Simon Outlet Mall 61st & Hwy 75

[cynical]

There is no adverse possession case here. You are correct that the lack of a qualifying claimant makes a claim of adverse possession impossible to prove. To establish adverse possession the claimant's possession has to be "actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous." Merely using someone else's property once in a while in a way that isn't inconsistent with their ownership of that property doesn't cut it. Nor can multiple people using the trails but not acting in concert (by actual mutual agreement) satisfy the "exclusive" standard. Failing to stop the owners from their own use of the property defeats the "hostility" element. A claim of adverse possession is a very tough case to make and fairly easy to defend.

Even an easement by prescription, though it involves something less than fee simple title, uses almost identical standards (actual, open, notorious, hostile, visible, continuous, exclusive, with a claim of ownership). Permissive use of someone else's land doesn't create the right to continue to use it, even if the use persists for decades. The burden of proof is especially high where the property being used was not enclosed. The difficulty is compounded when so many riders were using the trails that no individual claimant or group of claimants could claim exclusivity.

There may be another less combative approach available that would preserve the property's wildness without infringing on the legal rights of the owner. The YMCA's desire to purchase at least some of the property is a step in the right direction. The entire area on both sides of Hwy 75 and extending west along 61st St. is covered with wild habitat. The Nature Conservancy has paid for voluntary conservation easements at times. Perhaps someone could step up and offer the owner money to not develop the property for some period of time.

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.

[Conan71]

There is no adverse possession case here. You are correct that the lack of a qualifying claimant makes a claim of adverse possession impossible to prove. To establish adverse possession the claimant's possession has to be "actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous." Merely using someone else's property once in a while in a way that isn't inconsistent with their ownership of that property doesn't cut it. Nor can multiple people using the trails but not acting in concert (by actual mutual agreement) satisfy the "exclusive" standard. Failing to stop the owners from their own use of the property defeats the "hostility" element. A claim of adverse possession is a very tough case to make and fairly easy to defend.

Even an easement by prescription, though it involves something less than fee simple title, uses almost identical standards (actual, open, notorious, hostile, visible, continuous, exclusive, with a claim of ownership). Permissive use of someone else's land doesn't create the right to continue to use it, even if the use persists for decades. The burden of proof is especially high where the property being used was not enclosed. The difficulty is compounded when so many riders were using the trails that no individual claimant or group of claimants could claim exclusivity.

There may be another less combative approach available that would preserve the property's wildness without infringing on the legal rights of the owner. The YMCA's desire to purchase at least some of the property is a step in the right direction. The entire area on both sides of Hwy 75 and extending west along 61st St. is covered with wild habitat. The Nature Conservancy has paid for voluntary conservation easements at times. Perhaps someone could step up and offer the owner money to not develop the property for some period of time.

Thank you for the clarification and please forgive some of my rantings on this from the perspective of someone who uses the area quite often and appreciates it as a quality of life asset which is unique to Tulsa.  The idealist in me says: "preserve this at all cost!"  The realist says: "It's private property and they can do with it what they want."  The battered mountain biker in me says: "Those are some of the most brutal trails on the system.  Good riddance!" 

It would be useful to know how much land, if any, Mr. Kaiser or one of his investments or his family trust owns in the vicinity and if they might be willing to step in and quash this. 

As it is, this land netted a whopping $23 in property taxes last year according to the assessor's web site.  It's not like the owner has a lot of overhead to force his/her hand to sell.  If he could be persuaded by an annual use fee or some such structure to not develop for a period of time, that might well prove to be a win/win solution.

[Stanley1]

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. 

Didn't they just redo the entire food court area, and some of the other "resting" areas throughout the mall?

Aren't they about to redo another section to add room Texas de Brazil?

And while there may be some turnover in the stores there, I'd say it's pretty limited, and they almost always seem to be at full occupancy.

[Hoss]

Didn't they just redo the entire food court area, and some of the other "resting" areas throughout the mall?

Aren't they about to redo another section to add room Texas de Brazil?

And while there may be some turnover in the stores there, I'd say it's pretty limited, and they almost always seem to be at full occupancy.

Problem is that area is now suffering from critical mass.  So many people despise the trek out on 71st (myself included) that they will avoid at all costs.

Why not when a lot of your purchasing can now be done online?  Obviously not food, but most people I know don't go to the malls for the food court (at least those older than 18).

[Stanley1]

Problem is that area is now suffering from critical mass.  So many people despise the trek out on 71st (myself included) that they will avoid at all costs.

Why not when a lot of your purchasing can now be done online?  Obviously not food, but most people I know don't go to the malls for the food court (at least those older than 18).

Seems to stay pretty busy.  It feeds the people that work there during the day.  It feeds nearby businesses.  And I disagree, a lot of adults eat there if they end up shopping there over lunch or dinner hours.  Not all, obviously, but enough.

But that wasn't really the point I was trying to make.  The post I responded to was talking about prettying the place up.  I actually think they've done a lot of that in recent years.

[Conan71]

The only reason I ever venture out to 71st & Hell is the home-brew store.

[Hoss]

Seems to stay pretty busy.  It feeds the people that work there during the day.  It feeds nearby businesses.  And I disagree, a lot of adults eat there if they end up shopping there over lunch or dinner hours.  Not all, obviously, but enough.

But that wasn't really the point I was trying to make.  The post I responded to was talking about prettying the place up.  I actually think they've done a lot of that in recent years.

Please note that I said 'most people I know'.  Your mileage may vary.

Also, the big WalMart out there gives the impression that 71st and Memorial has become a seedy area, because it's nearly as bad as the WM on the hill.

[sgrizzle]

Didn't they just redo the entire food court area, and some of the other "resting" areas throughout the mall?

Aren't they about to redo another section to add room Texas de Brazil?

And while there may be some turnover in the stores there, I'd say it's pretty limited, and they almost always seem to be at full occupancy.

Yes, the Woodland Hills redo was pretty massive, especially in the food court area. The new disco light entrances are kinda neat too.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Last time I was there was several months ago - still lots of construction going on.  Will go take a look-see this weekend if I can.

[DTowner]

I have friends who used to work for Simon (not Woodland Hills) and they always told me Woodland was one of its top performing properties.  I don't think it is fair to judge Simon by its short-term ownership of Eastland as that mall was doomed the day they broke ground.

[Dspike]

Not sure if someone already linked, but here is the county assessor website for the property at issue: http://www.assessor.tulsacounty.org/assessor-property.php?account=R99235923548450&return=close

As a previous poster noted in the YWCA article, the owner is (was?) BEELINE SIXTY ONE PROPERTIES LLC.

[swake]

Not sure if someone already linked, but here is the county assessor website for the property at issue: http://www.assessor.tulsacounty.org/assessor-property.php?account=R99235923548450&return=close

As a previous poster noted in the YWCA article, the owner is (was?) BEELINE SIXTY ONE PROPERTIES LLC.

Ok, this is really funny.

So I search Beeline 61, the company that owns the land and the address listed for the company is a private home in south Tulsa. I did a property search on the address and it's my kid's pediatrician's house.

[Conan71]

Ok, this is really funny.

So I search Beeline 61, the company that owns the land and the address listed for the company is a private home in south Tulsa. I did a property search on the address and it's my kid's pediatrician's house.

The other address for the service agent is literally right around the block from my mother's house in Holiday Hills.  Pretty incredible they only pay $23 a year in taxes on this parcel.

[swake]

The other address for the service agent is literally right around the block from my mother's house in Holiday Hills.  Pretty incredible they only pay $23 a year in taxes on this parcel.

I think the good doctor is about to pay a whole lot more than $23 in taxes on this transaction.

This is not Kaiser owned or controlled land.

[Conan71]

I think the good doctor is about to pay a whole lot more than $23 in taxes on this transaction.

This is not Kaiser owned or controlled land.

We already established that.  Still trying to verify if Kaiser owns any of the land in the vicinity.  Checking GBK, Kaiser, and Kaiser Francis via the assessors web site, I get nothing on Turkey Mountain though Kaiser does have quite a bit of real estate around town through his various business interests and trusts.