Simon Outlet Mall 61st & Hwy 75

[Conan71]

Here's some of those freeloaders with the pile of debris and trash removed from the subject land in 2010:



And more freeloaders:




And before anyone jumps to the conclusion I believe this justifies the owners not selling the land for mall development, nothing could be further from the truth.  I'm simply pointing out people who have used this land for recreational purposes have tried to be good stewards and not careless trespassers.

[cynical]

Conan, I have a couple of minor quibbles with your argument.

This specific parcel can not be described as "pristine wilderness." I drive past this property 2-4 times most days. At least two years ago and possibly earlier, the owner cleared brush and most of the smaller trees from the property, changing its nature from the typical dense underbrush/crosstimbers forest that you see elsewhere in the area to open or moderately treed land. The underbrush is beginning to recover, but in no sense is it even close to pristine. This was obvious to everyone who even drove by the property. If portions of the property burdened by the trail(s) weren't affected, they probably won't be affected by the mall project any more than the expansion of the Turkey Mountain parking lot affected them. Compared to the Tulsa Hills development, this is pretty small.

The other issue is whether the online map (that has since been withdrawn) could be relied on as the sole evidence of whether this property was in public ownership. For Sale signs have been posted on the west and south boundaries of the property for years. The sign on the west boundary is quite obvious from Highway 75. I could see and read the sign on the south boundary from 61st Street where you turn to go north on Hwy 75. For Sale signs are inconsistent with public ownership.

I am curious about why you believe private ownership is based on "complete ignorance of the property history." The property has been in private ownership since statehood, when the Creek Nation lands were allotted to individual members of the tribe. When in the post-statehood history of the property has any government entity even claimed ownership?

Oklahoma law is hostile toward squatters rights. The fact that a bunch of people have for years crossed this property during their recreational pursuits is beside the point. When has anyone ever claimed ownership and possession to the exclusion of the record owners?

This is a simple issue being made more complicated by the unrealistic expectation of those who claim the right to deny the owners the right to use the land for economically useful purposes. If the Y wanted the land, they could purchase it, provided it met the owners' price. If the city wants it, it can purchase it or take the property through eminent domain. To simply zone it into oblivion is unconstitutional. If the mountain bikers and hikers want the land, they need to pressure the city to buy it, not to violate the owner's right to use the property by prohibiting economic use.

Uh no.  Your characterization really makes me bristle.  This is actually something which is trying to be pulled together as we speak.  Trying to rope together enough people to raise $3+ million doesn't happen over night.  One of the directors of the Tulsa area YMCA explained to me they tried to buy it in 2008 and again in 2010.  They simply could not raise the funds.  As far as your assumption trail users are freeloaders, most trail users I've spoken with would have absolutely no problem with a use fee on this land, or coming up with a long-term solution which would generate income for the property owners.  A number of rocks are being turned over right now looking for a way to head this off and buy the property.  This deal with Simon is nowhere near completed.  I suspect some sort of contract has been signed, but a developer like Simon won't close the deal until they know they have every zoning hurdle cleared.  They are nowhere near clearing any hurdles as of yet.

I understand the whole private property issue and the rights of the property owner.  Certainly, if it gets killed in zoning or council hearings, the owners can erect a fence out of spite and seal off the property from further use.  That's their prerogative.  The reason this is even privately-owned land seems to be complete ignorance of the property history, near as I can tell.  I honestly don't understand why the Y never attempted to buy this before the current partnership bought this, somewhere around 2000.  They could have picked it up much cheaper.

Now here's why this is the wrong place for this outlet mall, Tee Dub and Guido:

-Turkey Mountain is one of the last pristine wilderness areas in the Tulsa area.  It is a complex eco-system and rare recreational area to have within a city's limits.  Imagine erecting an outlet mall in New York's Central Park.  This has been dubbed "Tulsa's Central Park".

-The site will require a massive infrastructure overhaul.  Who foots the bill for the millions of dollars this will require to support the private developers for the replacement of the 61st street bridge and overhauling the whole US 75 61st St. interchange?  That's right, the tax payer.  Of course, anything else built to the south or SW of this site would still require a massive infrastructure upgrade.  Sooo, Guido, government gets involved either way.  It's much costlier to you, the taxpayer, if this project goes through in infrastructure costs and other greenmail.

-This could create issues for the Mooser Creek watershed which has been carefully preserved.  The YMCA has expressed concerns that development "uphill" from the Y could have a negative impact on storm water run-off onto their property.

-Elwood north from 71st to it's merge with 61st St. is one of the more dangerous stretches of road in Tulsa county.  Additional traffic on this road would necessarily require a very expensive overhaul of this road.  There is also a neighborhood on the west side of Elwood which would be impacted by higher traffic count on Elwood.  They already say they are frustrated with all the traffic at Turkey Mountain on the weekends.

-There are sufficient parcels of privately-owned land off the SW corner of this interchange as well as directly south of the proposed site.  There is also a parcel on the NW corner of 71st & Elwood.  This stretch of road has already been improved to handle the additional traffic Tulsa Hills created.

-As to the trespassing issue: The INCOG maps and RPA maps of the Turkey Mountain Wilderness have shown the area inclusive of this parcel as being within the boundaries of the "park".  Most users, until now, had assumed this was city or county-owned property, or owned by the YMCA because of this.  When I went to the day camp at the Y in the 1970's, we rode horses and hiked through this property, my personal assumption always being this was Y or public property.  To my knowledge no one has ever discouraged use of this land.  As another aside, trail users have maintained and regularly hauled out trailer loads of illegally dumped trash from this parcel as well as the ones adjacent to it.  My point to this is trail users have tried to be good stewards of the land, regardless of ownership and have not been ungrateful freeloaders.

-I further understand that remaining private properties to the east of this plot are held in trust with provisions for them to remain green space.  If the mall happens here, it's not the end of the world, but it would be a shame to take out 60 acres of pristine wilderness when there's property in the immediate vicinity more suitable for development.  

I realize west Tulsa can use the up-tick in commerce. I appreciate the county and city could benefit from increasing the sales tax base as developments like this attract transient sales tax from all over the country and aren't simply cannibalizing sales tax dollars from other collection points in the city.

To people who have never hiked, biked, or ridden a horse on this land, I can understand why preservation of this as an urban wilderness seems like complete folly.  As a user of this land on and off for 40 years, I have a different view of the real "value" of this property in being maintained as wilderness and I'm not afraid to contribute in any way possible to keep it that way.

[Conan71]

Conan, I have a couple of minor quibbles with your argument.

This specific parcel can not be described as "pristine wilderness." I drive past this property 2-4 times most days. At least two years ago and possibly earlier, the owner cleared brush and most of the smaller trees from the property, changing its nature from the typical dense underbrush/crosstimbers forest that you see elsewhere in the area to open or moderately treed land. The underbrush is beginning to recover, but in no sense is it even close to pristine. This was obvious to everyone who even drove by the property. If portions of the property burdened by the trail(s) weren't affected, they probably won't be affected by the mall project any more than the expansion of the Turkey Mountain parking lot affected them. Compared to the Tulsa Hills development, this is pretty small.

This was several acres of land nearest the road which was cleared to make it more presentable to prospective buyers.  It's still dense forest perhaps an acre or two in.  It was a fraction of the overall property which was cleared.  I'm estimating less than 10% which would be six acres or less.

The other issue is whether the online map (that has since been withdrawn) could be relied on as the sole evidence of whether this property was in public ownership. For Sale signs have been posted on the west and south boundaries of the property for years. The sign on the west boundary is quite obvious from Highway 75. I could see and read the sign on the south boundary from 61st Street where you turn to go north on Hwy 75. For Sale signs are inconsistent with public ownership.

To the casual user of the property or someone looking on-line, it would be easy to make this mistake.  You would be surprised how many people I've talked to or seen posts from on social media who have no idea.  Quite a few people apparently assumed the city, county, or the Y was selling off the property, believe it or not.  I personally never looked into who owned it until the mall was proposed.  

I am aware that there was a core group of trail users who banded together to get the amusement park proposal shot down in 2012 (lower part of Turkey near the river).  As well, they sat at the table when this was re-zoned from Ag to commercial/light office and at least got the proviso written in there must be a green space buffer between any development and it's interior surroundings.  

I am curious about why you believe private ownership is based on "complete ignorance of the property history." The property has been in private ownership since statehood, when the Creek Nation lands were allotted to individual members of the tribe. When in the post-statehood history of the property has any government entity even claimed ownership?

Oklahoma law is hostile toward squatters rights. The fact that a bunch of people have for years crossed this property during their recreational pursuits is beside the point. When has anyone ever claimed ownership and possession to the exclusion of the record owners?

Sorry, should have completed my thought better, what I mean to say was: " The reason (people do not realize) this is privately-owned land seems to be complete ignorance of the property history, near as I can tell.  I honestly don't understand why the Y never attempted to buy this before the current partnership bought this, somewhere around 2000.  They could have picked it up much cheaper."  I was trying to point out there's good reason many people have assumed this was public park land or owned by the Y.

I'm quite well aware the whole area was platted in allotments, I believe dating back before statehood, I believe all to Creek Indians, IIRC.  I in no way believe there are squatters rights, as you and I have previously discussed.  I've also expressed the owners have the right to do as they see fit with the property, but I disagree with your assertion that ensuring it complies with logical zoning requirements, including supporting infrastructure is not unconstitutional.  That's like saying if the city or my neighbors want to prevent me from knocking down my house and building a multi story office building on my lot is unconstitutional.

This is a simple issue being made more complicated by the unrealistic expectation of those who claim the right to deny the owners the right to use the land for economically useful purposes. If the Y wanted the land, they could purchase it, provided it met the owners' price. If the city wants it, it can purchase it or take the property through eminent domain. To simply zone it into oblivion is unconstitutional. If the mountain bikers and hikers want the land, they need to pressure the city to buy it, not to violate the owner's right to use the property by prohibiting economic use.

How is eminent domain any less unconstitutional than upholding zoning codes or refusing further change of them?

I spoke to a developer the other night at the D-2 meeting (he's also a regular trail user as well as his daughter and son-in-law) he was looking at developing it as a retirement village which would retain much of the natural beauty of the parcel several years ago.  I do believe that is what the zoning change from AG to commercial and light office originally was going to allow with the green buffer zone.  

I believe there is a strong reaction to the outlet mall as plopping down big slab sided concrete boxes is a shock to the senses.  Certainly, I've heard lots of hyperbole, half truths, and outright lies about this over the last week.  Much of it from well-meaning people who simply want to see this land left alone for the ages.

I don't argue the owner's property rights when they conform to proper zoning and codes.  I also don't dispute the rights of the community to use zoning codes to restrict what can and cannot be developed in keeping with it's surroundings.

[cynical]

Eminent domain involves the payment of just compensation, so it is a legal balance between the traditional sovereign power to take the property and the constitution's prohibition against depriving someone of life, liberty, or property without due process. I won't bore everyone with my treatise on the different nomenclature Oklahoma law and federal law use to deal with eminent domain, but in both cases, due process requires the payment of just compensation.

Use of land use planning methods to force an owner to leave his or her property as "pristine wilderness" does not involve the payment of just compensation unless the owner prevails in an inverse condemnation action. These are messy.

BTW, I just drove past the property. There are no visible "no trespassing" signs, though there is a no dumping sign close by. I wonder where that report came from.

This was several acres of land nearest the road which was cleared to make it more presentable to prospective buyers.  It’s still dense forest perhaps an acre or two in.  It was a fraction of the overall property which was cleared.  I’m estimating less than 10% which would be six acres or less.

To the casual user of the property or someone looking on-line, it would be easy to make this mistake.  You would be surprised how many people I’ve talked to or seen posts from on social media who have no idea.  Quite a few people apparently assumed the city, county, or the Y was selling off the property, believe it or not.  I personally never looked into who owned it until the mall was proposed. 

I am aware that there was a core group of trail users who banded together to get the amusement park proposal shot down in 2012 (lower part of Turkey near the river).  As well, they sat at the table when this was re-zoned from Ag to commercial/light office and at least got the proviso written in there must be a green space buffer between any development and it’s interior surroundings. 

Sorry, should have completed my thought better, what I mean to say was: “ The reason (people do not realize) this is privately-owned land seems to be complete ignorance of the property history, near as I can tell.  I honestly don’t understand why the Y never attempted to buy this before the current partnership bought this, somewhere around 2000.  They could have picked it up much cheaper.”  I was trying to point out there’s good reason many people have assumed this was public park land or owned by the Y.

I’m quite well aware the whole area was platted in allotments, I believe dating back before statehood, I believe all to Creek Indians, IIRC.  I in no way believe there are squatters rights, as you and I have previously discussed.  I’ve also expressed the owners have the right to do as they see fit with the property, but I disagree with your assertion that ensuring it complies with logical zoning requirements, including supporting infrastructure is not unconstitutional.  That’s like saying if the city or my neighbors want to prevent me from knocking down my house and building a multi story office building on my lot is unconstitutional.

How is eminent domain any less unconstitutional than upholding zoning codes or refusing further change of them?

I spoke to a developer the other night at the D-2 meeting (he’s also a regular trail user as well as his daughter and son-in-law) he was looking at developing it as a retirement village which would retain much of the natural beauty of the parcel several years ago.  I do believe that is what the zoning change from AG to commercial and light office originally was going to allow with the green buffer zone. 

I believe there is a strong reaction to the outlet mall as plopping down big slab sided concrete boxes is a shock to the senses.  Certainly, I’ve heard lots of hyperbole, half truths, and outright lies about this over the last week.  Much of it from well-meaning people who simply want to see this land left alone for the ages.

I don’t argue the owner’s property rights when they conform to proper zoning and codes.  I also don’t dispute the rights of the community to use zoning codes to restrict what can and cannot be developed in keeping with it’s surroundings.

[Conan71]

Eminent domain involves the payment of just compensation, so it is a legal balance between the traditional sovereign power to take the property and the constitution's prohibition against depriving someone of life, liberty, or property without due process. I won't bore everyone with my treatise on the different nomenclature Oklahoma law and federal law use to deal with eminent domain, but in both cases, due process requires the payment of just compensation.

Use of land use planning methods to force an owner to leave his or her property as "pristine wilderness" does not involve the payment of just compensation unless the owner prevails in an inverse condemnation action. These are messy.

BTW, I just drove past the property. There are no visible "no trespassing" signs, though there is a no dumping sign close by. I wonder where that report came from.

No one I personally know of is saying the owner cannot or should not derive monetary benefit from developing the property per it's current zoning or suggesting the property should be confiscated for the "greater good".  My best case scenario is a friend of the community buys the property and either preserves it as wilderness or gives it to the city/RPA and Simon finds another plot in the area they can develop.  Again, I think the strip NW of 71st & Elwood makes far more sense than anywhere else, though residents of the neighborhood to the north of that land may disagree.

My biggest question is what is the net cost to the city and county in infrastructure improvements or a TIF to accommodate Simon Properties if they choose to build in the vicinity of this intersection rather than the 71st St. corridor, which has already been improved?  Aside from more service level wage jobs being created, what is the real net impact on the tax base when we shell out expensive infrastructure improvements or offer other greenmail to attract development?

I believe you said you live in the area.  How do you personally feel about the increased traffic and activity created by an outlet mall in the area (whether it's this parcel or one of the other's I identified)?

Certainly, everyone will learn to co-exist with this development should it happen.  I simply hope it won't.

[cynical]

Personally I like the woods through there, but everything is a tradeoff. I think I'm more skeptical about outlet malls specifically than retail per se.

When Tulsa Hills went in with all of its traffic and the numerous traffic lights, getting through the area was made more difficult. I have made many trips to Lowe's, though. It's a fair trade for me. The wildlife that were displaced for the project might not agree.

No one I personally know of is saying the owner cannot or should not derive monetary benefit from developing the property per it’s current zoning or suggesting the property should be confiscated for the "greater good”.  My best case scenario is a friend of the community buys the property and either preserves it as wilderness or gives it to the city/RPA and Simon finds another plot in the area they can develop.  Again, I think the strip NW of 71st & Elwood makes far more sense than anywhere else, though residents of the neighborhood to the north of that land may disagree.

My biggest question is what is the net cost to the city and county in infrastructure improvements or a TIF to accommodate Simon Properties if they choose to build in the vicinity of this intersection rather than the 71st St. corridor, which has already been improved?  Aside from more service level wage jobs being created, what is the real net impact on the tax base when we shell out expensive infrastructure improvements or offer other greenmail to attract development?

I believe you said you live in the area.  How do you personally feel about the increased traffic and activity created by an outlet mall in the area (whether it’s this parcel or one of the other’s I identified)?

Certainly, everyone will learn to co-exist with this development should it happen.  I simply hope it won’t.

[saintnicster]

Kaiser Foundation says it won't develop its Turkey Mountain property
http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/kaiser-foundation-says-it-won-t-develop-its-turkey-mountain/article_be7a5c58-6026-597d-b67c-33ff8e60fd67.html

The George Kaiser Family Foundation has no plans to develop the 139 acres of land it owns on Turkey Mountain, a foundation official said Wednesday.

In fact, maintaining the mountain's natural beauty was why the foundation purchased the land in the first place.

"We wanted to protect and preserve the Turkey Mountain Urban Wilderness," said Jeff Stava, chief operating officer of the Tulsa Community Foundation.

"As strong supporters to River Parks and our trail system, we want to continue to ensure it is protected and grown to serve our community and region."

Many hikers, mountain bikers and other users of Turkey Mountain's trail system have expressed concern that the the recent announcement of a planned outlet mall at 61st Street and U.S. 75 could lead to more development along the mountain, eliminating trails and spoiling its natural beauty.

But Stava said the foundation's property, east and north of the proposed mall site, would not be developed for commercial purposes.

"It would solely be used to develop with the city of Tulsa and River Parks land," he said.

Some Turkey Mountain advocates have urged the city's philanthropic community to purchase property on Turkey Mountain to ensure that it remains green.

Stava, who described the wilderness area as a "treasure," made no such promise Wednesday but noted that that is exactly what the George Kaiser Family Foundation has been doing.

"Over the past few years GKFF has been quietly purchasing property on Turkey Mountain adjacent to the city- and River Parks-owned properties to help secure this Urban Wilderness for all Tulsans to enjoy." he said.

The outlet mall is to be located on approximately 58 acres of private property east of U.S. 75 at 61st Street, just north of the Tulsa Hills shopping center,  Robert Alexander, senior vice president of leasing for Simon's mall portfolio, said recently. The site has already been leased, although construction has yet to begin.

The design and size of the outlet mall hasn't been finalized, Alexander said, although he expects it to be similar to Allen Premium Outlets in Allen, Texas, north of Dallas, only somewhat smaller.

Development of the mall will require zoning changes that would be subject to approval by the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission and the City Council, according to Planning Commission staff.

As of Wednesday afternoon, Planning Commission staff had not received plans for the outlet mall.

[heironymouspasparagus]

The mall will be just another cheesy little strip center that will be "all that" for a while, then increasingly vacant and decayed in just a few years.



Tony Roma's on 71st....

[BKDotCom]

Kaiser Foundation says it won't develop its Turkey Mountain property
http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/kaiser-foundation-says-it-won-t-develop-its-turkey-mountain/article_be7a5c58-6026-597d-b67c-33ff8e60fd67.html

Has he reneged?
Article has been removed

[sgrizzle]

Probably changed link/url

[guido911]

Who knew Conan was a closeted environmentalist and big government/regulatory lib.    To be clear, I am not up for calling people freeloaders, particularly in this area/context since I want cyclists to have something other than our busy streets for their activity. But when folks start messing with private property rights, and want to use government to limit/prohibit those rights, then there is a huge problem with me.

And no, because there might be some business incentives the city gives to facilitate development--call it corporate welfare--that does provide an equal footing to an interest group (the environmentalists, er., cyclists  ) as the property owners. 


Thanks to cynical for doing some objective legal analysis. Property law is NOT easy.

[Conan71]

Has he reneged?
Article has been removed

Channel six has a 2:30 segment on their site with Jeff Stava of the Community Foundation speaking up about it.  Turns out, what they don't already own to the east of the proposed site, they are "partners".

Further thoughts on the "lease" that Simon has signed seems nothing more than a way to tie up the property while they draft the concept drawings and hit the road to sign on tenants.  Sounds like the rival group wanting to put a mall in at I-44/244 in east Tulsa is competing for the same tenants.  They are the same developer who developed the outlet mall on I-40 near Council Road in OKC.  In other words, if that group can get the big draws like Nike, Coach, or whomever else.  The more I read of this, I seriously doubt Simon can attract 800,000 square feet of tenants, especially ones who they claim Tulsa would be their only Oklahoma location.  This is not simple on/off access parallel to the major interstate like the outlet malls in so many other areas.

I have my doubts this will really happen.

[Conan71]

Who knew Conan was a closeted environmentalist and big government/regulatory lib.    To be clear, I am not up for calling people freeloaders, particularly in this area/context since I want cyclists to have something other than our busy streets for their activity. But when folks start messing with private property rights, and want to use government to limit/prohibit those rights, then there is a huge problem with me.

And no, because there might be some business incentives the city gives to facilitate development--call it corporate welfare--that does provide an equal footing to an interest group (the environmentalists, er., cyclists  ) as the property owners.  


Thanks to cynical for doing some objective legal analysis. Property law is NOT easy.

Who is messing with private property rights?  I've never once disputed the fact that the owners of the property have just as much right to sell the land as they do to fence it off so it can no longer be used for recreational purposes.  I've also said if this does happen, it's not the end of the world.  It also  looks like the rest of the area is off limits to development and there are far more trails still available than I could possibly cover in one day.  I simply hate to tack a 60 acre turd of an outlet mall on a corner of this great wilderness area when there's plenty of other property to be developed with better access.  I do also have concerns about creating a glut of retail space which could end up vacant.  I'm not against development, I'm for smart development.

To me, Simon's sudden interest in Tulsa with promises of bringing in an outlet mall twice the size of most outlet malls seems like they are late to the party to try and beat out Horizon and Collet, the developers of the outlet mall in OKC.  Seems like professional jealousy to me.  

I've only made comments to the effect that the planned development cannot proceed with it's existing zoning and the board of adjustment and City Council have final say on whether or not the zoning can be modified or not.

These are the same zoning codes which protect you from having some hill-jack who won the lottery last week move in next door to you and start an auto repair shop on his driveway or a motorcycle salvage or goat farm out of his back yard.  Would you be so ardent about private property rights when the roosters in your neighbor's back yard start waking you at sun up?

I've merely commented to the effect that this is a rare, contiguous piece of wilderness we do not have anywhere else within the city of Tulsa.  There is plenty of other land in the immediate vicinity which could otherwise be developed utilizing existing infrastructure improvements.  If the board of adjustment or city council deems this is not an appropriate use for the land, and tells Simon: "Go fish" yes, I will be overjoyed.  If that makes me a liberal in your mind, I won't lose sleep over it.

Let's face it Guido, we all want government to serve some purpose or benefit for what we pay in taxes.  Whether it's infrastructure, public safety, being the arbiter of proper or improper development, or protecting greenspace or wildlife habitat we all want something out of it.  We all pay into the system and have a right to expect something from it.  I really don't like a lot of government regulation, but I'm guilty as hell of being a conservationist.  Wait...what's that?  Conservationist and conservative have the same root.  Imagine that.

[sgrizzle]

Channel six has a 2:30 segment on their site with Jeff Stava of the Community Foundation speaking up about it.  Turns out, what they don't already own to the east of the proposed site, they are "partners".

Further thoughts on the "lease" that Simon has signed seems nothing more than a way to tie up the property while they draft the concept drawings and hit the road to sign on tenants.  Sounds like the rival group wanting to put a mall in at I-44/244 in east Tulsa is competing for the same tenants.  They are the same developer who developed the outlet mall on I-40 near Council Road in OKC.  In other words, if that group can get the big draws like Nike, Coach, or whomever else.  The more I read of this, I seriously doubt Simon can attract 800,000 square feet of tenants, especially ones who they claim Tulsa would be their only Oklahoma location.  This is not simple on/off access parallel to the major interstate like the outlet malls in so many other areas.

I have my doubts this will really happen.

I actually shop at outlet malls (please don't hit me) and can say that the OKC one is a bit sub-par. Also, those developers have been "working on an outlet mall in east tulsa" since before the OKC one was built.

It's going to be one mall or the other, not both, but I wouldn't count out the big dog of malls so early.

[Red Arrow]

I actually shop at outlet malls (please don't hit me) 

I remember the advertised prices at the outlet mall in Stroud as not being worth the drive there for how much I intended to purchase.  What is the real attraction for the outlet malls?