REI

[DowntownDan]

I think the location is fine if they would come up with a design that is unique for the location and with no more parking than is required (and that the parking be predominantly on the street side not the river side).  I think a restaurant off the trail too is a great idea.  If they're sticking to their plan to plop a big box surrounded by an ocean of parking with a brick wall facing the river, then no thanks.  That seems antithetical to what REI's image is in other cities.  If you want a big box, go to 71st and Memorial or Bixby like everyone else.  Also, if the deed doesn't legally allow this at all, lets stick to the law.

If this gets killed off, will there be any effort to renovate the park?  I drive by it and it has the volleyball courts and not much else.  If we're gonna make a big fuss about the park lets make it more park-like.  Maybe a climbing wall and other outdoor activity centers to show REI what would have been possible.

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

The development along the Arkansas River targeting Oklahoma's first REI sporting-goods store may hinge on community support in an issue that is giving city officials flashbacks to previously stalled developments.
Recent opposition to the agreement to sell land on the southwest corner of 71st Street and Riverside Drive for development now has the targeted anchor tenant, Recreational Equipment Inc., asking for a resolution.
"REI has not signed a lease in Tulsa and will not do so until the city has resolved its discussion of the development with the community," according to a statement from Bethany Hawley, manager of REI communications and public affairs.
The statement from REI came with a promise that, should REI come to Tulsa, it will be a good neighbor with plans to partner with local nonprofits to invest in outdoor places like trails and parks.
Hawley did not return a call Monday for comment and further detail.
The issue is in limbo as both sides await a judge's opinion after the city requested a declaratory judgment in Tulsa County District Court on the legal questions raised by opposition groups.
Like a previous plan orchestrated in part by the Mayor's Office for Economic Development to develop land near Turkey Mountain, the proposed Riverside Drive development has met some of the same opposition.
Clay Bird, director of the Mayor's Office for Economic Development, said he's not sure what the city needs to do to appease opponents.
"It's a lot of flashbacks," Bird said, referencing the response to the development near Turkey Mountain. "To me, though, the difference in this is what stage it (the opposition) came."
The request for proposals to develop the site, published by the city more than two years ago, stipulated the site would "take advantage of the unique riverside location and great access."
Bird said the development was intended to enhance public access to the river at the busy intersection.
"It was a public process," Bird said. "It went to the park board before the RFP (request for proposal) was ever issued to let them know that we were thinking about doing this."
In the previous issue, Simon Property Group met resistance in building an outlet mall on private property southwest of Turkey Mountain Urban Wilderness Area.
Instead of building inside Tulsa city limits, the group moved its development — and an estimated $4 million to $5 million per year in sales tax — to a site in the Jenks city limits.
Opponents say the Riverside Drive development strips Tulsa of green space and should not be allowed.
Bird said he's not sure how to resolve the dispute over opposition to the sale, saying it's caught him off guard.
"I have no idea," Bird said. "I'm sure that there's things that will make them happy, but I don't know what they are."
Councilor Jeannie Cue, who last week took over as chair for the Tulsa City Council, said she supports development but wants to review the legal questions, which the council plans to do at its meeting Thursday.
"I think our citizens are concerned that we're using green space that could go someplace else," Cue said.
The legal questions revolve around whether the sale of the land for development through the Tulsa Public Facilities Authority was proper.
"Is it really owned by the TPFA and when it was acquired, was it meant to be sold?" Cue said. "If we do the wrong thing, we're going to have to live with it."
The development would displace volleyball courts on 12 acres of Helmerich Park to the remaining land, about 50 acres, south of the planned development, according to the sale agreement.
The $1.4 million price tag on the site would also go back to enhancing the rest of the park, Bird said.
"I was thinking there's nothing but positives here," Bird said. "When people talk to me in the community, they are just asking me, 'When is REI coming? When is REI coming? When is REI coming?' "

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/rei-deal-on-riverside-may-hinge-on-community-support/article_81f17ac6-0096-527f-9bca-2a6191211ca5.html

(Emphasis added)

Interesting how Bird tries to marginalize the opposition and diminish their opinions as if they are a couple chicken littles on the fringe:

("Bird said he's not sure how to resolve the dispute over opposition to the sale, saying it's caught him off guard. "I have no idea," Bird said. "I'm sure that there's things that will make them happy, but I don't know what they are."" ... "When people talk to me in the community, they are just asking me, 'When is REI coming? When is REI coming? When is REI coming?' ")

I have yet to meet anyone who supports REI going in there, even among hardcore REI fans. The most positive reaction I have heard is along the lines of "Yes it sucks, but since it's a done deal, at least we will have REI and the volleyball courts are supposed to be improved"

The article also panders to the "sales tax lost" crowd, comparing it to the Turkey Mountain preservation efforts as if sales tax is more important than a very popular and irreplaceable park. Comparing to the Riverside lot, as Jeannie Cue said, once that space is sold and turned to a retail, it is gone for good.

How exactly does, to quote PonderInc "1) 600 space surface parking lot 2) huge, blank wall facing and nearly touching the trail 3) the enormous asphalt "roundabout" near the proposed restaurant 4)the proposed drive-thru" take advantage of the unique riverside location and great access" which the RFP stipulated?

Bird claims "It was a public process," because they made a Request for Proposals for the site. When did the public have a chance to review the proposals and have a say? An RFP does not necessarily involve the public as it is intended for those who want to submit a proposal and most citizens would not be interested in that. Had they had meetings showing the massive parking lot and other bleak features, the reactions would have been the same and at a time where perhaps they might have done something to improve the design.

[cannon_fodder]

Like many others, my problem is not REI. My problem is not even the location. My problem is the design and the process.

The design is exactly what one would expect at any big box retail development. Same as everything at Tulsa Hills, or the new Walmart in Glenpool. Or Anystore up in Owasso. It absolutely does not take advantage of the premium location, it does not embrace the river, and it surely doesn't add to the use of the parks or the trails.

I'm also aggravated that they keep pretending this was never a park. That is disingenuous.

Finally, I find the "deal" side of this suspect. How did they agree on a price for the "premium" land?

The Tulsa County Assessor places a value on the full 16 acre tract of $8.35 million. Or $520k per acre. We can look up the neighboring tracks on the assessor website and get some information.

I get that assessor records are not the same as an actual evaluation, but they are instructive. Particularly when they all point to the same thing stemming from recent transactions... so I'm only looking at that source for information.

The BK on the opposite corner sites on .3 acres, and is assessed at $800,000 ($230k land value). That .3 acres was sold in 2011 for $1.4million. Assuming the same building ratio, that values the land at ~$900k. Or $2.7 Million per acre. Tiny parcel, so clearly not a very accurate evaluation for a larger tract.

The new Planet Fitness bought ~2.5 acres for $1.975 million within a year.  The building wasn't valued that highly, as it was entirely gutted and then rebuilt and expanded. The assessor says the land is worth $1.6mil. Or $640k per acre.

The Taco Bueno net door appears to have bought  1 acre for ~$630k (NOT on the corner) about a year ago.

Okay, throwing out the BK outlier which was considerably higher, the assessed and/or known sales evaluations for properties near that corner range from $520k per acre to $640k per acre.

The agreement calls for the sale of 12.3 acres of not-parkland for $1.46 million. WHY ARE WE SELLING OUR LAND FOR $119k per acre when all neighboring land sold for a lot more? Or 1/3rd of the assumed value? It isn't like we are requiring a lot of strings that would justify the public eating $7,000,000. There are housing lots in Broken Arrow that sell for more than that.

Again, I understand that these are not apples to apples. I get that assessor values are not accurate. I know deals can be structured funny. But the consistency is there. One outlier is significantly higher, the other is 1/3rd the value.

[Red Arrow]

If you want a big box, go to 71st and Memorial or Bixby like everyone else.  

Please.... no more big box along Memorial.

[Conan71]

Like many others, my problem is not REI. My problem is not even the location. My problem is the design and the process.

The design is exactly what one would expect at any big box retail development. Same as everything at Tulsa Hills, or the new Walmart in Glenpool. Or Anystore up in Owasso. It absolutely does not take advantage of the premium location, it does not embrace the river, and it surely doesn't add to the use of the parks or the trails.

I'm also aggravated that they keep pretending this was never a park. That is disingenuous.

Finally, I find the "deal" side of this suspect. How did they agree on a price for the "premium" land?

The Tulsa County Assessor places a value on the full 16 acre tract of $8.35 million. Or $520k per acre. We can look up the neighboring tracks on the assessor website and get some information.

I get that assessor records are not the same as an actual evaluation, but they are instructive. Particularly when they all point to the same thing stemming from recent transactions... so I'm only looking at that source for information.

The BK on the opposite corner sites on .3 acres, and is assessed at $800,000 ($230k land value). That .3 acres was sold in 2011 for $1.4million. Assuming the same building ratio, that values the land at ~$900k. Or $2.7 Million per acre. Tiny parcel, so clearly not a very accurate evaluation for a larger tract.

The new Planet Fitness bought ~2.5 acres for $1.975 million within a year.  The building wasn't valued that highly, as it was entirely gutted and then rebuilt and expanded. The assessor says the land is worth $1.6mil. Or $640k per acre.

The Taco Bueno net door appears to have bought  1 acre for ~$630k (NOT on the corner) about a year ago.

Okay, throwing out the BK outlier which was considerably higher, the assessed and/or known sales evaluations for properties near that corner range from $520k per acre to $640k per acre.

The agreement calls for the sale of 12.3 acres of not-parkland for $1.46 million. WHY ARE WE SELLING OUR LAND FOR $119k per acre when all neighboring land sold for a lot more? Or 1/3rd of the assumed value? It isn't like we are requiring a lot of strings that would justify the public eating $7,000,000. There are housing lots in Broken Arrow that sell for more than that.

Again, I understand that these are not apples to apples. I get that assessor values are not accurate. I know deals can be structured funny. But the consistency is there. One outlier is significantly higher, the other is 1/3rd the value.

With a huge "subsidy" on the price of the land, this is hardly a financial bonanza for Tulsa.  How many people will really drive up the turnpike to shop at a new REI store?  Sorry, I really don't see this as a tourist attraction which will add millions to the Tulsa sales tax base every year.

Bird also should be smarter than this.  He used to be a real estate appraiser and I have a funny feeling, with his behavior, he may be anticipating going into development when he leaves the public dole and is paying forward favors.  I do have concerns though that if Bynum were to win the next mayoral election Bird might end up staying on board as he also served under Bynum's cousin, Bill LaFortune.

As far back as 2006, Michael Bates was implicating that Bird wasn't beyond having conflicts of interest regarding his position on the south Tulsa toll bridge while running for county commissioner:

http://www.batesline.com/archives/2006/07/the-birdbridge.html

I truly hope we end up with a new mayor who:

-Has common sense when it comes to economics.  You simply don't grow your sales tax base by adding one crappy new retail development after another.  You grow your tax base by making Tulsa a better place to visit and move to.

-Has some balls in demanding better design and development standards.  Tulsa looks like it has no self-esteem when we try and lure retail development. 

-Listens to public opinion carefully and isn't afraid to reel in his un-elected appointees when they clearly disrespect and demean citizens who express concern about haphazard development.

-Doesn't have this "Aw shucks, golly gee" attitude the current mayor does (sorry ripped that off from Blake Ewing on Smart Growth's FB page).  He comes off like a complete rube.

[Conan71]

Please.... no more big box along Memorial.

NIMBY 

[DowntownDan]

Please.... no more big box along Memorial.

Good luck with that.  Big box and drive-thrus are what they love in that area and its what they get.

[Townsend]

Good luck with that.  Big box and drive-thrus are what they love in that area and its what they get.

We really do love our big box and Jeezus out there.

[Red Arrow]

NIMBY 

Yep.  We have enough with Costco.  Someone else's turn.

[Red Arrow]

Good luck with that.  Big box and drive-thrus are what they love in that area and its what they get.

Way too many do anyway.  "We" don't have a monopoly on that though.

[dsjeffries]

Clay Bird was on the news again last night, this time calling the park a briar patch. Gotta watch the video to get the full effect. Looks like things are heating up.

KTUL Story


"Tulsa, Oklahoma — Like the volleyball courts on the site of the proposed development, the battle over the future of Helmerich park has a new serve.

"This is just a bad real estate deal," said former Tulsa mayor Terry Young, questioning the city's $1.4 million price tag for the property.

"We have found no evidence that an appraisal was done for the sale," he said.

"We had an appraisal done on the property, the valuation was $7.8 million dollars," and that, says city of Tulsa economic development director Clay Bird, was for the entire park, roughly 55 acres, resulting in the corresponding $1.4 million price tag for the just under 9 acres of the development.

"Should be in the ballpark," he said.

But not from Mr. Young' perspective.

"The county assessors records show that the fair market value of this particular tract should be somewhere in the vicinity of $3.5 million dollars," he said.

Also ready to weigh in on the development as a whole...

"The citizens of Tulsa want it, I want it, is that the right place?" asked Tulsa city councilor Jeannie Cue, looking to explore all the options.

"Do we have other locations that maybe would fit better than just there, or do we need to expand and develop that whole corner?" she said.

The battle over Helmerich, with plenty of more volleys on the way.

"What were they thinking?" asked Young.

"Have you been out there? It's a briar patch," said Bird."

[carltonplace]

Like many others, my problem is not REI. My problem is not even the location. My problem is the design and the process.

The design is exactly what one would expect at any big box retail development. Same as everything at Tulsa Hills, or the new Walmart in Glenpool. Or Anystore up in Owasso. It absolutely does not take advantage of the premium location, it does not embrace the river, and it surely doesn't add to the use of the parks or the trails.

I'm also aggravated that they keep pretending this was never a park. That is disingenuous.

Finally, I find the "deal" side of this suspect. How did they agree on a price for the "premium" land?

The Tulsa County Assessor places a value on the full 16 acre tract of $8.35 million. Or $520k per acre. We can look up the neighboring tracks on the assessor website and get some information.

I get that assessor records are not the same as an actual evaluation, but they are instructive. Particularly when they all point to the same thing stemming from recent transactions... so I'm only looking at that source for information.

The BK on the opposite corner sites on .3 acres, and is assessed at $800,000 ($230k land value). That .3 acres was sold in 2011 for $1.4million. Assuming the same building ratio, that values the land at ~$900k. Or $2.7 Million per acre. Tiny parcel, so clearly not a very accurate evaluation for a larger tract.

The new Planet Fitness bought ~2.5 acres for $1.975 million within a year.  The building wasn't valued that highly, as it was entirely gutted and then rebuilt and expanded. The assessor says the land is worth $1.6mil. Or $640k per acre.

The Taco Bueno net door appears to have bought  1 acre for ~$630k (NOT on the corner) about a year ago.

Okay, throwing out the BK outlier which was considerably higher, the assessed and/or known sales evaluations for properties near that corner range from $520k per acre to $640k per acre.

The agreement calls for the sale of 12.3 acres of not-parkland for $1.46 million. WHY ARE WE SELLING OUR LAND FOR $119k per acre when all neighboring land sold for a lot more? Or 1/3rd of the assumed value? It isn't like we are requiring a lot of strings that would justify the public eating $7,000,000. There are housing lots in Broken Arrow that sell for more than that.

Again, I understand that these are not apples to apples. I get that assessor values are not accurate. I know deals can be structured funny. But the consistency is there. One outlier is significantly higher, the other is 1/3rd the value.

The sale price is 40% below the assessor value which I think is accurate for a parcel along the river and next to two major thoroughfares and in the shadow of Turkey Mountain. The city is losing almost $2.5M on this deal. If we are going to develop this property why wouldn't we just offer it on a long term lease and keep the land?

[cannon_fodder]

NPR reported this morning that in addition to selling it well below market, there is also a provision for a $600,000 kickback to the developer. He pays $1.4mil, and gets $600k back to do site work/sewer/water etc.

So the actually purchase price is just $800,000. Or ~ $65k an acre. Arguably 10% of the market price for neighboring properties.

Then from that $800k they have to rebuild six sand volleyball courts, build out some parking, and move the trail.

The University of Virginia recently spent more than $50k building 2 competition level sand volleyball courts. Lets pretend we build our courts for less than half the cost of each of their courts, $10 each. There goes $60k to rebuild the courts. Adding a parking lot to wherever the courts will go = $20k. And throw in $20k to move the trail back (which will likely require  a retaining wall along the river). Whatever, my spit ball is $100k of other expenses for the City.

Can the City sell me land below market and then give me half my money back to improve the land they gave me?  Please?

So we net $700k from the sale of 12+ acres. We expect nothing of architectural, walkability, or standard of living significance. We don't expect much, if anything, in net gain in sales tax (Academy, Gander Mtn., Midwest Sporting Goods, Sports Authority, Dicks, local shops, etc.). We don't expect it to enhance the use of the parks, trails, or be visually interesting for passers by. It will not enhance the river in any way.

I don't get it.

[DowntownDan]

Sales taxes, bro.  That's all that matters to them.  At least until we hear that they got some sales tax abatement to thank them for blessing us with their riverside box.

[PonderInc]

What Cannon_Fodder said.