Palace Clothing Building/Old Arby's

[davideinstein]

Why do citizens find it necessary to inflict their desires on one of our most basic freedoms, property rights?

Because a piece of property is a part of the community. There are properties within that could lose value if there is not a certain standard keeping the basic fabric of their community intact. That's why.

[carltonplace]

Why do citizens find it necessary to inflict their desires on one of our most basic freedoms, property rights?

Because we citizens have participated in the PlaniTulsa process to define how our city should look over the next 20 to 30 years.
Because we citizens have invested millions in our downtown.
Because we citizens have watched what happens when property owners neglect their property and then demolish it.
Because other developers are investing millions in downtown in the hopes that it will become dense and urbanized and will become a regional draw.

[carltonplace]

Whhaaaa? Arteest, having been a developer for 35 years I can only tell you that when confronted with THE CODE you MUST operate within those guidelines. And yes, there exists some flexibility. But please do not think you have any sticks in the bundle as a dreamer.... Redevelopment unfolds under the rules of the game....and the way a property gets developed is contingent upon municipality guidelines. Not the other way around.

Having been a developer for 35 years you should recognize that demolition is not development.

[BKDotCom]

Whhaaaa? Arteest, having been a developer for 35 years I can only tell you that when confronted with THE CODE you MUST operate within those guidelines. And yes, there exists some flexibility. But please do not think you have any sticks in the bundle as a dreamer.... Redevelopment unfolds under the rules of the game....and the way a property gets developed is contingent upon municipality guidelines. Not the other way around.

Take your ball and go home if all you can do is tackle the landowner with your ideas about what he should do with his rights....need some cheese to go with that whine? Besides, district courts will side with the owner and not the nimby's IF there is no breaking of the law nor over stepping local ordinances.

Who are your clients?   A bunch of folks with grand visions of surface parking?
Does anyone ever come to you with a "dream" or even an idea of improving a piece of property?
As others have already said... Who develops and sets the codes?  I'm pretty sure it's folks that actually care about their community.   Folks like TheArtist thru a democratic process.

[nathanm]

Who develops and sets the codes?  I'm pretty sure it's folks that actually care about their community.   Folks like TheArtist thru a democratic process.

More likely the developers very quietly and over a period of years. There have been some encouraging movement on this issue here in Tulsa, but so far it still seems mostly developer driven. How very nice of them to saddle us with maintenance costs we can't afford on infrastructure that mainly benefits them. That's not to say I don't benefit by their restrictive zoning forcing land values and rents up. I'd rather have a sustainable city budget, though.

[jacobi]

It is very funny to me whe people start talking about "freedoms", specifically 'fredom to do what I want with my land' (yeah I'm looking at you TTC).  Freedom is a vaccuuous word without a set of constraints against one can be considered free.  You're free to do what you want, as long as the zoning/building codes allow you.  What's that?  Your taste just happens to coincide with the extant building/zoning codes? and it's not just that you have gotten used to the way things are and you hate change, is it?  No!  wow what a freakin' coincidence!  Anything else?  Oh the music you heppen to like is the best because you like it? even though you are free to choose which music you like?

Zoning codes determined the shape of our city, not our 'freedoms' (whatever the hell that means).  Hopefully, one day the city will have the plums to stand up to people who want to knock down buildings.  Not in my lifetime though.

[godboko71]

Glad to hear they don't plan to tear it down. Wonder what they do have planned. Not going to get into the property rights stuff its been done to death here. I will say I don't agree with Tea that anyone's rights have been violated, today anyway

[Townsend]

Finally got a PM from FB Tulsa World.

Tulsa World  "There is no planned demolition of the Excaliber Building."

Why do they keep saying "planned"?

[dbacks fan]

Finally got a PM from FB Tulsa World.

Why do they keep saying "planned"?

It's a polite way of saying, "We're working on plans to develop this, but is all else fails, we'll just raze it, and turn it into parking for now."

[PonderInc]

I'm excited to see a lot of new development/businesses downtown.  Simultaneously, I'm amazed at how many buildings are sitting around doing little or nothing.  (The Renberg's Bldg on Main St is used as a parking garage, the red brick building on the corner west of McNellies is used to store light bulbs, many more buildings just sit vacant, or are used to store a boat or a couple cars, or whatever...)

I was talking to a downtown small business owner, and she was saying how it's actually pretty hard to get a space downtown.  In her opinion, the people who own the buildings act like they're going to be worth a ton in the future, so they're just sitting on their investments.  And, for whatever reason, they don't want to bother renting them out in the meantime.  (I assume because basic improvements/maintenance would be required--an investment they don't want to make?)  Another problem identified by another business owner was that a small handful of people own a large percent of downtown buildings.  So there's sort of a monopoly on the rental spaces that are available...and the other buildings are owned by people who aren't even interested in renting.

But if more people would be open to leasing their downtown properties, there would be more small businesses opening up.  And more excitement.  More foot traffic.  More synergies.  More value.  More investment.  And it seems like this is the QUICKEST way to help improve everyone's return on investment downtown.  So if you want to get a better sales price, isn't it logical to rent in the meantime?  Open up the market to young entrepreneurs who can't afford to purchase an entire building, but who can make something great happen?   

[dsjeffries]

...So if you want to get a better sales price, isn't it logical to rent in the meantime?...

Yes, it is logical and reasonable, and a good idea... which is why the old curmudgeons that own the buildings will never do it.

[erfalf]

Yes, it is logical and reasonable, and a good idea... which is why the old curmudgeons that own the buildings will never do it.

It can't be that simple.

There has to be a better explanation as to why owners are unwilling to rent space.

[dsjeffries]

It can't be that simple.

There has to be a better explanation as to why owners are unwilling to rent space.

Squatters have been speculating on downtown since the 70s, holding their surface lots and old buildings hostage, always thinking they'll make millions if they just cling to it a few years longer. Meanwhile, downtown became a ghost town. Now that it's coming back, they're still holding out for better deals. A great example of this is the giant 2-square-block parking lot across from Joe Momma's (and McNellie's, Fleet Feet, Dilly Deli, Lee's Bicycles, Back Alley Blues & BBQ, etc.). The owner of it is waiting until he can make a million or two off its sale.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Why do citizens find it necessary to inflict their desires on one of our most basic freedoms, property rights?

Where did you ever get the idea that 'property rights' as a 'basic freedom' ever derived from any other source than the government of the time??   Going back hundreds if not thousands of years!  Governments have always maintained jurisdiction, either through direct military control/action or practice of hegemony, and then granted land use - 'ownership' - to people.  Think Indian tribal relations to the US Federal Government.

I like the phrase "imperialistic voyeurism", as I have used before.

If the delusion is rattling around your head that somehow you have "rights" to property - well, that is just a symptom of not understanding.

You do have the right to spend large amounts of money on structures and improvements - within guidelines established by the ruling governmental entity (zoning laws) - and benefit from those efforts if possible.  As long as you remit your "dues" to that entity.  Which brings us to another answer to a question posed by guido - yes, you are responsible to pay for educating other peoples children - by definition of the laws established regarding public education funding - property taxes.

Do you remember anything about the history of the aboriginal people of this country?  And their "most basic freedoms" - including property rights.  Or even life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

[heironymouspasparagus]

It can't be that simple.

There has to be a better explanation as to why owners are unwilling to rent space.

In school, Econ 101, they did a short blurb on real estate that seemed very counter-intuitive to me.  They made the case that analyzing cash flows, present/future values, and a wave of the magic wand, letting a commercial building set empty would somehow actually pay off over renting it out.  I never did really get it.  Maybe has to do with taking losses against other income?

Eastland should have made somebody a fortune, in that case!