Simon Outlet Mall 61st & Hwy 75

[guido911]

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.

I never said "no questions asked". Read up about two posts where I say people have the right to voice concern. Even if this in my opinion nothing more than NIMBY (except that some of the folks pissed off are piggy-backing off of someone else's "backyard").

The only "law" thing I am bringing into this equation was triggered by a well thought out and reasoned analysis provided by cynical, which has largely been overlooked. After reading ad nauseum about Simon's behavior in this forum and other places, I have decided to take a look cynical's position to really learn what is at stake and what could happen. I encourage you to look back at his/her post and do the same.

[ZYX]

I never said "no questions asked". Read up about two posts where I say people have the right to voice concern. Even if this in my opinion nothing more than NIMBY (except that some of the folks pissed off are piggy-backing off of someone else's "backyard").

The only "law" thing I am bringing into this equation was triggered by a well thought out and reasoned analysis provided by cynical, which has largely been overlooked. After reading ad nauseum about Simon's behavior in this forum and other places, I have decided to take a look cynical's position to really learn what is at stake and what could happen. I encourage you to look back at his/her post and do the same.

I have read all of cynical's posts, and appreciate his/her contributions.

To be honest, I really don't know what can legally be done on either side. If someone who owns adjacent property to yours builds something on that land that then causes your own property to flood every time it rains, do you have any legal standing against them?

Really, I couldn't care less what the landowner wants to build on their land, if it would only affect their property. Sure, it would suck to lose the trails, but that's the cost when the trails are on private property. But an outlet mall will greatly affect the surrounding land, counter to the current and intended future use. To me, it is just like someone building an office building in a residential sub-division. It is that far out of place.

[RecycleMichael]

I am opposed to the outlet mall. I feel this way about all malls.  Workers should be given all uniforms for free.

Enough with your misguided individuality and capitalism.

[Conan71]

I never said "no questions asked". Read up about two posts where I say people have the right to voice concern. Even if this in my opinion nothing more than NIMBY (except that some of the folks pissed off are piggy-backing off of someone else's "backyard").

The only "law" thing I am bringing into this equation was triggered by a well thought out and reasoned analysis provided by cynical, which has largely been overlooked. After reading ad nauseum about Simon's behavior in this forum and other places, I have decided to take a look cynical's position to really learn what is at stake and what could happen. I encourage you to look back at his/her post and do the same.

What Cynical expressed in terms of litigation has not happened at any point in anyone else's recent memory.  The only two remedies the proposed property buyer has legally is to petition to district court if the council rejects TMAPC's recommendation on the zoning change.  Or if it's clear someone interfered with a legal contract.  I'd hope they would sue anyone who would do that.  If they sue over the refusal to grant the zoning change, they do so at their own peril.  After all the public outcry, there is little doubt the present property owners will profit nicely.  No one wants to deal with the next potential buyer. 

Have you downloaded the three page pdf of the YMCA's conditions for them to support how Simon could be a good neighbor and reviewed it?  Their thoughts are very well developed and actually in line with Simon's own investor propaganda claiming how they have this circle of accountability.  You should read it some time.  Or in the alternative, take me up on my standing offer to come out for a few hours with CF and I some day.

[RecycleMichael]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/ymca-opposes-mall-development-without-concessions/article_2261e7a9-dff8-598f-8604-39314210e200.html

YMCA opposes mall development without concessions
Its board writes a letter outlining its conditions.

One neighbor of the proposed outlet mall near the Turkey Mountain Urban Wilderness Area has made its opinion known.
The YMCA of Greater Tulsa Board of Directors will not support the construction of the proposed mall if the development does not include some of the board's recommendations for the project, according to a letter the YMCA provided to city councilors.

The proposed mall at 61st Street and U.S. 75 would be built directly north of the Westside YMCA summer camp. The camp serves approximately 3,600 young people a year.

"We are committed to protect a valuable and unique urban wilderness experience for children today, and for generations to come," the letter states. "For this reason the YMCA requests that certain conditions and requirements be included in the development plan that will achieve the goal of lessening the impact on our children."

The letter lists 10 requests from the YMCA board, including that the Mooser Creek watershed be "least disturbed."

Other requests of the developer include:

Leaving a 13-acre buffer zone undisturbed

Developing a storm-water management plan to meet the needs of the mall and improve the quality of the water in the YMCA's upper pond, Lake Logan, and water drainage into Mooser Creek.

Paying for periodic testing of pond and lake water at the YMCA property.

Eliminating all views of the mall from anywhere on YMCA property.

Changing minimum setback requirements from 100 feet to 700 feet on the north boundary of the mall and from 20 feet to 300 feet on the east boundary.

Changing the maximum allowed building height from 85 feet to 35 feet.

[ZYX]

What Cynical expressed in terms of litigation has not happened at any point in anyone else's recent memory.  The only two remedies the proposed property buyer has legally is to petition to district court if the council rejects TMAPC's recommendation on the zoning change.  Or if it's clear someone interfered with a legal contract.  I'd hope they would sue anyone who would do that.  If they sue over the refusal to grant the zoning change, they do so at their own peril.  After all the public outcry, there is little doubt the present property owners will profit nicely.  No one wants to deal with the next potential buyer. 

Have you downloaded the three page pdf of the YMCA's conditions for them to support how Simon could be a good neighbor and reviewed it?  Their thoughts are very well developed and actually in line with Simon's own investor propaganda claiming how they have this circle of accountability.  You should read it some time.  Or in the alternative, take me up on my standing offer to come out for a few hours with CF and I some day.

Could you link me to the letter from the Y? I'd like to read it.

[Conan71]

Could you link me to the letter from the Y? I'd like to read it.

Link has disappeared from from the TW site.  I'm pretty sure I saved the .pdf.  I'll post it later.

[RecycleMichael]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/letter-from-ymca-of-greater-tulsa-to-simon-group-outlet/pdf_8eb9ef2a-23b2-5367-ac0f-2d6fb406f07a.html

[ZYX]

Thanks!

[PonderInc]

It's not just about a private property owner doing what they want with their land. That would be true if it had no negative impacts on adjoining properties AND if there were no costs to the public. So if the developer wants to pay for all necessary roads, water, and sewer infrastructure (construction and long-term maintenance) as well as all fire and police services needed to operate their mall without public support, go for it.

But that is not on the table. There are enormous public costs associated with sprawl and greenfield development, and Tulsa cannot afford it. Sprawl only appears to work because the original infrastructure is typically built by the developer and it doesn't require much maintenance for the first 25 years. When things begin to crumble at the 25 year mark, the city discovers that they have not raised enough revenue from the development to pay for the repairs. So they tap into new revenue from new sprawl to pay for the old sprawl. We can't sustain this pattern bc the math doesn't work.  As Chuck Marohn from Strong Towns says: "If you lose money on every transaction, you don't make it up in volume."

This development is even dumber bc the developer doesn't want to provide the initial infrastructure. They want a tif to pay for it. So we will "pay" for it in lost taxes initially (the tif would freeze taxes at the current unimproved level, so our kids won't even benefit from increased tax revenue for schools--they'll get roads and interchanges and signalized intersections they can't afford to maintain in a place they don't want), and then we'll keep paying and paying from then on. Long after the developer makes their money and abandons the site. No thank you.

[TheArtist]

It's not just about a private property owner doing what they want with their land. That would be true if it had no negative impacts on adjoining properties AND if there were no costs to the public. So if the developer wants to pay for all necessary roads, water, and sewer infrastructure (construction and long-term maintenance) as well as all fire and police services needed to operate their mall without public support, go for it.

But that is not on the table. There are enormous public costs associated with sprawl and greenfield development, and Tulsa cannot afford it. Sprawl only appears to work because the original infrastructure is typically built by the developer and it doesn't require much maintenance for the first 25 years. When things begin to crumble at the 25 year mark, the city discovers that they have not raised enough revenue from the development to pay for the repairs. So they tap into new revenue from new sprawl to pay for the old sprawl. We can't sustain this pattern bc the math doesn't work.  As Chuck Marohn from Strong Towns says: "If you lose money on every transaction, you don't make it up in volume."

This development is even dumber bc the developer doesn't want to provide the initial infrastructure. They want a tif to pay for it. So we will "pay" for it in lost taxes initially (the tif would freeze taxes at the current unimproved level, so our kids won't even benefit from increased tax revenue for schools--they'll get roads and interchanges and signalized intersections they can't afford to maintain in a place they don't want), and then we'll keep paying and paying from then on. Long after the developer makes their money and abandons the site. No thank you.

Very well said.  I have not weighed in on this topic yet for I haven't really felt any connection to the issue.  I do have a lot of friends who feel very strongly about it which has put me in the position of just keeping my mouth shut lol. Frankly I am not a "naturey" type person so don't really care about it from that perspective.  Tulsa is a tiny speck in an ocean of trees, fields, rivers, lakes, etc. so I don't see it as a "oh we got to protect these trees and animals living in this spot of land type of thing. However, would like to see more smaller parks, and bike trails that could be bike transit corridors, but this isn't that.

But with your post, that makes sense to me. That hits my "I want to see more pedestrian lively, healthy, happy, urban development, more efficient and cost effective land use, more efficient, transit versus auto use, etc." sensibilities.   

Couple points I have recently ran across that go to this, and to how we develop our cities.  "Studies have now shown that, cities that have more people walking and biking have more happier healthier people.  People who live in cities where more people bike and walk are happier than those who live in cities where more people drive, they also live longer and are healthier.  Some new studies have shown that suicides are more than DOUBLE in suburban type areas versus urban areas.  (did some hunting around last year and discovered that more people kill themselves in South Tulsa, than are murdered in all of the rest of Tulsa combined)  Another study has shown that people who are around lots of other people are less depressed than those who are not. That works even for those who "say" they don't like being around lots of people and even if they aren't actually interacting with them. And yes, being around nature boosts your health and happiness. A well designed city can have both great urban development and nature mixed in.  All of the above seem to be pointing in similar directions and coming to similar conclusions.


We live in a city that has a constant low level droning of stress and discomfort.  And we don't even realize it. It seems to be just the way it is to most people, and from their perspective, natural.  I remember coming back from London and being shocked at how lifeless and devoid life seemed here in comparison. Interestingly enough I actually found more quiet, peaceful, beautiful areas with trees and gardens there than here, while at the same time being moments away from of all sorts of incredible wonderful things to see and do.  Our built environment effects our lives, our living, far more than most of us realize. It doesn't just effect our health and happiness, it also effects our pocket book as Ponder pointed out.

[Conan71]

It's auto-centric and not pedestrian-friendly.  Nor are the proposed connections to it.  That's all you need to know.  

[AquaMan]

Some organizations and cities are forever destined to be lower performing without drastic leadership changes in critical positions or catastrophe. For instance our reputation for a model flood management systems stemmed from those terrible floods back in the late seventies/early eighties. A friend of mine often reminds me, "We are fixer personalities. We are attracted to these places because we know we can be contributors in their repair. But the truth is we can't fix them. They don't want to be fixed. They don't even admit they need fixing and certainly not by the likes of us!" Its sobering but he's right. Many of us simply are passing time, waiting for opportunity. Others just leave in favor of higher consciousness communities.

So, we have TPS, we have DHS, we have Dewey and we have that low level drone of stress and discomfort of which Artist speaks.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Very well said.  I have not weighed in on this topic yet for I haven't really felt any connection to the issue.  I do have a lot of friends who feel very strongly about it which has put me in the position of just keeping my mouth shut lol. Frankly I am not a "naturey" type person so don't really care about it from that perspective.  Tulsa is a tiny speck in an ocean of trees, fields, rivers, lakes, etc. so I don't see it as a "oh we got to protect these trees and animals living in this spot of land type of thing. However, would like to see more smaller parks, and bike trails that could be bike transit corridors, but this isn't that.

But with your post, that makes sense to me. That hits my "I want to see more pedestrian lively, healthy, happy, urban development, more efficient and cost effective land use, more efficient, transit versus auto use, etc." sensibilities.   

Couple points I have recently ran across that go to this, and to how we develop our cities.  "Studies have now shown that, cities that have more people walking and biking have more happier healthier people.  People who live in cities where more people bike and walk are happier than those who live in cities where more people drive, they also live longer and are healthier.  Some new studies have shown that suicides are more than DOUBLE in suburban type areas versus urban areas.  (did some hunting around last year and discovered that more people kill themselves in South Tulsa, than are murdered in all of the rest of Tulsa combined)  Another study has shown that people who are around lots of other people are less depressed than those who are not. That works even for those who "say" they don't like being around lots of people and even if they aren't actually interacting with them. And yes, being around nature boosts your health and happiness. A well designed city can have both great urban development and nature mixed in.  All of the above seem to be pointing in similar directions and coming to similar conclusions.


We live in a city that has a constant low level droning of stress and discomfort.  And we don't even realize it. It seems to be just the way it is to most people, and from their perspective, natural.  I remember coming back from London and being shocked at how lifeless and devoid life seemed here in comparison. Interestingly enough I actually found more quiet, peaceful, beautiful areas with trees and gardens there than here, while at the same time being moments away from of all sorts of incredible wonderful things to see and do.  Our built environment effects our lives, our living, far more than most of us realize. It doesn't just effect our health and happiness, it also effects our pocket book as Ponder pointed out.

Excellent!!


Back in the 70's, the American Theater Company here in town had the Joyce Martel show and one of the songs - I think it was called "Southern Hills" - pointed out just what you are talking about for south Tulsa, using Southern Hills as the focal point, but it also applied to the rest of suburbia.  This phenomenon goes back a long, long time! 

We don't seem able to break the cycle for whatever reason.  We live in the most beautiful part of the state - northeast Oklahoma.  We have a lot of the 'texture' and feel of some of the Ozarks - in town and around the area - without the elevation.  We have massive water related recreational opportunities in the area.  We have a great trails system but could use more camping possibilities both in/near town and surrounding.  Maybe a "significant" walking/biking/hiking/fishing park every square mile or two throughout the city as a neighborhood focal point?

[Stanley1]

The proposed mall at 61st Street and U.S. 75 would be built directly north of the Westside YMCA summer camp. The camp serves approximately 3,600 young people a year.

Uhh.....no it wouldn't.