Proposed ordinance - downtown demos and surface parking

[Conan71]

With the DCC in pole position on the "Asphalt Jungle 500" it will be hard to rally any contingent of business owners. One of the poster children of downtown property rehab, Libby Auld, was reportedly one of the people against is. Not sure who else.

City council should continue the interim until a suitable solution is available. Here are some options:

2. Set the stadium trust assessment rate for surface parking to be 10x sqft of surface parking Where surface parking is primary use on that lot.

I'm assuming what you mean by point 2 is that it would raise the assessment on flattops significantly to be a disincentive to tear down a vacant, but savable building?

[guido911]

Here's another option:  Open up your wallets and invest your own money in downtown development instead of telling other people how to invest their money or develop their property. I hate to disagree with the position of TN, but encumbering property rights to fulfill ones self-interested notions of what downtown should look like is not only a "taking" but dictatorial.

[Conan71]

Here's another option:  Open up your wallets and invest your own money in downtown development instead of telling other people how to invest their money or develop their property. I hate to disagree with the position of TN, but encumbering property rights to fulfill ones self-interested notions of what downtown should look like is not only a "taking" but dictatorial.

It's not vastly different than if your HOA has covenants to prevent you from using your home as commercial property or specifying what type of roofing material is or is not acceptable.

Besides, we are all just dreamers who have no money and have Napoleon complexes. 

[Cats Cats Cats]

Here's another option:  Open up your wallets and invest your own money in downtown development instead of telling other people how to invest their money or develop their property. I hate to disagree with the position of TN, but encumbering property rights to fulfill ones self-interested notions of what downtown should look like is not only a "taking" but dictatorial.

I don't think that every building in downtown should be able to be demolished if somebody with enough money decides they don't like downtown Tulsa anymore.  There has to be somewhere in the middle. 

[Gaspar]

The more restrictions you place on development, the less development you will have. Very simple.

Parking lots are businesses, just like restaurants, bars, and office buildings.  When the demand for one business exceeds the demand for the other, the landscape will change.  Using the sword of government to impede certain types of investment is an easy solution to address the problem without actually solving it.  

Perhaps there are better ways to make the development of existing structures more appealing, encourage investment, and mitigate risk for developers?  It should be the goal to shape a community through the development of demand, instead of restriction of commerce.

We have a growing urban fabric developing downtown.  With a little hard work, perhaps we could devote more energy to promoting this growth, developing demand, and encouraging additional investment.  We have some developers who have taken pockets of downtown and transformed them by building communities and being responsive to the demands created by those communities.  We have some great case studies right in front of us.  Perhaps we should ask them what would make their job (a job they are doing quite well) easier, and encourage others to engage in the same?

If you want create a blueprint for development, building a door is always smarter than building a wall.

I'm just one of those dreamers.  

[Red Arrow]

I basically agree with your post but....

Parking lots are businesses, just like restaurants, bars, and office buildings...

and prostitution, illegal drug deals, automobile chop shops

My point being that some businesses are less desirable than others.   There are a lot of (legal business) opportunities that I most definitely don't want in my neighborhood.
[/quote]

[Gaspar]

and prostitution, illegal drug deals, automobile chop shops

My point being that some businesses are less desirable than others.   There are a lot of (legal business) opportunities that I most definitely don't want in my neighborhood.

The businesses you mention above are not legal.  What types of legal business do you want to avoid having in your neighborhood?

[Cats Cats Cats]

The businesses you mention above are not legal.  What types of legal business do you want to avoid having in your neighborhood?

cemetary, anything loud

[AquaMan]

That's a crock Gas. Let me rephrase. That's an extreme, unsupportable view, Gas.

Perhaps you could suggest cities that have followed your advice and let property owners develop land and buildings based on those principles? Houston? Oakhurst?

Establishing incentives and disincentives as Grizz described, for the public good, in keeping with a comprehensive plan, keeps the system in balance. Managing growth is a bona fide conservative policy. Managing it to conserve resources and promote sustainable growth is smart. Going back to the 1890's for Baron management? Not so smart.

Councilor Ewing is right on this topic.

[RecycleMichael]

Besides, we are all just dreamers ...

Ain't that the truth.

[Gaspar]

Let me clarify a bit.  Zoning laws are indeed a good thing, but that's not what we are talking about here.  Sure, Red and I probably don't want massage parlors in our neighborhoods, and for the most part our zoning laws keep that from happening.  Parking, however, is a legitimate, legal, and desirable product.  In fact, it is a resource that most other businesses require for viability.  

There seems to be a Walgreens on almost every corner in South Tulsa.  Gas stations, empty lots, and other retail centers are being leveled and converted into Walgreens.  If we were to say ENOUGH! and pose a tax on drug stores and similar developments we may indeed limit their construction, however the demand that drives that development would still exist.  The convenience of the corner Walgreens would be sought elsewhere.  The unintended consequence would be a change in overall development, both commercial and residential.  

The same goes for parking businesses.  The demand exists, therefore we should focus on changing the demand instead of penalizing the developer and ultimatly the consumer by limiting the resource.

[Cats Cats Cats]

I think I can make a very good argument that the demand doesn't exist.  Of course there maybe 1-2 weekends the lot has cars in it between greenwood and elgin.  Most of the time it does not. I am not sure if they still used number spaces but 80% of the spots didn't have numbers on them.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=tulsa,+ok&hl=en&ll=36.156579,-95.985897&spn=0.005561,0.006866&sll=36.156545,-95.98529&sspn=0.002798,0.003433&hnear=Tulsa,+Oklahoma&t=h&z=17

[carltonplace]

Bumgarner and Sager need to realize that people aren't coming to downtown in ever increasing numbers because of the ample parking. It won't be long before every existing structure in downtown is back in use and contributing, in fact if we hadn't allowed the good ole boy free-for-all over the last three decades we would be even closer to the downtown that Tulsans want when they answer surveys on the topic.  We will soon run out of building stock that can be converted to new use.

Every tax payer in Tulsa does have a stake in spite of what these loud complainers say...we paid for the street improvements, we paid for the arena and (in Sager's case we paid for his building) as consumers we support the businesses in their buildings.

Full disclosure: I own a home in near downtown and the albatross of surface parking does affect me and my neighbors and our property values. The value of every building in downtown is affected as the chasm of surface parking expands.

Side bar: everytime I hop on the Trolley shaped bus it is full. It's clear that a regular circulator that minimizes the need for proximity parking will be used.

[PonderInc]

Libby's position was that people needed more time to consider/fully understand the ordinance before supporting it.  She said that she could see valid arguments on both sides.  She, like many DCC members, only received the proposed ordinance in a package a day or two before the meeting.  And busy people may not have had time to review it, while others are simply not well-versed in the Tulsa zoning code.  So I think they erred on the side of caution/status quo and deferred to the vocal opponents.  They took sort of a "we shouldn't make any drastic decisions on a moment's notice."  Plus, the opponents (only 2-3 people spoke who flat-out opposed it--most folks just listened) were really aggressive in their opposition.  I would not say it was a fertile environment for inclusive, open-minded debate.

Bumgarner and Saeger "introduced" the topic and presented their own pre-printed statement as the motion to vote on.  The Planning department apparently made a presentation to the DCC Parking Committee (Sager, American Parking, et al) and they presented their opinion to the DCC.  So the entire DCC never got a presentation from the Planning Department, where everyone could make an informed decision.  They just voted on the pre-determined statement that was provided by the opponents as the motion on the floor.  

I think some folks might have been more willing to consider separate portions of the ordinance if it had been introduced in a non-biased way by a professional planner.

I mean, really, who could argue about landscaping requirements for surface lots and making surface lots a use by exception in a downtown area where 40% of the land is already surface lots?  But that was never presented as a separate issue to consider.  (And I think it would have gotten quite a bit more support had it been presented fairly.)

[Gaspar]

Lets try another analogy.  If I want to invest in an old warehouse downtown and convert it into a series of restaurants and bars, I already have several obstacles to attend to.  I will need to invest a significant amount of money structurally and architecturally to meet current code and ensure the safety of my patrons. I will also need to provide adequate close parking to serve a percentage of my capacity.  Impede my ability to develop that and I am less likely to invest. Impede the ability of others to offer that and I am also less likely to invest.  Threaten my future ability for growth and expansion in a given location and I am less likely to invest in that area.

I am no big fan of surface parking downtown, but I also realize that vacant structures are an economic drain.  Sure, some of them are pretty, and offer some history, but provide limited modern use without significant investment.  If you want to impact the re-development of these structures (and reduce their demolition) you need to reduce the investment necessary to rehabilitate them and therefore incentivize their re-use.  Placing an impediment on investment by limiting a property's use beyond normal zoning laws will ultimately make more vacant buildings.  It's important to know when to use carrots over sticks.

The ordinance as proposed does noting to encourage re-development of the existing lots, and promises to produce scarcity for future development.  In fact, it makes the existing lots even more valuable to their existing owners as parking.  It doesn't' seem very well thought out.  It rewards the current surface lot owners by delivering them with a monopoly, and punishes future development by limiting use beyond typical zoning rules.