Simon Outlet Mall 61st & Hwy 75

[heironymouspasparagus]

It's gonna be another little "strip center" fail like many dozens, if not hundreds, sprinkled all around the metro area.  And we will get to pay for the infrastructure just to gain another little blighted area.

[cynical]

 

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.

Conan, please answer the following questions:

1. You have repeatedly described the property in question as pristine urban wilderness. Can you identify any "wilderness" in the US that has retained that designation after having a pipeline of any kind laid across it?

2. When the pipeline you referred to was laid, doing considerable damage to the "pristine" character of the property, did anyone object to the pipeline for the reason that wilderness was being destroyed? Please resist the temptation to argue that the property retained its wild character. Pipeline companies not only install the pipeline, but also maintain the right of way to keep it clear of obstructions. There will be no trees in that right of way as long as the pipeline is maintained.

3. You believe that vacant land west of Hwy 75 would be a preferable location for an outlet mall. Is that land available at a similar cost? Is it available at all?

4. There are a considerable number of residents living practically across the street from the property you propose for the outlet mall. Wouldn't their interest in the issue be more important than the trail users? These same residents recently defeated an attempt to develop a small portion of the undeveloped land lying east of Union between 61st and 71st for multi-family use. Do you believe they would be less effective at resisting a larger, purely commercial development? BTW, they are well organized. The city has already shown that it listens to their concerns.

5. Please explain why people who have been using someone else's property without the owner's consent should have any right to be heard on the issue of how the owner intends to develop his or her land?

6. Would your position be different if the property owner closed access to the property by the general public, including the mountain bikers who have used the owner's property for recreational purposes without compensating the owner for the fair market value of that use?

[Conan71]

Conan, please answer the following questions:

1. You have repeatedly described the property in question as pristine urban wilderness. Can you identify any "wilderness" in the US that has retained that designation after having a pipeline of any kind laid across it?

If you want to apply your definition of "pristine", land which has had trail cut or worn through it would no longer be considered "pristine".  There is a pipeline road along the western boundary of this property.  It is densely wooded from the west side of that pipeline road to the final clearing adjacent to Highway 75.  All of the Turkey Mountain area is dotted with relics from oil exploration dating to the 1920's as well as ruins of old homesteads and a clearing near the eastern side of the area for a power line right of way. For that matter, the Rocky Mountains has the continental divide trail which follows the divide from Canada to Mexico.  I suppose we can't call that pristine anymore.  Sure looks pristine to me when I'm on the trail.

2. When the pipeline you referred to was laid, doing considerable damage to the "pristine" character of the property, did anyone object to the pipeline for the reason that wilderness was being destroyed? Please resist the temptation to argue that the property retained its wild character. Pipeline companies not only install the pipeline, but also maintain the right of way to keep it clear of obstructions. There will be no trees in that right of way as long as the pipeline is maintained.

I have no clue if anyone complained or not.  It's still quite wild on either side of the pipeline clearing.  Instead of being coy, what's your point?  This development will require the pipeline to be moved and it appears it will be moved further to the east which will destroy more wilderness area east of the existing pipeline clearing.  Since we are on the topic of wilderness or pristine wilderness, can you point to me any other recreation area within Tulsa which offers the same sort of recreational and educational opportunities as TMUWA does?

3. You believe that vacant land west of Hwy 75 would be a preferable location for an outlet mall. Is that land available at a similar cost? Is it available at all?

It's been related to me there is a 55 acre parcel which currently belongs to ONEOK and they tried to sell it to an apartment developer.  The neighbors across Union did not want an apartment complex there, so it did not happen.  I have no idea as to the cost of the property.

4. There are a considerable number of residents living practically across the street from the property you propose for the outlet mall. Wouldn't their interest in the issue be more important than the trail users? These same residents recently defeated an attempt to develop a small portion of the undeveloped land lying east of Union between 61st and 71st for multi-family use. Do you believe they would be less effective at resisting a larger, purely commercial development? BTW, they are well organized. The city has already shown that it listens to their concerns.

Absolutely they would have an interest in it and they also have a stake in the current location.  Placing the outlet mall even at the current proposed site will increase traffic congestion for those residents.  Does Jon Ferris, the owner of the property bordering this one on the east have a say in what is developed or whether or not they move the high pressure gas line on his property?  Does the YMCA which borders the property to the north, or the Siegfrieds who own the parcel south if 61st St. have a say in how this is developed or not developed?

5. Please explain why people who have been using someone else's property without the owner's consent should have any right to be heard on the issue of how the owner intends to develop his or her land?

Have I ever said it was an issue of trail users having a right to be heard?  As a citizen and tax payer within the city of Tulsa, anyone has the right to speak up about a development in which the developer asks for public funding of any sort to make their development happen.  Simon will be asking for a TIF.  As someone who regularly transits the area, public safety is a legitimate concern.  Based on the renderings Simon released on Dec. 5, they show no widening of the 61st street bridge over highway 75 which is two lanes.  61st, which transitions into Elwood is a dangerous stretch of road even with limited traffic counts.  Can the I-44/75 interchange, in it's current configuration, handle added traffic?  Add in the additional traffic load and there's zero doubt there will be more head on and roll-over crashes on 61st/Elwood.  If they widen the road and level it to make it safer, they will destroy yet more wilderness.

Certainly the residents of the neighborhood to the west of the TMUWA parking lot have a say in this due to an uptick in traffic along the route which feeds their neighborhood.


6. Would your position be different if the property owner closed access to the property by the general public, including the mountain bikers who have used the owner's property for recreational purposes without compensating the owner for the fair market value of that use?

Why is everyone hung up on the mountain bikers?  Do you realize there are equestrians, hikers, and runners who use this trail as well as scout and school groups who have used this property over the years?  

It is the owner's prerogative to fence it off and put up no trespassing signs and I have no problem with an owner doing so, and I would respect it.  The owner of the property has never elected to do so and most people have assumed for years with the lack of section line fencing though all these parcels that the land has been public.  

I personally had assumed it was YMCA land from when I went to day camp there in the 1970's and we rode horseback extensively on that property and the properties adjacent to it.  The whole area from the river to highway 75 was listed on the RPA map on the RPA and INCOG websites along with the trails through the subject property.  That has led to a lot of confusion as to who owns any of the land considered as TMUWA over the years.  It's only this development which has led to examination of all the property holders on Turkey Mountain.

From all the other users I've spoken to, no one would have a problem with an annual access fee to utilize the land if it would have been demanded in lieu of fencing it off.  Obviously the seller of the property did not object that people were using it until he could sell it off or he would have restricted access.

It's interesting you brought this up, There was a planning commission hearing in 1994 on whether to locate the 15 million gallon water tank on Turkey Mountain proper or south of 61st Street where it was finally located.  At that meeting Malcom Mccollam (a local attorney) made the comment that trail users would not be compensated for loss of trail use.  I would have never made such a construct, myself.  I simply found that an odd comment.

[sgrizzle]

It is the owner's prerogative to fence it off and put up no trespassing signs and I have no problem with an owner doing so, and I would respect it.  The owner of the property has never elected to do so and most people have assumed for years with the lack of section line fencing though all these parcels that the land has been public.  

4.  "Recreational trespass" means remaining on land for a recreational use after being asked to leave by the owner, or the entry on land for a recreational use without the express or implied consent of the owner.

1.  The absence of posting shall not by itself be sufficient to imply consent.

[guido911]

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)

Being 100% serious as I never been out to this place. I have read through older posts and saw maps and things. I may have even said something about some of these trails being on property where this development may be built. Just didn't remember. But if you are looking for very good analysis of the legal issues surrounding this development, go back and read cynical's posts on pages 3-5. BY FAR some of the best stuff I have read in this forum.

[LandArchPoke]

5. Please explain why people who have been using someone else's property without the owner's consent should have any right to be heard on the issue of how the owner intends to develop his or her land?

I haven't seen anyone answer yet in the group rambling "private property rights!" of why everyone shouldn't be allowed to have say in what is built because they are requesting PUBLIC assistance. Typically when anyone or any entity puts a large sum of financial obligations into an investment, they typically get a say into how it's used correct? I don't see many millionaires go please take my money financial advisor and have no say in what is done? Same with any privately ran business. Why is the taxpayer's dime ok to throw at a private developer and not be allowed say in whether citizen by in large even want the development here?

If this land owner can contract with a developer who can foot the bill 100% and pay for infrastructure improvements on site, by all means they are free to do it. That IS NOT what is happening here. It's not our job as taxpayers to make this development financially feasible if we would rather try to keep this area "wilderness". If this upsets the private landowner and he wants to fence off the property from any public use, by all means do it. I'd rather see the trees and keep this area the way is it, then see Tulsa Hills 2 flatten another beautiful area of my city with MY tax dollars.

[guido911]

I haven't seen anyone answer yet in the group rambling "private property rights!" of why everyone shouldn't be allowed to have say in what is built because they are requesting PUBLIC assistance. Typically when anyone or any entity puts a large sum of financial obligations into an investment, they typically get a say into how it's used correct? I don't see many millionaires go please take my money financial advisor and have no say in what is done? Same with any privately ran business. Why is the taxpayer's dime ok to throw at a private developer and not be allowed say in whether citizen by in large even want the development here?

If this land owner can contract with a developer who can foot the bill 100% and pay for infrastructure improvements on site, by all means they are free to do it. That IS NOT what is happening here. It's not our job as taxpayers to make this development financially feasible if we would rather try to keep this area "wilderness". If this upsets the private landowner and he wants to fence off the property from any public use, by all means do it. I'd rather see the trees and keep this area the way is it, then see Tulsa Hills 2 flatten another beautiful area of my city with MY tax dollars.

Ah yes, the "taxpayer" right to be heard. Well, I am a tax payer too and I do not want to "hear" from you on this subject any longer. I also want this development to proceed.  So there. 

Too bad you don't have the same respect for Maple Ridge homeowners wanting to be heard when it comes the Gathering Place sidewalk/parking mess. Freakin hypocrite. 

[carltonplace]

Ah yes, the "taxpayer" right to be heard. Well, I am a tax payer too and I do not want to "hear" from you on this subject any longer. I also want this development to proceed.  So there. 

Too bad you don't have the same respect for Maple Ridge homeowners wanting to be heard when it comes the Gathering Place sidewalk/parking mess. Freakin hypocrite. 

??HUH??

Maple Ridge residents don't want the public to park on public streets or to have a public sidewalk constructed for public use on the public right of way even though the public will park and walk even without the sidewalk.


Simon Outlet mall wants the public to build public infrastructure to their private property but they don't want the public to have a say about the property use.

How is he a hypocrite?

[LandArchPoke]

Ah yes, the "taxpayer" right to be heard. Well, I am a tax payer too and I do not want to "hear" from you on this subject any longer. I also want this development to proceed.  So there. 

Too bad you don't have the same respect for Maple Ridge homeowners wanting to be heard when it comes the Gathering Place sidewalk/parking mess. Freakin hypocrite. 

If you do not want to hear from me, stop reading my posts. Simple right?

If you want the development to proceed, good for you. There are probably more people that don't. I have the same respect for Maple Ridge residents, but when public money is in play everyone should have a voice. If no one speaks up, nothing changes. Speaking up encourages debate, and at the end of the day if people aren't overly stubborn and can let their ego down it allows for better solutions.

I'm against the development here as it is planned/proposed to date. If they built this into a mixed-use village and use some of the TIF money to building parking structures to reduced the footprint of this development I would support it. Think something like Whistler Village in British Columbia, a small walkable community with structure parking on the edge that would embrace trail users (I can't see how that would be bad for business?), and minimize the development footprint. I'm educated in design and real estate development, so I get the financial side and the design side. Simon is just trying to come in and build this as cheap as possible and squeeze out as much public money as they can to maximize profits. Well if they want to do that, I refuse to give my support to this development. If they want public assistance it should be to building something better than average. If you can't make the ROI work on an average development on this property without subsidy, find another property or go away because we don't need an outlet mall that badly.

[Conan71]

Grizzle, people could make a reasonable inference from this official Riverparks map that the subject property and other privately-held properties were public domain:



In other words, prior to now, very few people would have realized this was privately-held property. 

Riverparks and INCOG have since gone back and replaced this map in their links with a map sectioning out the privately-held lands and identifies the proposed outlet mall.  Prior to a few months ago, this is what people viewed when they pulled up the Turkey Mountain Urban Wilderness map on the RPA and INCOG web sites.

[rebound]

Being 100% serious as I never been out to this place. I have read through older posts and saw maps and things. I may have even said something about some of these trails being on property where this development may be built. Just didn't remember. But if you are looking for very good analysis of the legal issues surrounding this development, go back and read cynical's posts on pages 3-5. BY FAR some of the best stuff I have read in this forum.

I'm going to yield to others regarding the legal aspects of this, as I'm an engineer not a lawyer.  But there is a great discussion to be had (actually, I guess we are all having it...) on the aspect of landowner rights versus public good, or similar.   I personally think the mistake was made a few years back when they rezoned this property from agricultural to commercial (and then apparently never changed the taxes, but that's another topic).  But that's old news now, and the point at hand is whether the proposed development is a good fit for the area.   To that aspect of the topic, I think LandArch and Conan make some very good points related to the rights of public input when tax dollars are going to be used as part of (or because of) the development.

I will admit though, and holding all legal issues aside, to a personal opinion that is something along line of  "Good Lord, we don't need another outlet mall and if they absolutely have to build one this is a terrible spot to put it."

[Red Arrow]

I'm going to yield to others regarding the legal aspects of this, as I'm an engineer not a lawyer.  But there is a great discussion to be had (actually, I guess we are all having it...) on the aspect of landowner rights versus public good, or similar.   I personally think the mistake was made a few years back when they rezoned this property from agricultural to commercial (and then apparently never changed the taxes, but that's another topic).  But that's old news now, and the point at hand is whether the proposed development is a good fit for the area.   To that aspect of the topic, I think LandArch and Conan make some very good points related to the rights of public input when tax dollars are going to be used as part of (or because of) the development.

I will admit though, and holding all legal issues aside, to a personal opinion that is something along line of  "Good Lord, we don't need another outlet mall and if they absolutely have to build one this is a terrible spot to put it."

This may not win me any friends but...
Offer the land owner the opportunity to pay the back taxes at commercial rate or rezone back to agricultural and offer to buy the land at agricultural value.

[heironymouspasparagus]

This may not win me any friends but...
Offer the land owner the opportunity to pay the back taxes at commercial rate or rezone back to agricultural and offer to buy the land at agricultural value.

Probably a good idea!   But I want some of what you have been smoking....

[cynical]

I had to abandon an attempt to answer Conan's reply in detail because of a lack of time, so I'll keep this short. The reason for the original questions was that Conan was on both sides of too many issues:

1. Simultaneously arguing that the property was pristine wilderness while citing the existence of an active natural gas pipeline on the property as a reason this property is unsuited to the proposed use.

2. Simultaneously arguing that the use unofficial trails across that property by mountain bikers and others doesn't drive his objections while pointing with approval to a mountain biking group's web site trying to drum up opposition.

3. Simultaneously arguing that the mall is a lousy idea and arguing that it should be relocated to a location where nearby residents have already defeated an attempt to build an apartment complex. Maybe this isn't as contradictory as 1 and 2. It might be more like a poison pill.

4. Arguing that the mall would somehow deprive the public, which has no right to use the property at all, of an irreplaceable recreational and educational resource, ignoring the fact that there is a large amount of tick-infested "pristine wilderness" left over throughout the area, including a substantial amount of public land intentionally set aside for such purposes.

5. Admitting that the owner of this property has private property rights but implicitly arguing that the owner should be barred from making economic use of the property, giving short shrift to the very substantial risk that by doing so the city would be held to have taken the property through reverse condemnation.  

As I have said before, I have no particular dog in this hunt. My own take on the above questions straightforward enough.

1. The property isn't pristine wilderness. It's not even non-pristine wilderness. It is in a patchwork of actively maintained, sporadically maintained, and unmaintained areas. The Continental Divide Trail, which I too have experienced, crosses a good many areas that are not wilderness. In Colorado, some wilderness areas do include old abandoned mines, somewhat analogous to the abandoned oil wells near Turkey Mountain, but none include actively maintained pipeline rights of way. All designated wilderness areas prohibit vehicular traffic, including mountain bikes.

2. The proposed outlet mall would not deny the public access to whatever passes for wilderness in the area. The park remains in place, unaffected by the development, with all of its educational and recreational opportunities intact. The only thing that would change from that perspective is the removal of a trail that crosses private property without the consent of the owner. And in case someone must see "pristine wilderness" on private property, there's plenty of that left over, including the tract Conan thought would be more useful. I think there's a homeless guy living in the woods between Union Ave. and Hwy 75 and between 61st and 71st, so the educational opportunities there for the kids would be infinitely greater.

3. Whether another outlet mall is "needed" or serves the public interest is quite debatable, but in market-driven economic system it is up to the people putting their capital at risk to decide if the risks exceed the potential benefits. I would be curious about the developers' exit strategy if the mall failed. That is my only significant concern. Being a non-centrally planned economy we don't have a system in place in which outlet malls have to be permitted as hospitals do. In the debate about permitting the City of Faith, Oral's premise was that the patients would flock here from around the country, so there would be no appreciable drain on other local hospitals. The patients never showed up, and the hospital died, leaving the building standing empty. The exit strategy was to repurpose the buildings. I have no clue about what could be done with an empty outlet mall. Perhaps it could be repurposed into office space or a bar catering to all of the mountain bikers who work up a thirst nearby.

4. Likewise, the costs of relocating, accommodating, or accessing various utilities are borne by the developers and their eventual customers. The developers have asked for a TIF to help fund infrastructure improvements, presumably improvements to the access streets and intersections. Since this property is not currently generating sales taxes, the cost to the city of such a TIF is basically zero except for possible cannibalization of sales taxes from other Tulsa retailers who might lose sales to merchants at this mall. I imagine the mall proponents argue that the mall will draw customers from a wide area who do not currently shop in Tulsa. See the City of Faith example above. Councilor Jeannie Cue says she is enthusiastic about this development. She was not at all enthusiastic about the proposed apartment complex across from West Highlands I. I can only assume that the West Highlands folks would greet an attempt to locate the outlet mall on Union as warmly as they greeted the apartments. BTW, I felt the West Highlanders' objections were just so much NIMBYism.

5. The environmental impact of this development is far less than that of the Tulsa Hills development that generated no opposition except for my wife. At Tulsa Hills they removed a large hill, trees, dirt, rock, deer, snakes, ticks and all. For this one they need to remove trees and cover it with buildings and concrete. If they don't handle the runoff issues correctly, the Y may have a good cause of action.

6. The neighbors don't seem to mind. Oh, wait, there aren't any.  

7. Basically, it all adds up to the opposition mainly being driven by the loss of use of the trail. The alternative to allowing the landowner to develop its property is for an entity with the power of eminent domain to take it for public use.

I have one small, nit-picky comment on the issue of trespass. Trespass on real property is defined generally as an entry [upon/under the surface of] the real estate of another without the permission of the person lawfully entitled to possession. Permission may be either express or implied. The issue about posting only has to do with the crime of trespass under Oklahoma law, which makes no pretense of defining trespass generally. A civil action for trespass either seeking monetary damages or injunctive relief if damages weren't an adequate remedy would still lie if the above definition, which was taken from the applicable civil jury instruction, fit.

[LandArchPoke]

cynical - I do like your point about what is the developers exit strategy. This is something I was leading towards in earlier posts, but as proposed it was be very difficult to convert into normal retail. Suburban outlet centers are designed in such a distinct way that it really is only meant for that purpose. Every trend in real estate is going away from single purpose development. Even outlet centers are shifting this way as well.

If it was built as a mixed-use development... add structured parking and residential above, then if the outlet fade wanes (as I suspect it will shortly) then the retail space can be transitioned to basic retail (Starbucks, Chipotle, etc.)

Here is an urban outlet center being proposed/under construction:





Multi-family is in high demand in this area... why not re-think this development a little bit?