District 4 Dilemma

[akupetsky]

A Maria supporter and a democrat, I am now faced with not knowing who to support and vote for in the City Council election.  I'm not inclined to vote for Brune given the way the primary election went and given that some of his supporters have nothing but scorn for transparent local government and would throw neighborhood concerns under the bus if given the choice.  On the other hand, I'm not sure that Blake would choose any better if faced with the choice of nipping away at neighborhoods to attact a "my way or the highway" developer in midtown or preserving neighborhood feel and cohesion even if it means being willing to see a developer abandon his/her midtown project.  If I felt that Blake understood these midtown choices and would act fairly, I would not only vote for him, but would probably encourage other democrats to do so.  Any suggestions? 

[sgrizzle]

A Maria supporter and a democrat, I am now faced with not knowing who to support and vote for in the City Council election.  I'm not inclined to vote for Brune given the way the primary election went and given that some of his supporters have nothing but scorn for transparent local government and would throw neighborhood concerns under the bus if given the choice.  On the other hand, I'm not sure that Blake would choose any better if faced with the choice of nipping away at neighborhoods to attact a "my way or the highway" developer in midtown or preserving neighborhood feel and cohesion even if it means being willing to see a developer abandon his/her midtown project.  If I felt that Blake understood these midtown choices and would act fairly, I would not only vote for him, but would probably encourage other democrats to do so.  Any suggestions? 

I don't like to judge people by their supporters alone, but neither candidate has done a whole lot with midtown development. The closest would be Blake's adaptation of a church building just outside downtown for his office space, and the adaptation of properties at 6th and Peoria.

If you do want to try to extrapolate based on that rather shaky data, then here is what I know:

Every project Blake has done or has planned involves taking an existing building and re-useing it. They have all been local projects and general involve the Navarro's with One Architecture which does plenty adaptation/reuse.

I only know of a couple of Brune supporters and I know they have torn down midtown houses, and also have several projects in limbo or abandoned.

Again, this is nothing Brune has done and he may have no intention of doing so. He lives in an adapted, reused space himself. I personally doubt either one of them has any interest in letting some out-of-state entity pave paradise and put in a parking lot.

[akupetsky]

It's not the out-of-state entities I'm necessarily worried about.  And my experience in this city has been that a Councilor's supporters definitely influence their decisions, especially those Councilors that don't have a vision for the City to begin with.  I still remember Councilor Baker, for example.

[sgrizzle]

I'm not going to disclose any private details, but from what I know of Blake's supporters, you're safe.

P.S. I was disappointed in Tom Baker, mainly because he wasn't the Tom Baker I was thinking of.

[rdj]

It's not the out-of-state entities I'm necessarily worried about.  And my experience in this city has been that a Councilor's supporters definitely influence their decisions, especially those Councilors that don't have a vision for the City to begin with.  I still remember Councilor Baker, for example.

From what I've seen and read Mr Ewing has plenty of vision for the city.   You should read his personal campaign blog.

[JoeMommaBlake]

Greetings,

I'm glad to post my thoughts regarding preservation. I'm perfectly fine with going on the record with these statements.

I'm a preservationist. I'm a developer. In midtown, those things have been mutually exclusive for some time, especially in our representatives. I'm excited about working to bridge that gap.

I'm confident that there are creative solutions to some of those problems that will allow developers to do the much appreciated work of infilling and creating the density in midtown and downtown that PlaniTulsa has called for, while also protecting our historic neighborhoods.

Developers and new home builders should not be allowed to destroy historic homes. Also, preservationists should understand that the commercial corridors and the hospitals that they appreciate require some understanding and cooperation. Find me the midtown preservationist who never eats on Cherry St. or who travels to St. Francis Hospital out of protest. They don't exist. We like Cherry St. We like St. Johns and Hillcrest. We just want those things to all play ball with each other. This has been made a black and white issue for so long and all that's done is cause developers to try to break (circumvent) the rules and preservationists to buckle down while pulling out their hair.

The historic neighborhoods are creating the value that the developers are attempting to cash in on. It's not appropriate for a developer to parasite off of the value creators and give minimal or no value back.

I had a conversation about this very thing last night and I came up with an analogy. I don't feel like the government should have the right to tell me what to do with my fists. They're mine. It's not their business, right? I do, however, understand them having a law that prohibits me from using them to hurt someone. The government does have a purpose to protect us from hurting each other, physically or financially.

In midtown's historic neighborhoods, the home values come from a few different places - their location, their history, their architecture, and their relationship to other similarly valuable homes. The midtown homeowners have bought into that value. They then work to maintain that value by keeping up their homes, forming strong home-owners associations, etc. In effect, these homes do a great deal to make midtown developments so financially valuable. From a financial standpoint, it's easy to understand why a developer would want to bulldoze existing structures to make room for new ones. These new structures benefit from their location and relationship to this large number of existing valuable homes. Over time, the neighborhoods lose value as the history is destroyed and replaced by modern day mediocrity.

To take advantage of the value those homes create, but provide no value in return is not acceptable. It's something the government should protect. A developer may be able to purchase that property and call it his own, but if he uses that property to damage the integrity of the very thing that helped make it valuable, an inequity is created that shouldn't be allowed. Simply, it should not be permitted to destroy homes in our historic midtown neighborhoods for the sake of the new development. I will say that I'm not a preservationist to the degree that I want arbitrary boards of opinionated "experts" legislating aesthetics. That's over the top.

Anyway, it is not okay that a home-builder is allowed to demolish a 90 year old home in the middle of Maple Ridge to build multiple new homes on the same lot. It's offensive to the residents of Maple Ridge and our money hungry developers should realize what they're slowly doing to Tulsa's history.

When developers were choosing to destroy our classic downtown theaters one at a time, I'm sure they had some great reasons. Now we'd love to have them back. We need a code that protects our historic neighborhoods while making development easy and accessible.

I think I'm the best candidate District 4 has had regarding preservation, because I'm a preservationist who actually has credibility with the developers. Also, I think I'm the best candidate District 4 has had regarding development, because I understand what's broken at city hall and will work to make development in Tulsa, and especially District 4, a more smooth, appealing and navigable process. I know it doesn't seem likely, but I'm confident that we can have a "win-win" district, despite the unique challenges. They should both support me. I understand development better than my opponent and I will not compromise on my commitment to protect historic homes.

The developers may have to stomach the reality that they can't go into a historic neighborhood and bulldoze homes in the night and build new smaller crappier homes on those lots. Preservationists may have to get comfortable with the idea of a couple of well designed and appropriately placed parking garages around Cherry St. 

Please call if you have any questions. 918.991.8252.

[Conan71]

We need a code that protects our historic neighborhoods while making development easy and accessible.

And in harmony with the surrounding area. 

The Cherry Street Lofts, or whatever they are calling the mod condos actually do fit a style of architecture I like quite a bit, considering I own an MCM home in Lortondale.   Situating these condos amongst brick apartment buildings and 1920's craftsmen bungalows was a huge black eye to the neighborhood.  It totally did not fit and should have never been allowed.  They could have just as easily done brick buildings with modern touches which wouldn't have looked like such a scar on the neighborhood.

I'm but one voice, but figured it wouldn't hurt to voice it to the future D-4 councilor

[akupetsky]

The example I'm thinking about is the Arvest Bank on Utica and 15th.  I'm all for this type of development on an arterial; however, the developer insisted on destroying homes and intruding in the historic neighborhood so he could provide additional parking for the building. He could have provided for a garage or some other means of parking closer to the arterial without the intrusion, but it was cheaper for him to destroy and intrude, and the Council went along with him when he insisted that his client would bolt. This cries out for the creative solutions you are espousing, but there was no political will.  Since he and others now own rights to houses in that particular neighborhood, this issue will arise again.

[AquaMan]

"Joe Momma", I like what you wrote and I support the attitude you bring. The first step in recognizing what the threat is to this area of town is in understanding that there are two different cultures at work. For them to accommodate each other seems almost utopian.

The major player is the suburban culture which has expanded and profited handsomely from cannibalizing the city as it has grown outward. For example, no one much cared when a pond, a farm house and ranch land were gobbled up at 61st & Mingo. That is accepted on all sides as a part of suburban development. It is rooted in 3 or more decades of development. Buy, scrape, build homes, build shopping centers then upgrade arterials. It only worked because of the extreme demand created by the baby boomers after WWII.

The other culture is interurban. It eschewed that mainstream development in favor of following the path of development laid out in the city in the time period previous to and shortly after WWII. I am part of this culture. I was selling real estate in the mid-seventies and chose to live this lifestyle rather than the chaotic existence that sprawl spawned. It cost me more but I have never regretted it. We love the architecture, the design, the topography, the convenience and the robust construction values this area offers. However, the entire block that I live on would have been destroyed had Betsy Horowitz not stood up and made it clear that our cultural values were equal to those of suburbans. We also have profited from our commitment to these neighborhoods.

The suburban developer oriented culture is dominant because of its relationship to the city in providing it revenue from jobs, retail development and a broader ad valorem base. Simply put they have the ear of local government. The moderns that invaded Cherry Street are proof of that. It was the wrong plan for that area and could only have been done at that time, with bully attitudes. The first thing developers do is deem a property a POS (piece of schist) that has been poorly maintained. Often its because they owned the property and allowed it to deteriorate. Then they offer themselves as saviors, ney, revenue enhancers for the city and the neighborhood. Many of those home and apartments were the fabric of Cherry Street as they housed the very customers and employees of restaurants and retailers in the area. To use an analogy, they married a country girl because they loved her quaint attitudes on life and morality, then proceeded to change her into a city girl, then dropped her. Now no one's much happy with the result.

This cross-culturalization is happening all over Maple Ridge and will likely invade the other gentrifying hoods North and West of downtown if not acknowledged. Hardly any homes in this area had huge stucco walls around a small compound of homes when I moved in here 30 years ago.  Its just not what an interurban culture would consider as enticing. I often see them now. Traditionally these inter urban areas are diverse in age, religion, tastes and entertainments........yet, these walls and compounds are coveted in the suburban culture as a way to elevate value by preserving a common defense and exhorting conformist attitudes. Conformity means value enhancement in the suburbs, in the inner city it means boredom.

I think you are smart enough to see this process and popular enough with both cultures to get elected. How would you propose to change the existing governmental framework that has allowed the dominant culture to put a bikini on the country girl?

[sgrizzle]

The example I'm thinking about is the Arvest Bank on Utica and 15th.  I'm all for this type of development on an arterial; however, the developer insisted on destroying homes and intruding in the historic neighborhood so he could provide additional parking for the building. He could have provided for a garage or some other means of parking closer to the arterial without the intrusion, but it was cheaper for him to destroy and intrude, and the Council went along with him when he insisted that his client would bolt. This cries out for the creative solutions you are espousing, but there was no political will.  Since he and others now own rights to houses in that particular neighborhood, this issue will arise again.

Where would they have put a parking garage.. and what parking garage is smaller than the Arvest lot?

[Bat Bat]

Ken Brune's campaign manager is Jim Burdge and unfortunately that is all I need to know.  Period.

If that wasn't enough, Ken Brune (as an attorney) has on numerous occasions represented developers that care nothing about midtown preservation. 

As my mamma said and still says, "be careful who you associate yourself with because, whether you like or not, you will be judged by the company you keep."

Needless to say, my support will be going to Mr. Blake "JoMamma" Ewing.

[akupetsky]

Where would they have put a parking garage.. and what parking garage is smaller than the Arvest lot?

Underneath the bank, as they did on 21st and Utica. 

[akupetsky]

I had a conversation about this very thing last night and I came up with an analogy. I don't feel like the government should have the right to tell me what to do with my fists. They're mine. It's not their business, right? I do, however, understand them having a law that prohibits me from using them to hurt someone. The government does have a purpose to protect us from hurting each other, physically or financially.

Blake, I agree with your philosophy (and that of Mr. John Stuart Mill).  Thanks for expressing your views on the historic preservation issue.  These are difficult issues to address case-by-case, which is why it was so critical to finish PlanIt Tulsa and why making concrete zoning changes to provide notice to developers is crucial. 

[TURobY]

As a registered Democrat, I will be throwing my vote toward Blake's campaign as well.

[RecycleMichael]

I prefer candidates who post on TulsaNow. If Perry or Romney were a regular contributor to our forum, I would probably consider voting for them as well.