fee is. She's asking $1.7 million for a two acre abandoned industrial site not located on a major street. If her property was a mile north she'd be asking a tenth of that much.

[BierGarten]

Her asking price goes to show how legitimate the BID fee is. She's asking $1.7 million for a two acre abandoned industrial site not located on a major street.

An asking price proves nothing.

Rant -- At what public cost are we going to "make downtown happen"?  Think of all the public dollars that have been put into downtown so far and we are still saying things like "we are at the tipping point" and "just wait for the ballpark"...  The haphazard, back of the napkin, piecemeal "planning" that has gone on downtown for years has me to the point of mental breakdown.  How did we end up with a ballpark so far away from the BOK Center?  Where are the people that "want to live downtown"?  They aren't downtown.  Heck, the Philtower is still leasing apartments (and remember how much the public paid to get that done?).  "If there was only a grocery store downtown I would move there in a heartbeat."  Yeah right. 

I just want to know at what point the city gets to say enough is enough and stops spending our money so incoherently.  If there was some sort of coherence to all of the spending that has happened in the past maybe I would have a different viewpoint.  But the this park here, this apartment/condo project there, ballpark here (throw dart a board), arena there planning is just crazy!

[DTowner]

The owner of this building does not appear to be an "investor" in downtown, but is a speculator.  An investor buys property and looks to improve it, thereby increasing it and surrounding property's values and then may sell it to generate cash to do it all over again.  Speculators buy property with the intention of doing nothing but waiting for others to do things to surrounding properties that will increase the value of their own so they can sell at a handsome profit.

While a few speculators is not necessarily a terrible thing, Tulsa's problem appears to be we have way too many speculators holding a lot property and waiting for someone else to do something that will increase the value.

Sorry that BierGarten fails to see the benefits that are coming from past/current downtown investments.  Not as much progress or as fast as I want to see, but considering the finanical/economic circumstances of the past year, the successes cannot be ignored.

[BierGarten]

Sorry that BierGarten fails to see the benefits that are coming from past/current downtown investments.  Not as much progress or as fast as I want to see, but considering the finanical/economic circumstances of the past year, the successes cannot be ignored.

I see the benefits and I benefit from the benefits daily.  The benefits that we have already benefited from are enough benefits for me.  I no longer want to pay for additional benefits downtown.  If an arena, ballpark and various condo/park/hotel financing/funding arrangements don't "make downtown happen", then the people have spoken.  I work downtown and play downtown but I never want to live downtown or own a piece of downtown.  Why should I continue to subsidize those that do when the subsidies thus far have been poorly harmonized, at best.

[PonderInc]

Just to confirm: is this the one we're talking about?

[BierGarten]

Just to confirm: is this the one we're talking about?

Yes. That is the view of the building from the 7th street side just after you exit the IDL onto 7th.

[Oil Capital]

Her asking price goes to show how legitimate the BID fee is. She's asking $1.7 million for a two acre abandoned industrial site not located on a major street. If her property was a mile north she'd be asking a tenth of that much.

??  So, you're saying the BID fee has increased the value of her property??