Simon Outlet Mall 61st & Hwy 75

[cannon_fodder]

I am in favor of whatever makes me happy. Outlet malls make me happy. Private property rights make me happy. 

Now, rather than pulling a shroud over the potential 61st & Hwy 75 mall development before it is even open yet, or suggesting that it might sell crap, it is my understanding that this development is on private property. Am I right? If it succeeds or fails should not be any concern of those that do not own that property. 

Ever since zoning, land use development, master plans, small area plans, and government funding for private projects... the "it's my land I do what I want!" argument has lost a ton of luster.

I know a number of people who live in communities with intrusive HOAs where massive amounts of property rights are regularly given away.  Some people are thrilled with it.  Some people constantly sue their own HOAs over stuff.  On the other end of the spectrum is wholly unrestricted rural land - where people build mini-subdivision and then complain about farm smells, wind turbines, and that the roads aren't wide enough.  Cities, on the other hand, have adopted a middle approach.  Some restrictions, an eye towards "best use", and public input.  In exchange for giving up some control, land owners get some assurances.

The era of unfettered property rights died with the civil war (it had nothing to do with the civil war, it just so happened zoning laws and case law on the matter started in the late 1860s). Cities, and those that live in them, have an interest in what goes where.  Believe it or not, but sometimes land owners want to use their land for a use that is detrimental to adjacent land owners and not in the best interest of the community.

In this particular instance, it IS in the interest of the community because:
1) They want public funds to complete the project, including millions for infrastructure.
2) It will affect a public park. Yes, the property is NOT part of the public park and the owner has the right to exclude the public. But the public can object to any zoning changes or funding requests.
3) The City has an interest in ensuring that land is put to the best use.  Development near an urban wilderness can be a huge advantage and a commercial draw of a unique persuasion.  An outlet mall can go anywhere there is highway traffic.
4) Finally, when a "big box" or other development fails, the City is often left to pick up the pieces.  That's a problem, particularly when public funds are involved.

Finally, most outlet malls do sell "crap." Many stores now manufacture items specifically for the outlet malls. The retailers have the outlets to boast sales and profits.  They cannot do this by merely selling their goods for less than their normal retail locations.  So they manufacture "other" products to sell to mass market consumers at lower price points.

According to SmartMoney, 82% of all products sold in an outlet store are made to be sold there.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/investopedia/2012/12/29/7-tips-for-outlet-mall-shopping/

[guido911]

Ever since zoning, land use development, master plans, small area plans, and government funding for private projects... the "it's my land I do what I want!" argument has lost a ton of luster.

I know a number of people who live in communities with intrusive HOAs where massive amounts of property rights are regularly given away.  Some people are thrilled with it.  Some people constantly sue their own HOAs over stuff.  On the other end of the spectrum is wholly unrestricted rural land - where people build mini-subdivision and then complain about farm smells, wind turbines, and that the roads aren't wide enough.  Cities, on the other hand, have adopted a middle approach.  Some restrictions, an eye towards "best use", and public input.  In exchange for giving up some control, land owners get some assurances.

The era of unfettered property rights died with the civil war (it had nothing to do with the civil war, it just so happened zoning laws and case law on the matter started in the late 1860s). Cities, and those that live in them, have an interest in what goes where.  Believe it or not, but sometimes land owners want to use their land for a use that is detrimental to adjacent land owners and not in the best interest of the community.

In this particular instance, it IS in the interest of the community because:
1) They want public funds to complete the project, including millions for infrastructure.
2) It will affect a public park. Yes, the property is NOT part of the public park and the owner has the right to exclude the public. But the public can object to any zoning changes or funding requests.
3) The City has an interest in ensuring that land is put to the best use.  Development near an urban wilderness can be a huge advantage and a commercial draw of a unique persuasion.  An outlet mall can go anywhere there is highway traffic.
4) Finally, when a "big box" or other development fails, the City is often left to pick up the pieces.  That's a problem, particularly when public funds are involved.

Finally, most outlet malls do sell "crap." Many stores now manufacture items specifically for the outlet malls. The retailers have the outlets to boast sales and profits.  They cannot do this by merely selling their goods for less than their normal retail locations.  So they manufacture "other" products to sell to mass market consumers at lower price points.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/investopedia/2012/12/29/7-tips-for-outlet-mall-shopping/

I will put you in the "no" category when it comes to private private rights whenever there may be a public "interest".  Your HOA example is just absurd.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I will put you in the "no" category when it comes to private private rights whenever there may be a public "interest".  Your HOA example is just absurd.

And the type of "private rights" being complained about is a fantasy that has never existed on the planet since the advent of civilization.  There has always been a 'tribute' due the governing authority either by choice (as in a republic or democracy) or not (most other forms of governance).

[Conan71]

Here's the web page of the Tulsa Urban Wilderness Coalition, a group which was formed as a result of this potential development.

http://www.tulsaurbanwildernesscoalition.org

And their Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/Tulsaurbanwildernesscoalition

Their mission statement is:

"The coalition's mission is to preserve, protect and promote the responsible use and enjoyment of Green Country's urban wildness areas for current and future generations."

[sgrizzle]

I'm all for private property rights.  I'm against crappy development which isn't consistent with its surroundings.  Someone show me how this development makes sense adjacent to an urban wilderness area other than: "It's private property, so shut up!"   

It's also adjacent to a highway. I'm not saying I think this is the right place, but I'm also pretty sure that the fact a small part of the population has been trespassing on the property from a park 1/4 mile away probably wasn't a major concern.

[guido911]

It's also adjacent to a highway. I'm not saying I think this is the right place, but I'm also pretty sure that the fact a small part of the population has been trespassing on the property from a park 1/4 mile away probably wasn't a major concern.

I don't understand. Is the private property that might be developed into an outlet mall being used by "trespassers" from Turkey Mountain?

[rebound]

I don't understand. Is the private property that might be developed into an outlet mall being used by "trespassers" from Turkey Mountain?

OK, I'm going to have to "dude" you...

Dude, have you not been reading the threads on here related to this?   Yes, there were/are bike trails all over this piece of land and have been for years.   Go back and read the threads for the whole story.  (and if that was a troll,  I bit)

[cannon_fodder]

He was just being obtuse.

In fact, I walked those trails over the weekend. Had a great day.

And I think my HOA scenario was apropos. People exchange certain rights on their property for other benefits.  When owning land in an urban area one has acquiesced to a similar arrangement.

I understand your property rights argument. If the City denies his ability to build he may have a case against them for a taking. BUT - I think the City has a duty to all citizens above and beyond what is in the best financial interest of one property owner.

My real concern isn't that I will miss this small section of trail, and I'm not TOO concerned about the slippery slope argument. What I am really concerned about is entirely destroying the nature of the urban wilderness area.  If it becomes congested, polluted, and loud - then we have destroyed an amazing and unique asset in exchange for something that isn't special at all. That cannot be undone. Even small concessions by the developer could help alleviate my concerns.  Instead, the entity has entirely ignored all concerns to chase profit.  Which is fine for them, but again, may not be in the best interest of the City of Tulsa (hard to believe, but Ayn Rand wasn't spot on).

Cost benefit analysis leads me to favor the status quo. Preferably the City or some benefactor would purchase the land and close the parcel. Absent that, we need sensible building requirements and a lack of public funds to both discourage unwanted development and encourage practices and uses that compliment our asset.

[Weatherdemon]

To me, this falls in line with what everyone on here complains about...
People complaining about lack of development then complaining about the development that others plan.

Just like Brady. No one gave a crap who/what the Theater, street, district was named after until it came life again then someone played this grey race card to put the area in a bad light and potentially reverse the good that had been done. Fortunately the City Council had a shining moment and took care of this.

This area being discussed now is private property. Yes, too bad the trails that had been created will no longer be there but this isn't a public area. If everyone was so concerned they should have made a push to make the acreage public when all of the development down the road started.

The people complaining about this sound like the people complaining about the sidewalk for the park.

It's all NIMBY all the time.

Build it and they will come. Just don't build it where I'll be because I don't want them to come there.

[Conan71]

To me, this falls in line with what everyone on here complains about...
People complaining about lack of development then complaining about the development that others plan.

Just like Brady. No one gave a crap who/what the Theater, street, district was named after until it came life again then someone played this grey race card to put the area in a bad light and potentially reverse the good that had been done. Fortunately the City Council had a shining moment and took care of this.

This area being discussed now is private property. Yes, too bad the trails that had been created will no longer be there but this isn't a public area. If everyone was so concerned they should have made a push to make the acreage public when all of the development down the road started.

The people complaining about this sound like the people complaining about the sidewalk for the park.

It's all NIMBY all the time.

Build it and they will come. Just don't build it where I'll be because I don't want them to come there.

To me, it has nothing to do with loss of trail use.  There is one trail which bisects this property I use on a regular basis.  It would not ruin my life if I could no longer access it.  Why I see this as an inappropriate development is this land has for the last 40 some years been envisioned as an urban wilderness.  

This is the blog of a trail runner and resident of the small housing addition which is just to the west of the main parking area at TMUA, so I'd call him a legitimate stakeholder.  There are two articles, one from the Trib and the other from the World from the 1980's when the park first opened and later about plans to expand it.  As well, when INCOG did the Arkansas River Master Plan about ten years ago, the recommendation was to acquire all the contiguous land and keep it as a wilderness preserve.  Tulsa owes a deep debt of gratitude to Jackie Bubenik for making Turkey Mountain happen in the first place.

His blog is rather bitter and somewhat sarcastic, that's not what I want you to glean from this, I want people to see what the long term vision has been for this land for at least 35+ years.

http://trailzombie.com/2014/12/a-lot-has-happened-since-i-last-posted.html

Between budget cuts and downturns in the economy, this parcel was never purchased.  My understanding is the adjoining property owner to the east has made his intentions known that the property he controls is to remain wilderness.  

An outlet mall is probably the most incongruous development I could think of to plop down next to an urban wilderness area.  If you would like to see what sensible development looks like in or adjacent to an urban wilderness area, look no further than Crystal Bridges in Bentonville, Ark.

http://crystalbridges.org/trails-and-grounds/

Instead of putting in a retail development, Bentonville has created a really nice tourist attraction which brings in revenue from all over the region and they have a museum which is world-renown.  We have the level of philanthropy in Tulsa to make projects like this happen.

If I had my perfect world scenario, where they already had cleared the upper six acres on this parcel, more parking and a visitor center would be a nice addition with a micro museum detailing the history of Turkey Mountain.

Yes the horse may be out of the barn and it may be sad hindsight that no one foresaw something like this coming.  I also admit I have a predisposed dislike for large chains and mall shopping, it's just not my thing.  I prefer to support local when at all possible.

[cannon_fodder]

WD: quality development that fits with a plan.

Tulsa sucks at the planning part.

See, e.g., the entire east side.

[ZYX]

I'd rather this mall get built in one of the several large empty pieces of land near my house than near Turkey Mountain. For me, and I think many others opposed to this, it's not a NIMBY thing, it's that we need to do all we can to protect such an extensive and vital piece of urban wilderness.

I use Turkey Mountain all the time. That and the river trails are one of my main sources of entertainment in the summer. Development immediately around Turkey Mountain (which will require wider roads) will irreversibly ruin one of the most unique parts of Tulsa.

The most infuriating thing, to me, is that the developers are asking for public money. The public doesn't want this development, we shouldn't have to help pay for it! Even here in Bixby, almost everyone I hear mention this new mall is against it, even people that don't use Turkey Mountain.

[swake]

There's a perfect piece of land right across the highway on the south west corner of the interchange that won't interfere with Turkey Mountain at all.

[Conan71]

There's a perfect piece of land right across the highway on the south west corner of the interchange that won't interfere with Turkey Mountain at all.

Ding, ding, ding! Winner!

I'm pretty sure the selling broker doesn't want them to realize that.  Turns out, even though there's a 15 million gallon water tank east of 75, the water main they have to tap for this property is west of 75.  It also would not require ONEOK relocating a high pressure natural gas line which runs under the proposed development, and I would assume there is a much shorter run to existing storm and sanitary trunk lines on the west side of 75 than there is on the east side.  Highway access would be far more simplified, they have room for their own off ramp and there's ways to modify the existing 71st street off ramp to accept traffic returning to 75 from there with fairly simple modification.

[sgrizzle]

There's a perfect piece of land right across the highway on the south west corner of the interchange that won't interfere with Turkey Mountain at all.

The residents in that area are already opposing all commercial development west of 75 due to flooding issues, traffic issues, and general NIMBYness. I think I even heard there was some sort of halt until floodwater engineering was done.