Proposed ordinance - downtown demos and surface parking

[Cats Cats Cats]

Name somebody who put in a restaurant or bar downtown and bulldozed the building next to it for parking?  Nobody has done this to my knowledge. I guess a huge giant chain that wants a 15,000 sqft restaurant might do that.  Even then there is plenty of parking.

[Red Arrow]

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

Since we are a couple of blocks from Memorial, pretty much any kind of business.  McDonalds, Auto body shop, barber shop/beauty saloon, grocery store, lumber yard, gas station, parking lot, cell phone store, restaurant of any kind, bank, hardware store, condo or apartment building, any home that builds within a few feet of the property line, anything requiring sidewalks (just for you Townsend).   Get the idea?  I don't want to live in "the city" which should be no surprise to anyone here.

[guido911]

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.  

The problem with the HOA comparison is that covenants are largely contractual, entered into between like-minded people that live and OWN property together in proximity. In cases where new people move in to an HOA subdivision, they are advised in advance of covenants so they have the chance to walk away. Here, it appears we have a bunch of people living outside the HOA or that do not own property in the HOA trying to impose on those owning property in the proximate area a set of rules through government force. To me that is a third party forcing other persons that have no shared ownership interest a brand new sort of rules. Although hyperbole, to me that is fascist.

It's okay to be a dreamer, and I have a hard time seeing parking lots in favor of buildings. But I am not prepared to have a group of self-interested people telling legitimate and lawful business and property owners they cannot do something with their property. Again, the solution is not imposing unconstitutional taking of property but instead have investors, individuals or collectively if they "have no money and have Napoleon complexes", to do what those that already own property downtown have done, put their money where their mouth is. That should be easy given how opinionated several other posters are in this thread about what it takes to have a successful downtown business model.

[Red Arrow]

Here, it appears we have a bunch of people living outside the HOA or that do not own property in the HOA trying to impose on those owning property in the proximate area a set of rules through government force. To me that is a third party forcing other persons that have no shared ownership interest a brand new sort of rules. Although hyperbole, to me that is fascist.

I think everyone that lives in the Tulsa Metro has a stake in the success of Tulsa.  I don't always agree with the details presented by the Urbanistas but if Tulsa fails, Bixby is not far behind.  It is highly unlikely that Bixby will return to a farming community. 

[Red Arrow]

Parking, however, is a legitimate, legal, and desirable product.  In fact, it is a resource that most other businesses require for viability.

Too much of it will choke out other development.

There seems to be a Walgreens on almost every corner in South Tulsa.

Limiting their growth could actually be in their favor by reducing the overhead associated with too many stores pulling business from their other stores.  Disclosure: Walgreens closed the Drug Mart that my mom had used for years.  Service at Walgreens is not as good as the old Drug Mart.  Her price for medicine has remained about the same.  I have no idea what the insurance company pays in comparison. Pretty much everything I have priced in Walgreens is available at WalMart across the street (111th) for less.  I have no "local business loyalty" to Walgreens as I do for Reasor's.

The unintended consequence would be a change in overall development, both commercial and residential.

That is not necessarily a bad thing.

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.

I agree that changing the demand would be preferable.  Even more important that easy access parking is just plain old easy access.  Easy access does not necessarily need to be by personal automobile.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Again, the solution is not imposing unconstitutional taking of property but instead have investors, individuals or collectively if they "have no money and have Napoleon complexes", to do what those that already own property downtown have done, put their money where their mouth is. That should be easy given how opinionated several other posters are in this thread about what it takes to have a successful downtown business model.

I called to ask about a building for sale near downtown.  They told me there was no price and then "had to go" hung up said they would call back and never did.  1 of the 3 buildings that are owned on that block is already demolished. Obviously they are waiting for a huge store to buy the whole block out and aren't serious about selling. In order for somebody to put their money where their mouth is and save a building it has to be for sale.

[Red Arrow]

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.

Judging from Artist's experience and what I have seen regarding hangar construction at the airport, there are indeed some expensive brother-in-law regulations that don't really provide any benefit to the business or the public.  Get rid of those first.

I will also need to provide adequate close parking to serve a percentage of my capacity easy access to my business.

FIFY

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.

You are still ignoring that many don't seem to want what you want to build, more surface parking.  If you were to build it and no one came, the lot is still a parking lot.  I am not as against a tear down as some here but I think requiring a rebuild of some kind of building or even just making the space a park (trees, grass, benches to sit on...) might be a reasonable compromise to the expense of bringing a derelict building up to code.

This probably won't be too popular here but here goes anyway...

Businesses who think they need close parking should get together and build a parking structure of several stories.  Each story could eliminate a surface lot of nearly equal area.  Put businesses on the ground story as many here have suggested.  Charge for parking but validate for customers patronizing the sponsor businesses.  Perhaps the city could even give a tax break to structured parking compared to surface only parking.

[Conan71]

The problem with the HOA comparison is that covenants are largely contractual, entered into between like-minded people that live and OWN property together in proximity. In cases where new people move in to an HOA subdivision, they are advised in advance of covenants so they have the chance to walk away. Here, it appears we have a bunch of people living outside the HOA or that do not own property in the HOA trying to impose on those owning property in the proximate area a set of rules through government force. To me that is a third party forcing other persons that have no shared ownership interest a brand new sort of rules. Although hyperbole, to me that is fascist.

It's okay to be a dreamer, and I have a hard time seeing parking lots in favor of buildings. But I am not prepared to have a group of self-interested people telling legitimate and lawful business and property owners they cannot do something with their property. Again, the solution is not imposing unconstitutional taking of property but instead have investors, individuals or collectively if they "have no money and have Napoleon complexes", to do what those that already own property downtown have done, put their money where their mouth is. That should be easy given how opinionated several other posters are in this thread about what it takes to have a successful downtown business model.

You make some good points.  I hadn't really thought about this being the wishes of those outside the CBD forcing the hand of the planners to enforce rules on property owners who are in the CBD.  If it were only the stake-holders within the stadium assessment district who have say on codes within the district, would that seem more appropriate to you?  I could see where that would seem more fair to some.

I have a hard time with the scattershot planning of downtown that has left us with acres upon acres of bare asphalt.  Then again, that beats the appearance of boarded up windows and graffiti all over abandoned buildings which are obsolete.  I do agree that the free market may eventually dictate that all that parking eventually will become attractive for future development and we may have a few parking garages instead of a sea of crumbling asphalt.

[guido911]

If it were only the stake-holders within the stadium assessment district who have say on codes within the district, would that seem more appropriate to you? 

This is where I get hung up, which is why I empathize with your and/or TN's positions. Downtown "belongs" to everyone, with some believing it to be the focal point of the city and for investment. Some people move closer to that area because of that belief. As I do not think that those persons owning property in that area should dictate everything, and I have no solutions (or desire for that matter to get involved with downtown), I kind of feel like a bleacher bum.

[nathanm]

It is a perfectly reasonable use of government power to either restrict activities with significant negative externalities outright or tax them commensurate with the damage to everyone else it causes. Like it or not, what we do with our own property affects others. That's why we have zoning.

[guido911]

It is a perfectly reasonable use of government power to either restrict activities with significant negative externalities outright or tax them commensurate with the damage to everyone else it causes. Like it or not, what we do with our own property affects others. That's why we have zoning.

Do you own real property? If so, tell us how reasonable it would be to purchase property, then sometime down the road the government (because of special interest group lobbying) tells you that you cannot use it for the purpose you intended without compensation. That's not zoning, that's seizing. YOU are the reason why I would fight tooth and nail to prevent ordinances like the one supported by TN from being passed.

[Gaspar]

It is a perfectly reasonable use of government power to either restrict activities with significant negative externalities outright or tax them commensurate with the damage to everyone else it causes. Like it or not, what we do with our own property affects others. That's why we have zoning.

Yeah. . .this is not zoning.  Zoning is the practice of establishing permitted uses of land.  Investors and land owners can account for zoning laws and PLAN the development of their property according to them.  Zoning laws occasionally change, but not without public petitioning, and usually for logical reasons.  This makes zoning a fair practice of land planning based on function, form, forecast, and usage.  

So, today, I can go and purchase a piece of land with full understanding of it's potential, and my bank will be willing to back me for the same reason.

This proposed ordinance would create an extra set of conditions and criteria for development of a property contingent on a board approval process, and public hearing prior to any demolition.  This means that there is essentially no way for a developer, investor, or current property owner to have any means of forecasting the value of his/her property or investment as developable.  It also means that banks and other finance entities will be less likely to approve funds for such endeavors early in the process, because there will be less confidence in their viability as a developable property.

Today, I can go downtown and buy an old building, knowing, based on the current zoning, that I can build my new restaurant or officebuilbing.  If this ordinance becomes law, that same building may not be demolish-able.  There's no way of knowing without going through the process.  This means that the cost of my possible investment has increased, and the risk (that I may not be able to develop) has also increased.  I will likely go elsewhere or just hold the property as an investment (the longer I hold it, the more likely it will become demolish-able   ).

So here are some of the results:
1. Property owners in the IDL that have already developed and established a permanent usage for their properties (bars, nightclubs, restaurants, offices, parking lots) will benefit from the restriction placed on competitive development.  They are likely thrilled by this new proposal.

2. Property owners who have undeveloped investments (old buildings that would require demolition to develop) will be less likely to engage in development for a number of reasons related to increased cost and risk associated with navigating the process.  They can just hold tight (or wait for lightning).

3. New investors looking to develop in the IDL will be more likely to look elsewhere.  Risk is too high for cash, and the bank won't help.

There is no doubt that this will curtail the growth of surface lots (VICTORY), but I think the "side-effects" are devastating.  We are not Denver.  We don't have unstoppable demand for property in the city core.   This ordinance is similar to heavy chemotherapy.  Sure, you will likely kill the cancer, but you are going to make the patient very sick.  

Short sighted solution.

[rebound]

Gaspar, thanks for the very solid, well thought out answer.  So honest question here.  Let's assume two givens:  (a) more surface lots are bad, and (b) we don't want historic buildings torn down to build new ones when the original building could be re-purposed/remodeled.  Is there a regulatory method to ensure this objective?  Throwing up our hands and saying "oh well, it's too late to do anything" isn't, I don't think, a reasonable alternative.

[Gaspar]

Gaspar, thanks for the very solid, well thought out answer.  So honest question here.  Let's assume two givens:  (a) more surface lots are bad, and (b) we don't want historic buildings torn down to build new ones when the original building could be re-purposed/remodeled.  Is there a regulatory method to ensure this objective?  Throwing up our hands and saying "oh well, it's too late to do anything" isn't, I don't think, a reasonable alternative.

Not sure a "regulatory" method is the best direction.  An "incentive" would be more effective because it would create encouragement of appropriate development.  
Perhaps the amount of money that the city would otherwise spend on enforcing the ordinance proposed (building inspections, public hearings, board meetings, exhibits, lawyers, lawyers, lawyers) and all of the documentation and administration that goes with it could be turned around into an incentive (per sf and usage) for developers and current owners.  This could be most effective in the form of a temporary tax waver.  It could be a structured waver offering different levels of of incentive based on usage.

Creating such an incentive would encourage current owners to convert or lease unused properties, and attract additional development in existing inter-IDL structures that would otherwise go to other parts of town.  

As for existing surface parking, if the demand for development property increases, so does the value in healing those scars with new development. There certainly is not an overnight fix for existing lots, but you can make their creation less attractive.

Carrots, not sticks.

[nathanm]

Paying developers to develop through literal subsidies will just lead to a bubble. Charging fees or taxes in the amount of the costs people who demo a building and put in a parking lot foist upon the rest of us, on the other hand, actually lets the market work as it should. Or we could do what cities have been doing since the early 1800s..zoning. That is, remove parking as a use by right from CBD zoning, just like I can't pave over my yard here in RS land. Or we could build a whole lot of free structured parking to make surface parking unprofitable.