Any new midtown/Cherry Street developments?

[SXSW]

This is why parking requirements are such a ridiculous thing - CVS/Walgreens get grouped in with other retail and pharmacies never have 'rush' periods outside of the drive throughs maybe after 5pm. Even the highest grossing CVS/Walgreen's probably don't need more than 15-20 parking spaces during the busier time periods, yet on a prime corner in Tulsa they built 50+ spaces that are 80-90% empty 100% of the time. Generally with pharmacies its a steady business through most of the day and so while they don't ever look 'busy' they have a continuous stream of customers pretty much all day long that spend 5-10 minutes in the store maximum.

Reason this area hasn't seen more redevelopment is mainly Bumgarner, he's being a speculator versus and active developer. He's content knocking down structures to reduce his property tax bill and just sitting on the land knowing that each year it just becomes more valuable. We shouldn't allow developers to reduce their tax burden by knocking down properties like this - main reason why we have so many parking lots downtown too with no rush to redevelop. 

Is there a way to combat this?  As in do other cities have a mechanism that prevents demolition to reduce property taxes?

[LandArchPoke]

Is there a way to combat this?  As in do other cities have a mechanism that prevents demolition to reduce property taxes?

There's been places that have looked into specific land taxes to combat that in urban areas of cities, but generally developers and property owners have too much local power - I can't really think of anywhere that has passed anything that has been successful in combating this.

It could be as simple as locking assessments even if structures are demolished if the structures are not considered a hazard instead of establishing some sort of extra 'vacant land' tax. So then there'd be less reason to remove structures because they would not get any benefits on property taxes. Not sure if something like that would ever get much consideration from city officials though even if it's in the best interest of everyone. Letting speculators remove things from our tax base while sitting on appreciating land is kind of ridiculous to me. The county assessors could also start doing a better job at assessing land much closer to market value too after structures are removed, generally vacant land is one of the most under appraised type of property anywhere in the US by local assessor offices.

[Red Arrow]

There's been places that have looked into specific land taxes to combat that in urban areas of cities, but generally developers and property owners have too much local power - I can't really think of anywhere that has passed anything that has been successful in combating this.

It could be as simple as locking assessments even if structures are demolished if the structures are not considered a hazard instead of establishing some sort of extra 'vacant land' tax. So then there'd be less reason to remove structures because they would not get any benefits on property taxes. Not sure if something like that would ever get much consideration from city officials though even if it's in the best interest of everyone. Letting speculators remove things from our tax base while sitting on appreciating land is kind of ridiculous to me. The county assessors could also start doing a better job at assessing land much closer to market value too after structures are removed, generally vacant land is one of the most under appraised type of property anywhere in the US by local assessor offices.

Probably won't fly but.... consider lots with torn down buildings more valuable than before since now anything could be built without the expense of catching up to building codes and not doing the demolition which has already been done.  Zone to permit parking garages but not surface-only parking.

[LandArchPoke]

Probably won't fly but.... consider lots with torn down buildings more valuable than before since now anything could be built without the expense of catching up to building codes and not doing the demolition which has already been done.  Zone to permit parking garages but not surface-only parking.

Blake tried that back years ago downtown. Downtown might as well not even have zoning because you can pretty much do anything you want anywhere. There's a lot of good to that but some bad - which is why you've seen things like Jackson Technical building a suburban style development. Blake tried to do an overlay downtown that would require buildings to be placed along the street to avoid things like that and I think he wanted to try to put a demolition component into it where it would make it really hard to knock down any of the buildings left. It got the typical response from so many developers here who don't understand how this would actually be preserving their investments downtown and make them more valuable. He got ran over and the overlay never made it past initial discussions. Typical "Constitution tells me I can do what I want" "Freedom!" "Property rights!" that kind of BS from a small few that were willing to sue over anything the city wanted to do. The same mentality of folks who just threw a fit over the overlay in Riverview, Tracy Park, Owen Park, etc. they just switch the argument to whatever suits the 'NO' position at that time.

[Red Arrow]

Blake tried that back years ago downtown. Downtown might as well not even have zoning because you can pretty much do anything you want anywhere. There's a lot of good to that but some bad - which is why you've seen things like Jackson Technical building a suburban style development. Blake tried to do an overlay downtown that would require buildings to be placed along the street to avoid things like that and I think he wanted to try to put a demolition component into it where it would make it really hard to knock down any of the buildings left. It got the typical response from so many developers here who don't understand how this would actually be preserving their investments downtown and make them more valuable. He got ran over and the overlay never made it past initial discussions. Typical "Constitution tells me I can do what I want" "Freedom!" "Property rights!" that kind of BS from a small few that were willing to sue over anything the city wanted to do. The same mentality of folks who just threw a fit over the overlay in Riverview, Tracy Park, Owen Park, etc. they just switch the argument to whatever suits the 'NO' position at that time.

I remember some of that now that you jogged my memory.  Thanks for the details.

[Urban Enthusiast]

I would think something like. . . you cannot issue demolition permits until construction permits have been issued.  There has to be an executable plan in place before something gets demolished.  Doubt that would fly, but something to consider. 

[Red Arrow]

I would think something like. . . you cannot issue demolition permits until construction permits have been issued.  There has to be an executable plan in place before something gets demolished.  Doubt that would fly, but something to consider. 

Mr. Suburbia here agrees for urban applications. We have the technology to build to Art Deco styles but not the desire or financing. :-(

I think Art Deco is far prettier than most of the modern blah stuff I've seen.  But then, I'm an old guy.

[tulsabug]

I would think something like. . . you cannot issue demolition permits until construction permits have been issued.  There has to be an executable plan in place before something gets demolished.  Doubt that would fly, but something to consider. 

Or a tax penalty on undeveloped land in certain districts. Plot X with Building Y - tax is $2000 / year. Plot X after building Y torn down - tax is $4000 / year with a caveat that you can't just throw a mobile home on something and call it developed. Or alternately - tax breaks for maintaining buildings. It's all only ever about the money for developers no matter what any of them say and it's the only way to steer them in any direction. When the tax is less on land with no building than it is with a building (esp if the building on the property will require so much money to make it usable again) then goodbye building. The city really can't tell people what to do creatively, aesthetically or otherwise - there's always a way around it but they can control these things from the money angle which is what they should be doing.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Or a tax penalty on undeveloped land in certain districts. Plot X with Building Y - tax is $2000 / year. Plot X after building Y torn down - tax is $4000 / year with a caveat that you can't just throw a mobile home on something and call it developed. Or alternately - tax breaks for maintaining buildings. It's all only ever about the money for developers no matter what any of them say and it's the only way to steer them in any direction. When the tax is less on land with no building than it is with a building (esp if the building on the property will require so much money to make it usable again) then goodbye building. The city really can't tell people what to do creatively, aesthetically or otherwise - there's always a way around it but they can control these things from the money angle which is what they should be doing.

Just screaming "government overreach" if certain elements were trying to do that....

[tulsabug]

Just screaming "government overreach" if certain elements were trying to do that....

Then call them fines instead of taxes. The city, county, and state all the time add fines and licenses and such to this and that or make changes to existing fines and costs without any political uprising plus fines don't require any kind of vote. All the increases and changes for car tags and so on never even make the news. Have you tried getting a Title 42 on an old car lately? Tons of changes there making it extremely expensive and complicated and no one stormed the Capitol. Heck - simply make demolition permits of any building over 20 years old more expensive. The point is it's about the money - arguing aesthetics with developers gets nowhere. Arguing future value of something means nothing. They'll go in whatever direction their balance sheet looks the best - full stop.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Then call them fines instead of taxes. The city, county, and state all the time add fines and licenses and such to this and that or make changes to existing fines and costs without any political uprising plus fines don't require any kind of vote. All the increases and changes for car tags and so on never even make the news. Have you tried getting a Title 42 on an old car lately? Tons of changes there making it extremely expensive and complicated and no one stormed the Capitol. Heck - simply make demolition permits of any building over 20 years old more expensive. The point is it's about the money - arguing aesthetics with developers gets nowhere. Arguing future value of something means nothing. They'll go in whatever direction their balance sheet looks the best - full stop.

Never have....the old car title thing....

I have the title to my old car, but it has dropped off the system and the process description the tag agent told me sounds painful.  Learned never to let the tag lapse by 29 years again!


There was a beautiful old Victorian style house on Utica many years ago at 14th Pl.  Couple of them actually.  It was torn down in 'anticipation' of "something big gonna happen here" mind set.  I have been in that house many times in ages long past, and it was a crime to tear it down as far as I am concerned.  The people who did that should still be paying for that nonsense!

But at least there is a Cirque Coffee next to where it was, so there is that....           Nothing against them, I am sure they are good people.  Just not a pretty building!

[Red Arrow]

Never have....the old car title thing....
I have the title to my old car, but it has dropped off the system and the process description the tag agent told me sounds painful.  Learned never to let the tag lapse by 29 years again!

I  believe you will have a difficult time doing anything without a current title/registration.  A friend has an old motorcycle with a similar situation that he cannot do anything with.

I have an old (1981) car that I bought brand-new but haven't driven in MANY years.  I have kept the registration current (Black-tag, no insurance) to avoid problems when I finally decide it doesn't need to hide the trash cans anymore.  It's still sitting on inflated tires.  I wouldn't trust the tires to do more than move the car to a haul-away trailer though.

[tulsabug]

I  believe you will have a difficult time doing anything without a current title/registration.  A friend has an old motorcycle with a similar situation that he cannot do anything with.

I have an old (1981) car that I bought brand-new but haven't driven in MANY years.  I have kept the registration current (Black-tag, no insurance) to avoid problems when I finally decide it doesn't need to hide the trash cans anymore.  It's still sitting on inflated tires.  I wouldn't trust the tires to do more than move the car to a haul-away trailer though.

It's not really a big deal but it's not as easy as it used to be. If you were the last titled owner then you can file for a lost title or do the abandoned vehicle thing. They take time and a little money but no big deal. A title 42 now really requires you petition the court to force the DMV to issue you a title - there are a few people who are doing this professionally as they figured out the bureaucracy of it - seems to run about $400 or so. The real bottom line is all these things used to be cheap to do but new fines and fees have made them a cash cow for the state and none of that required a vote by the people. The city can easily do these things in regard to buildings and since the current approach of zoning isn't working then they should try it. I know contractors here in town - they say the same thing - you can do whatever you want as far as construction goes and it's usually cheaper to pay a fine than it is to get permission. Maybe they should take notes from the health department - they don't screw around when it comes to permits, enforcement, and fines. Go build an unapproved commercial kitchen - see how fast they fine you and make you tear it down.

[SXSW]

In other BREAKING NEWS: The Burnt out shed next to the Subway on Cherry St has been removed. The entire site is an eye sore... on one of Tulsa's premier streets. Hope it's reworked here soon!

Hearing it will be a brunch restaurant called Hatch.  They have this location and one in Jenks listed as coming soon on their website.

https://hatchearlymoodfood.com/

[ComeOnBenjals]

Very cool, Hatch will do extremely well there. It's unbelievably popular in OKC.