Simon Outlet Mall 61st & Hwy 75

[ZYX]

I wouldn't think that media attention that is consistently negative would be that desirable, but I could be wrong.

[guido911]

Simon had Lou Reynolds there on their behalf last night.  Their local PR rep didn't even bother trot out their latest set of renderings.

Either Simon doesn't have a clue about PR or this whole thing has been a charade to get a seat at the table with one of the other developments.  All they seem to have done so far is make enemies on the City Council, which ultimately decides the fate of this project.

It was good to see the participation last night from both the proponents and the critics of the development.  I'm glad to see people voicing their opinions on what we value in our city.

What's the point of going into that environment? It's not like there is any actual objectivity by those opposing the development. My fear is that there are litigation wheels turning.

[Townsend]

What's the point of going into that environment? It's not like there is any actual objectivity by those opposing the development. My fear is that there are litigation wheels turning.

Why do you have fear about litigation?

[guido911]

Why do you have fear about litigation?

Losing. Perhaps the better question is why are you apparently not afraid? I read all the time in here about nut jobs and their 10 commandments/gay marriage issue and the costs to the taxpayers of litigating those matters. Where is that crowd on this subject

And I wonder how many people at that last meeting I saw video from would be willing to pony up the attorneys fees/costs/possible damages if litigation were to happen?

[Breadburner]

I will donate 1000.00 dollars to legal fees if thats what it takes to see that this mall is not built on turkey montain if it comes to that and challenge anyone to match it......

[Conan71]

Losing. Perhaps the better question is why are you apparently not afraid? I read all the time in here about nut jobs and their 10 commandments/gay marriage issue and the costs to the taxpayers of litigating those matters. Where is that crowd on this subject

And I wonder how many people at that last meeting I saw video from would be willing to pony up the attorneys fees/costs/possible damages if litigation were to happen?

There is no litigation to take toward individuals opposing a zoning change.  Get serious.

The only thing actionable would be if someone directly tried to interfere with a contractual agreement between the buyer/seller or the proposed buyer and their potential tenants.  That is not happening, at least not anyone affiliated with TUWC.

Last I checked, advocating for smart development and zoning is not a crime, nor is it subject to civil penalty.

Simon is being quiet because what they have presented so far sucks.  They are trying to make it suck less.  What they have submitted so far cannot pass the zoning requirements at this time, per what their attorney and INCOG said the other night.  There are development recommendations in the Mooser Creek Watershed Study published in 2004 they may not be able to comply with at all and this may be moot.  Can they go back and sue planners and engineers of 10-12 years ago for preempting their Prada and Nike dreams?  

Would you say they have a cause to sue the YMCA because the YMCA has submitted to them a list of items they must address before they would approve of a zoning change?  Keep in mind, the Y has very real concerns about polluted stormwater run-off, erosion, light pollution, trash, sight lines, all actionable items in our zoning and permitting process.

From purely a PR perspective, a company like Simon would draw seriously bad PR on a national scale if they sued a bunch of individuals for opposing their zoning request.  That kind of PR is kryptonite to their investors and potential tenants.

What's the point of going into that environment? It's not like there is any actual objectivity by those opposing the development. My fear is that there are litigation wheels turning.

Their meeting Monday was considered "friendly territory" since it was only open to District 2 residents or invited guests.  Many thought residents of the west side want this due to prestige and jobs.  They still didn't send anyone in from HQ for that one.  

The fact that corporate personnel had been meeting face-to-face with the Y and trail users and trail user groups has the risk of being more hostile.  You are literally asking people who you know oppose your project to sit down and tell you what they dislike about your project.

[guido911]

I will donate 1000.00 dollars to legal fees if thats what it takes to see that this mall is not built on turkey montain if it comes to that and challenge anyone to match it......

THAT'S putting skin in the game. And I know a few others that would do the same. Proud of you.

I reread cynical's posts on this subject and was encouraged (okay, felt compelled) to look into these legal issues myself. Sufficed to say, "because zoning laws" which I have read repeatedly in this thread is not the end of any analysis.

[Townsend]

Losing. Perhaps the better question is why are you apparently not afraid? I read all the time in here about nut jobs and their 10 commandments/gay marriage issue and the costs to the taxpayers of litigating those matters. Where is that crowd on this subject

And I wonder how many people at that last meeting I saw video from would be willing to pony up the attorneys fees/costs/possible damages if litigation were to happen?

I generally don't blame the nut-jobs who are against marriage or the nut-jobs who want the 10 commandments somewhere...I blame the nut-job legislators who file bills or spend money on waste of time projects.

[guido911]

There is no litigation to take toward individuals opposing a zoning change.  Get serious.

You get freaking serious. I didn't say a damned thing about the participants at these meetings. Right now, those opposing the development have every right to voice their objections, but at some point some government action could happen. That's what I am talking about. So for now, please feel free to be as pissed off as you like about private property owners deciding how they use their property.

/Rant over

[Conan71]

You get freaking serious. I didn't say a damned thing about the participants at these meetings. Right now, those opposing the development have every right to voice their objections, but at some point some government action could happen. That's what I am talking about. So for now, please feel free to be as pissed off as you like about private property owners deciding how they use their property.

/Rant over

You might want to be a little more clear when you start wringing your hands about litigation.  You made it sound as if they might be ready to sue a bunch of people to get their way.  Yes, they can appeal a denial of their zoning application at the council level in District Court.  Susan Miller of INCOG is not aware of an applicant ever doing so.  Here's the flowchart of the process from INCOG:



Carry on.

[Townsend]

So for now, please feel free to be as pissed off as you like about private property owners deciding how they use their property.

/Rant over

You keep doing that thing where you don't mention the stakeholders.  This will effect much more than just the property owner.

[guido911]

No I am not T. First, I have listened to people telling me repeatey what their entitlement/standing is to complain. And in this process. I have learned that one does not have to have one damned penny of their own invested in order to tell those that stand to make/lose possibly millions of dollars their business. Hell, how many in this forum even live in the district that is affected? Second, whether the people that own property at TM want to take on those who do not even pay so much as a user fee for TM is their choice. Finally, by all means, I encourage people to keep lecturing me on property law and zoning.

[Townsend]

No I am not T. First, I have listened to people telling me repeatey what their entitlement/standing is to complain. And in this process. I have learned that one does not have to have one damned penny of their own invested in order to tell those that stand to make/lose possibly millions of dollars their business. Hell, how many in this forum even live in the district that is affected? Second, whether the people that own property at TM want to take on those who do not even pay so much as a user fee for TM is their choice. Finally, by all means, I encourage people to keep lecturing me on property law and zoning.

[guido911]

Maybe Gone to Plaid, or just plain ol' gone nuclear. Maybe I am just angry over all the self-righteousness I am reading and seeing. Maybe I am thin skinned or hard headed.

I have let this issue percolate far too long. I wanted to not care about it, but my gosh, so many "creative" ways people have gone to run down an investment group has just maxed me out. The idea was to put an outlet mall on a piece of privately-owned property relatively close to an already existing massive development, which would be situated near several highways and away from congestion (like Promenade or Woodland Hills has). I also thought there would be jobs, a place for people to buy things perhaps less expensively, and an attraction for people throughout northeast Oklahoma to come and spend money both there and other businesses. But to some, Tulsa just can't have that. That piece of private property is just supposed to sit in its current state I guess, not because it is in the best interest of the owners but because its in the best interest of the non-owners.

Is anyone in this forum looking to bring this sort of economic activity to Tulsa? If so, let us know about it. Because I would love to know if they are being put through the wringer as well by special interest groups. See, maybe I am feeling better, I didn't say "selfish interest groups"... 

[ZYX]

Maybe Gone to Plaid, or just plain ol' gone nuclear. Maybe I am just angry over all the self-righteousness I am reading and seeing. Maybe I am thin skinned or hard headed.

I have let this issue percolate far too long. I wanted to not care about it, but my gosh, so many "creative" ways people have gone to run down an investment group has just maxed me out. The idea was to put an outlet mall on a piece of privately-owned property relatively close to an already existing massive development, which would be situated near several highways and away from congestion (like Promenade or Woodland Hills has). I also thought there would be jobs, a place for people to buy things perhaps less expensively, and an attraction for people throughout northeast Oklahoma to come and spend money both there and other businesses. But to some, Tulsa just can't have that. That piece of private property is just supposed to sit in its current state I guess, not because it is in the best interest of the owners but because its in the best interest of the non-owners.

Is anyone in this forum looking to bring this sort of economic activity to Tulsa? If so, let us know about it. Because I would love to know if they are being put through the wringer as well by special interest groups. See, maybe I am feeling better, I didn't say "selfish interest groups"...  

No one here has said that we can't have that.

Look, if your opinion is that this should go through no questions asked, then great. Your opinion is backed by your law experience, and you have much more knowledge of the legalities of the situation than I. But for you to act like there is nothing at play here other than a group of people blocking the rights of a landowner to do as he pleases with his property is disingenuous. There is more at stake. I'd list it out, but it's already been done multiple times in this thread. You know the counter argument, and you are choosing to ignore it.