Simon Outlet Mall 61st & Hwy 75

[Conan71]

That is crazy.  Sorry, but it is.  Nobody moves to Tulsa or visits Tulsa b/c of Turkey Mountain.

While they may not be "wilderness" trails, Tulsa has WAY more than necessary trails for bikers and runners throughout the city.  And with the Gathering Place, and the trails it will create, taking away a corner of Turkey Mountain isn't going to hurt anything.

That's actually untrue on the visit part.  People come to Tulsa specifically for events held at Turkey Mountain: mountain bike races, trail races, there's even a duathlon this Sunday.  They have also done the Warrior Dash there.  I'm personally aware of people coming from Arkansas, Kansas, Texas, and all over Oklahoma for mountain bike races.  I read elsewhere there was just an event which attracted 7000 participants to TM, though not quite certain what that would have been, nor how that many people managed to get there. 

Turkey Mountain is well known throughout the mountain bike world as a bucket list trail system.

That said, I'm not for the outlet mall, but losing some of the trails on the west side will not diminish the over-all attraction of Turkey Mountain.  Who knows, maybe with co-located attractions that means more families travel here to shop and play.

[SXSW]

That is crazy.  Sorry, but it is.  Nobody moves to Tulsa or visits Tulsa b/c of Turkey Mountain.

While they may not be "wilderness" trails, Tulsa has WAY more than necessary trails for bikers and runners throughout the city.  And with the Gathering Place, and the trails it will create, taking away a corner of Turkey Mountain isn't going to hurt anything.

I've known people who have moved to Tulsa on large part because of the river trails and Turkey Mountain.  It was a major selling point, and compared to other cities in our region, there isn't anything else like it.  Why even try to damage that even if it's just a small piece?  It's still adjacent to a wilderness area popular with hikers, runners and bikers and a well-known preserve for native animals like foxes and bobcats.  I'm not against there being an outlet mall but put it somewhere else.

[carltonplace]

That is crazy.  Sorry, but it is.  Nobody moves to Tulsa or visits Tulsa b/c of Turkey Mountain.

While they may not be "wilderness" trails, Tulsa has WAY more than necessary trails for bikers and runners throughout the city.  And with the Gathering Place, and the trails it will create, taking away a corner of Turkey Mountain isn't going to hurt anything.

We need more trails...or at least trail connections. Our trail system is great but many of the trails are unconnected to the larger whole. They just stop abruptly.

It would be awesome to get to every part of the city using the trail system like a biking or jogging highway.

[sgrizzle]

My two points were: it appears the owner of the property is the wealthiest man in Tulsa.  He doesn't need the money from the sale.  My other point was, you have to get zoning approval because this will necessarily cause a huge clusterfark with the existing roadways in the area.  I certainly don't advocate government seizure of private property if that's what you thought I was saying, I do advocate smart zoning.  Certainly the planning commission can refuse to permit zoning for a specific purpose if it would be a disruption to the surrounding area or required an incredibly expensive infrastructure update.  Something with this traffic volume will require that.

One silver lining someone posted on Facebook is it could provide better parking for trail access on the westerly part of the trail system.  As popular as the trail system has become, finding parking at the base parking lot is impossible on most Saturdays and Sundays and even some weeknights.

I believe this is the only part of Turkey Mountain NOT controlled by GK or Riverparks.

Which means the current trails are "trespassing on private property" technically....

[heironymouspasparagus]

That is crazy.  Sorry, but it is.  Nobody moves to Tulsa or visits Tulsa b/c of Turkey Mountain.

While they may not be "wilderness" trails, Tulsa has WAY more than necessary trails for bikers and runners throughout the city.  And with the Gathering Place, and the trails it will create, taking away a corner of Turkey Mountain isn't going to hurt anything.

And just to pile on a little more....

What's crazy is the idea that we need any kind of mall in that location.  There is a whole lot of other empty land not too far from that - like across the highway on the south side of 61st, so this is truly, absolutely unnecessary.  And for that matter, an outlet mall - especially by Simon, really isn't necessary anywhere in northeast Oklahoma.  But if they insist, there is a ready made place down south at Riverwalk that could be several steps up in class for Simon and reduce unused property in the area.

[DTowner]

I think Turkey Mountain is a major Tulsa asset, but anyone who thinks land long 75 Highway near a major transportation interchange and a booming new retail area was going to lay fallow forever is living in a fantasy land.

Long leaps of assumptions are being made about who may own this land based on nothing more than the name of the lawyer who is the registered service agent.  However, even if the assumption is correct, it does not change the fact that land fronting Hwy 75 in this area is valuable commercial property and Tulsa will benefit greatly from its development (ultimately on all 4 corners of 61st & Hwy 75). 

If trails are currently traversing this privately owned land, then folks have been trespassing.  There are plenty of ways to protect and buffer Turkey Mountain from this development, but stopping it is shortsighted for Tulsa. However, if anyone wants to "shut it down," then you better come up with a lot of money to purchase the land from Simon because it sounds like its already got it under contract.

[sgrizzle]

It should be named "Turkey Mountain Outlets" and their slogan should be "Hike on over for savings" just to fuel the fire.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I think Turkey Mountain is a major Tulsa asset, but anyone who thinks land long 75 Highway near a major transportation interchange and a booming new retail area was going to lay fallow forever is living in a fantasy land.

Long leaps of assumptions are being made about who may own this land based on nothing more than the name of the lawyer who is the registered service agent.  However, even if the assumption is correct, it does not change the fact that land fronting Hwy 75 in this area is valuable commercial property and Tulsa will benefit greatly from its development (ultimately on all 4 corners of 61st & Hwy 75). 

If trails are currently traversing this privately owned land, then folks have been trespassing.  There are plenty of ways to protect and buffer Turkey Mountain from this development, but stopping it is shortsighted for Tulsa. However, if anyone wants to "shut it down," then you better come up with a lot of money to purchase the land from Simon because it sounds like its already got it under contract.

Well, we need to just bulldoze Turkey mountain level - I think I mentioned this earlier somewhere - and there is a whole big place to develop available!!

Growth for growth's sake...!!  Not just a good idea, but a way of life!!

[Conan71]

I think Turkey Mountain is a major Tulsa asset, but anyone who thinks land long 75 Highway near a major transportation interchange and a booming new retail area was going to lay fallow forever is living in a fantasy land.

Long leaps of assumptions are being made about who may own this land based on nothing more than the name of the lawyer who is the registered service agent.  However, even if the assumption is correct, it does not change the fact that land fronting Hwy 75 in this area is valuable commercial property and Tulsa will benefit greatly from its development (ultimately on all 4 corners of 61st & Hwy 75). 

If trails are currently traversing this privately owned land, then folks have been trespassing.  There are plenty of ways to protect and buffer Turkey Mountain from this development, but stopping it is shortsighted for Tulsa. However, if anyone wants to "shut it down," then you better come up with a lot of money to purchase the land from Simon because it sounds like its already got it under contract.

And certainly the land owners could simply build a fence and close off the space to any usage if this plan were to tank and it would be just as useless to riders and hikers, but it would still be pristine green space.

[cynical]

Conan, I don't see a substantial zoning issue in this discussion. While I agree that zoning is useful to avoid or mitigate harm from property development, as with any governmental action that affects private rights, it has to be reasonable. I think we agree that if the real reason for the city's land use restrictions was the preservation of public access across this parcel of private property, the use of the zoning power to prevent economic use of this property would be unconstitutional.

Where I don't agree regards the infrastructure issue. It is legal for the city to require the infrastructure issue to be addressed and to condition approval on the issue being addressed adequately. The city's concerns about the adequacy of road infrastructure could reasonably be dealt with by requiring the developer, as a condition of PUD approval, to contribute toward the necessary infrastructure improvements and to negotiate with the developer regarding the percentages and the means of paying the public portion of the cost. Simply saying "no" would be compelling evidence that the infrastructure issue was a mere pretext.

With the highway next door and no other legal land uses adversely affected, an outlet mall in that location presents relatively few serious public infrastructure issues beyond the need to fix the 61st St./Hwy 75 interchange that already needs fixing. Since the interchange is already part of the public street system, using a TID to pay for the largest portion of the interchange improvement would be the best way of getting it done.

Incidentally, the mention of the "wealthiest man in Tulsa" is a red herring for two reasons:

1. Even if it was owned by the wealthiest man in Tulsa, he would be entitled to the same constitutional protection as you or me. The city can't take my property or his without paying for it.
2. This tract is not owned by the wealthiest man in Tulsa. The owner is not even represented by Frederick Dorwart. The property you refer to is separated from this tract by another privately-owned tract.

Whatever we as individuals or as a group think about the relative merits of outlet malls and urban wilderness, treating this development as a taking of public property for private use as some have implied is illegitimate. This tract is and has been privately owned, however many mountain bikers have ridden across it. No one is chipping away at the Turkey Mountain Wilderness Park. If the city, which owns the park, wants to own the rest of Turkey Mountain, there are legal procedures available to the city to accomplish that. If the city wants to prevent Beeline Sixty-One Properties, LLC, or its successors in title, from using this land for any viable economic use in order to preserve the bike trails, fine. It can condemn the land and pay for it.

FWIW, I have no involvement in this development nor with any of the parties to this development. I live in the area and use the 61st and Hwy 75 interchange at least twice each day on average, so I have seen the problems with the bridge and entrance/exit ramps.

My two points were: it appears the owner of the property is the wealthiest man in Tulsa.  He doesn't need the money from the sale.  My other point was, you have to get zoning approval because this will necessarily cause a huge clusterfark with the existing roadways in the area.  I certainly don't advocate government seizure of private property if that's what you thought I was saying, I do advocate smart zoning.  Certainly the planning commission can refuse to permit zoning for a specific purpose if it would be a disruption to the surrounding area or required an incredibly expensive infrastructure update.  Something with this traffic volume will require that.

One silver lining someone posted on Facebook is it could provide better parking for trail access on the westerly part of the trail system.  As popular as the trail system has become, finding parking at the base parking lot is impossible on most Saturdays and Sundays and even some weeknights.

[DTowner]

Well, we need to just bulldoze Turkey mountain level - I think I mentioned this earlier somewhere - and there is a whole big place to develop available!!

Growth for growth's sake...!!  Not just a good idea, but a way of life!!

Hyperbole is not an argument.  Turkey Mountain is a park in the middle of a city.  Preserving it and denying all development on the adjacent privately owned land are not one and the same.  Unless someone buys this land to preserve it (and it looks like that is too late), the land adjacent to Turkey Mountain is going to be developed.  The only questions are when and for what use. 

Simon is not in the business of "growth for growth's sake."  Simon sees an unmet need and believes it can make money by investing in Tulsa and building something Tulsa doesn't have.  Simon could have elected to pave over a corn field in Bixby or Glenpool and added to the suburban sprawl.  Instead, it chose a vacant parcel of land fronting a highway in a fast growing retail area.  This is a far better use of existing infrastructure even with the needed improvements it will bring.  And it helps preserve and enhance Tulsa's sales tax base.  I see this as a great win for Tulsa and welcome it.

[Conan71]

Conan, I don't see a substantial zoning issue in this discussion. While I agree that zoning is useful to avoid or mitigate harm from property development, as with any governmental action that affects private rights, it has to be reasonable. I think we agree that if the real reason for the city's land use restrictions was the preservation of public access across this parcel of private property, the use of the zoning power to prevent economic use of this property would be unconstitutional.

Where I don't agree regards the infrastructure issue. It is legal for the city to require the infrastructure issue to be addressed and to condition approval on the issue being addressed adequately. The city's concerns about the adequacy of road infrastructure could reasonably be dealt with by requiring the developer, as a condition of PUD approval, to contribute toward the necessary infrastructure improvements and to negotiate with the developer regarding the percentages and the means of paying the public portion of the cost. Simply saying "no" would be compelling evidence that the infrastructure issue was a mere pretext.

With the highway next door and no other legal land uses adversely affected, an outlet mall in that location presents relatively few serious public infrastructure issues beyond the need to fix the 61st St./Hwy 75 interchange that already needs fixing. Since the interchange is already part of the public street system, using a TID to pay for the largest portion of the interchange improvement would be the best way of getting it done.

Incidentally, the mention of the "wealthiest man in Tulsa" is a red herring for two reasons:

1. Even if it was owned by the wealthiest man in Tulsa, he would be entitled to the same constitutional protection as you or me. The city can't take my property or his without paying for it.
2. This tract is not owned by the wealthiest man in Tulsa. The owner is not even represented by Frederick Dorwart. The property you refer to is separated from this tract by another privately-owned tract.

Whatever we as individuals or as a group think about the relative merits of outlet malls and urban wilderness, treating this development as a taking of public property for private use as some have implied is illegitimate. This tract is and has been privately owned, however many mountain bikers have ridden across it. No one is chipping away at the Turkey Mountain Wilderness Park. If the city, which owns the park, wants to own the rest of Turkey Mountain, there are legal procedures available to the city to accomplish that. If the city wants to prevent Beeline Sixty-One Properties, LLC, or its successors in title, from using this land for any viable economic use in order to preserve the bike trails, fine. It can condemn the land and pay for it.

FWIW, I have no involvement in this development nor with any of the parties to this development. I live in the area and use the 61st and Hwy 75 interchange at least twice each day on average, so I have seen the problems with the bridge and entrance/exit ramps.

I stand corrected on the property owner.  That was asserted by another poster earlier in this thread.  My only point in whether or not a seller needed the money or not was simply stating if Kaiser was, in fact, the property owner, a deal falling through would not break him.

One theme which keeps getting brought up on an FB page a lot of trail users from Turkey use.  Someone has suggested adverse possession could apply here since people have been trespassing on the property for many years.  I recall the YMCA using trails back in this area as far back as 1976 or '77 when I went to day camp there.  I honestly don't think there's a real case for that and who would have standing as a legal entity to claim adverse possession?

I suspect the city has little or no interest in condemning the property and buying it since they likely view it as a huge cash cow for sales tax collection.  As a bonus, it's at the intersection of two heavily traveled highways so that hopefully means transient sales tax making it's way here from out of state and other communities.  Trail users probably need to simply get used to the idea this is going to happen.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Hyperbole is not an argument.  Turkey Mountain is a park in the middle of a city.  Preserving it and denying all development on the adjacent privately owned land are not one and the same.  Unless someone buys this land to preserve it (and it looks like that is too late), the land adjacent to Turkey Mountain is going to be developed.  The only questions are when and for what use. 

Simon is not in the business of "growth for growth's sake."  Simon sees an unmet need and believes it can make money by investing in Tulsa and building something Tulsa doesn't have.  Simon could have elected to pave over a corn field in Bixby or Glenpool and added to the suburban sprawl.  Instead, it chose a vacant parcel of land fronting a highway in a fast growing retail area.  This is a far better use of existing infrastructure even with the needed improvements it will bring.  And it helps preserve and enhance Tulsa's sales tax base.  I see this as a great win for Tulsa and welcome it.

I'm not really arguing about the use of this land or Turkey mountain for a commercial venture - what I am doing is casting aspersions on Simon for their sorry past performance in the area.  The method milks the property hard, with no re-investment, then after it has run into the ground, walk away from it.  (Eastland).  Woodland is just another bland, inane mess that is being milked as hard as possible.  Gets an occasion coat of paint, but there is an ebb and flow to tenancy - and the level of newer tenants seems to be an ongoing downward trend.  Wouldn't surprise me to see it sold in the next few years as they move on to the next big thing. 

Which brings us to this site.  Outlet malls....yeah, that worked well here in this area (non-Simon).  But Battle Creek got a church out of it!!  Obviously, I am skeptical of the premise.

[Conan71]

Apparently the Westside Y was investigating a purchase of this a few years back (April 2008):

YMCA may buy westside land

The YMCA is in talks to buy a portion of the 61 acres directly south of its Westside Day Camp at the intersection of U.S. 75 and Interstate 44. The Planning Commission has twice delayed a public hearing on a developer's proposed mixed-use project for the site, and an attorney for the property owners said he will request another continuance Wednesday. "We're making progress in resolving the YMCA's issues," attorney Roy Johnsen said. Laura Hailey-Butler, vice president of mission advancement for the YMCA, said the organization is working to "keep that area a natural environment where it very much is like an urban escape" as it has been for years.

The YMCA also hopes someday to have access to the camp from U.S. 75 and 61st Street, Hailey-Butler said. In addition to serving as the day camp's longtime home, the YMCA's 28-acre property -- consisting of a pond, trails and wooded terrain -- is used for school programs and cor porate team-building activities, she said. Over the years, the property surrounding the day camp, including Turkey Mountain, has been criss-crossed with trails worn by mountain bikers, hikers and equestrians. The western boundary of the Turkey Mountain Wilderness Area is about a quarter-mile east of the development site.

River Parks Authority Executive Director Matt Meyer said, "We have a lot of customers or trail users who use Turkey Mountain who spill onto the private property" proposed for development. Meyer said the authority has taken no official position on the proposed development. The site is owned by Beeline Sixty One Properties LLC. The owners are asking the Planning Commission to recommend rezoning 50 of the 61 acres from agriculture to corridor zoning. The remaining 11 acres, at the southern tip of the property, are zoned commercial and office light.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/archives/ymca-may-buy-westside-land/article_f2e7b869-6564-5e79-b298-90f505d335a5.html

[sgrizzle]

That puts the property under the ownership of a man with a $350,000 house. So, not Kaiser.