Moratorium: No more sidewalk cafes

[DTowner]

Problem: no one is asking for permission before they use public space.

Solution: Stop granting permission for people to use public space.

Now ask yourself, does the solution do anything to solve the problem? I get that they don't want to issue permits/licenses that then conflict with the advice on walkability, so issue 180 day permits or some such thing. But the above illustrates the issue here - if the city just stops granting permission, now there's no point in even asking.

The issue needs to be addressed in a coherent manner. So good for them. But this temporary "no more" thing doesn't seem to make much sense.
- - -

I don't think a short-term license is going to do most businesses any favors, especially if after the short-term license expires the rules are different going forward.  While it might not matter if you're just going to put out a couple of tables and chairs, generally we are talking about more.  Putting up things such as signage, awnings, etc. under a short-term license don't make much sense unless you can be assured the rules are not going to change and wipe out your investment.

If this moratorium lasts a long time, I would agree it doesn't make sense.  But from the article, it sounds like the new rules are nearing completion and the city is awaiting the walkability study, which is also supposed to be completed relatively soon.  Of course, this being city government we are talking about, time has a way of slipping into the future....

[Bamboo World]

They [Channel 6] put Paul Zachary in front of the camera for last night's story.  He said the problem is not just patio furniture, they are also looking into making sure in the future improvements like handicap ramps are not being constructed on public ROW but as a part of the private structure.

Thanks for the reference to another Channel 6 report.  I'd forgotten about the seating and fence at 3rd and Lansing. 

In my opinion, the City doesn't need to wait on Jeff Speck to establish some guidelines for using sidewalks.  His recommendation for Fort Lauderdale was a clear zone of about 6 feet.  The City can go ahead and set standards pertaining to clear zones, insurance requirements, time limits, fees, penalties, application procedures, etc.  Other than minimum clear zones on the sidewalks, I don't see how the other issues relate to Jeff Speck's walkability study.

[Bamboo World]

If this moratorium lasts a long time, I would agree it doesn't make sense.  But from the article, it sounds like the new rules are nearing completion and the city is awaiting the walkability study, which is also supposed to be completed relatively soon.  Of course, this being city government we are talking about, time has a way of slipping into the future....

From which article?  The Tulsa World link in the initial post?  If so, I didn't see anything about the new licencing rules nearing completion.  Dawn Warrick said her office has been working on a new policy that could be completed soon, not that it would be completed soon.

Also, I don't see anything in the article about the walkability study being completed relatively soon.  According to the article, Jim Twombly said he hopes the walkability study, which City officials could get a first look at next month, will include recommendations on best practices for Tulsa's license agreement policy.  The article doesn't state that Jeff Speck's walkability study will include such recommendations, but that Jim Twombly hopes it will.  The article doesn't state that the walkability study will be completed relatively soon.

[Conan71]

So, in effect you are responsible as a businessman to expect accidents on your property and to be possibly liable for them. You see this as legal jargon, the reality is people pay for other peoples stupid behaviors pretty routinely just to keep the law suits at bay. There have been many payouts at public events, for instance Oktoberfest, where drunks trip over things.

Unless it is happening without a lawsuit, that's just not the case.

At least according to OSCN records, Oktoberfest has been sued once: in 2005.  Tulsa RPA was named as a co-defendant.  RPA has been sued four times in 30 years and won one of those cases.  Mayfest does not show up anywhere on OSCN.

[Bamboo World]

what if the car plows into the restaurant and wipes out the people sitting inside?  
what if the guy gets out of his car, goes inside, and kills everyone sitting at the round tables because tables are meant to be square?

I don't see how the restaurant is responsible for either.

Neither do I.  And I don't see how most of these issues relate to Jeff Speck's walkability study.  Again and again, he recommends allowing parking along the curb to help protect pedestrians on the sidewalk.  $70,000 doesn't go very far with consulting firms when they get sidetracked with silly licensing and insurance stuff.  It's foolish for Tulsa to expect Jeff Speck to delve into non-walkability issues.  That would be a waste of his time and consulting fee.

[AquaMan]

Unless it is happening without a lawsuit, that's just not the case.

At least according to OSCN records, Oktoberfest has been sued once: in 2005.  Tulsa RPA was named as a co-defendant.  RPA has been sued four times in 30 years and won one of those cases.  Mayfest does not show up anywhere on OSCN.

Unless it is happening without a lawsuit

Unfortunately, RPA employees, past and present, talk about such things. The one that comes to mind is a doctor who tripped over one of the power lines at Oktoberfest when RPA was merely the landlord. There goes 6 figures.

Its easier to pay out cash settlements than proceed with legal actions which would mean they never end up on OSCN. Very common to keep insurance rates low, pr neutral and voters supportive.

Of course most businesses work hard to be responsible and safe. One large payout with lawsuits and press coverage can pretty much end your little sidewalk business.

I still wonder why no one thinks its prejudicial to require other businesses using public property to carry large insurance policies but using public property without permission or insurance by sidewalk vendors is being defended???

[DTowner]

From which article?  The Tulsa World link in the initial post?  If so, I didn't see anything about the new licencing rules nearing completion.  Dawn Warrick said her office has been working on a new policy that could be completed soon, not that it would be completed soon.

Yes, I think the statements you reference support what I said - the rules are close and the city will see the walkability study soon.  My point is that I think some are making a bigger deal out of this moratorium than is warranted by the statements of city officials.  Yes, they could be lying, or incompetent and unable to accomplishing anything when they say they will, or they have other sinister motives that have nothing to do with achieving what they say they intend.  If thoughts of nefarious intentions or blinding incompetence keep you warm at night, more power to you.

[cannon_fodder]

Unless it is happening without a lawsuit

Unfortunately, RPA employees, past and present, talk about such things. The one that comes to mind is a doctor who tripped over one of the power lines at Oktoberfest when RPA was merely the landlord. There goes 6 figures.

Its easier to pay out cash settlements than proceed with legal actions which would mean they never end up on OSCN.

Again, at previous firms I've seen dozens  of "slip and fall" type of claims. Very few settled without a lawsuit (I can't think of any actually). Insurance companies are not in the habit of handing out cash because they think its fun. Rather, they make money by NOT paying claims. Its all about game theory - the Plaintiff plays the game once, the insurance company is in it for the long run. So if they can beat down most claims, less claims will be brought in the long run. If they pay out "nuisance" claims, they get more nuisance claims.

At trial "slip and fall" claims are notoriously difficult. Juries hate them. You have to show some egregious behavior that to a significant injury or they don't care. Even suits against Walmart or other evil mega-corporations routinely lose at jury trial.

Throwing around bad slip and fall claims would be an incredibly bad business model. Throwing them at government agencies is laughably bad. The City of Tulsa doesn't settle obvious claims and instead regularly forces jury trials. If RPA is paying out awards, go grab the public records and publish them. They are subject to the Governmental Tort Claims Act and the info is public knowledge. Like this 2015 claim they denied (at G).

I'm not saying you don't need insurance to protect yourself. I'm not saying there isn't some cost associated with defending crap claims. I'm not even saying that settlements of bad claims don't happen. But my experience actually dealing with such claims is that insurance companies aren't stupid, they don't throw money away when they don't have to. Perhaps the issue is you only hear about it when they do...

[AquaMan]

Seriously? I had to stop after your first sentence. Two insurance companies I used paid out $20,000 and $10,000 respectively for accidents that the other party was ticketed for but both lawyered up! I complained because its my premiums that rise. They both said it was cheaper to simply pay and be done with it and it was their choice.

Now I'll read the rest of your post. I still want to know why using public property without permission and uninsured is being defended at all.

[AquaMan]

I'm not talking about fake slip and fall claims though there are plenty of them. When you put a restaurant table next to a curb with car traffic nearby and an injury occurs because a pedestrian had to walk around the tables or a car jumped the curb or the chair leg slipped and on, and on.... even though you took great pains as the owner to avoid such accidents, I think its pretty clear you are going to pay.

No permission to use public property, insurance company not aware of sidewalk service, city not insured against this use but aware of it and you get the case to prosecute? You think the owner will walk?

RPA? Oktoberfest? Ask around.

[Bamboo World]

My point is that I think some are making a bigger deal out of this moratorium than is warranted by the statements of city officials.

Thanks for your reply, DTowner.  I'm getting info from six places:

1. The August 8th Tulsa World "Moratorium" article by Jarrel Wade (link in the initial post)
2. An August 9th Channel 6 report
3. An August 11th written statement on the Mayor's Office's webpage
4. An August 11th Channel 6 report
5. An August 11th Channel 23 report
6. An August 12th Tulsa World article, "City offers license agreement clarification" by Jarrel Wade

Sources #1, #4 and #6 include the word "moratorium."  Sources #2, #3, and #5 don't.

I think Jarrel Wade's World August 8th "Moratorium" article was poorly titled and poorly written.  It mentioned that the Mayor's Office recently issued a moratorium.  I don't think that's the case, but I'm not sure.  The various articles seem to be contradictory.

I'm not seeing nefarious intentions, but poorly worded statements.  Either the Mayor's Office recently issued a moratorium halting sidewalk cafés, or it didn't.  After seeing the August 11th Channel 6 report and reading the Mayor's Office's webpage, I'm guessing that a moratorium was never issued -or- if the Mayor's Office did issue a moratorium, then it was quickly rescinded/modified/recharacterized/redefined or whatever.

If the City wants to review its licensing policies/procedures, that's okay.  But other than perhaps a clear zone width recommendation for sidewalk usage, I don't understand how Jeff Speck would or should be involved with Tulsa's licensing agreement policy.  His studies are about encouraging pedestrian activities on public sidewalks, such as outdoor dining at café tables.  His study for Fort Lauderdale mentioned a minimum clear zone of about 6 feet on a sidewalk.  Why would the distance be any different in Tulsa?

I can't think of one instance in downtown Tulsa where sidewalk café tables and chairs completely block pedestrian circulation.  I know of a few choke points, but I've never been forced off the sidewalk into the parking or traffic lanes.  I'm not saying it doesn't happen or hasn't happened, but that it hasn't happened to me.

In his August 12th article, Jarrel Wade states that Paul Zachary showed city councilors numerous examples from recent years where contractors built on public property without the proper licensing, but I don't see any mention of when Paul Zachary showed city councilors the examples.  The same August 12th article states that several of Paul Zachary's examples involved not enough room left on sidewalks for a wheelchair to pass, and other examples were from downtown properties built into public rights of way legally, but with unintended side effects caused by the lack of a comprehensive policy.

I'd like to see these examples.  After a quick check on TGOV, I can't find any recent meetings with Paul Zachary's presentation, but I was able to find an agenda online, for an August 11 City Council Urban & Economic Development Committee Meeting.  Regarding Paul Zachary's presentation, I think Jarrel Wade might have been referring to Item 17 on that August 11th committee meeting agenda.  

All of this leaves me wondering what and who started this "moratorium" or whatever else it might be called, and when.  Was it the mayor's office?  If so, why now in the waning days of the current mayor's administration?  Was it a city employee at all?  Was it a complaint?  Was anyone physically injured?  Was anyone damaged monetarily or otherwise?    Is there a timeline for completion other than "soon"?  A deadline?  If so, on what date?

[Bamboo World]

What I don't like is how narrow the sidewalks are on some of our major streets like Boston Avenue.  They are absurdly narrow.

Around 1999 or 2000, when Susan Savage was mayor, the City of Tulsa and Downtown Tulsa Unlimited published a report called "Downtown Tulsa | The Heart of the Region."  The 24-page report included suggestions for a number of projects, including revamping Boston Avenue from 3rd to 7th, which was one-way with four north-bound lanes then.

The report suggested widening the sidewalks along Boston Avenue from twelve to twenty feet.  The proposal was for a twelve-foot north-bound lane, a twelve-foot south-bound lane, and eight-foot parallel parking lanes along each curb.  The stated purpose for the sidewalk widening was to allow for street front retail use of sidewalk space and to create opportunities for additional shade trees at regular intervals along the street.

The accompanying drawing on page 13 of the report shows a series of trees in slightly raised planters (similar to those along Main between 3rd and 4th) on both sides of Boston, alternating with red brick or paver strips and double acorn lights.  The rendering also shows awnings on the west side of the street above the sidewalk along the Thompson Building, and five café tables in front of the Fawcett Building on the east side of Boston.  The portion of the sidewalk adjacent to the buildings appears to have been concrete or granite slabs -- the red bricks or pavers were only used as accents between the tree planters, at the bases of the double acorn light poles.

It appears as though the proposed sidewalk widening along Boston was based on the sidewalks along State Street in Chicago, because a photo taken near the Marshall Field building looking north appears on page 12 of the report, below a photo looking north on Boston.

On page 6 of the report, a drawing of Main Street shows several café tables and vendor carts on the public sidewalks, which also appear to have been concrete or granite slabs, with red brick or paver strips along the curbs.  

On page 8, a drawing of Fifth Street shows four café tables near the Mayo Building where Billy's is now and numerous banners and awnings above public sidewalks.  A street vendor selling flowers is depicted at the south curb line of Fifth Street.

On page 5, the report states that "streetscape and open space improvements in the nine-block core area will encourage more intensive pedestrian use of the street frontage and stimulate private investment along these image streets.  Sidewalk pavements will be widened to provide adequate space for streetscape amenities, furniture, lighting, sculpture, and outdoor café seating."

I don't remember all of the details, but John Chris Bumgarner complained about widening the sidewalks along Boston, and the City revised its plans to keep them at twelve feet wide, with curb extensions near the intersections (creating sidewalks about nineteen feet wide near the corners of 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th).

In my opinion, the relatively low volume of traffic on Boston doesn't warrant four moving lanes of traffic.  The mid-block sidewalks could be widened from twelve feet to about twenty-two feet, maintaining a parallel parking lane on both sides and allowing for left turn lanes near the intersections.  But moving curbs is expensive, and moving manholes and drainage structures is VERY expensive.  If the City does decide to widen the sidewalks in the 500 block of Boston, I'd suggest starting near 5th and working south, leaving the manholes and inlets near 6th intact.  That wouldn't require very much regrading to keep the drainage working as it does now.  

[Breadburner]

Lol..The city does what it should do and people can't wrap their bucking heads around it....

[Bamboo World]

What I can't wrap my head around is why the City needs to wait on Jeff Speck to create a new licensing agreement policy regarding fees, penalties, insurance, etc.

Jeff Speck's studies are about walkability.  He is consistent with his recommendations for making downtowns more walkable and using public sidewalks.  What he advocates can be found in his book, Walkable City, or in the walkability analyses he has already completed for OKC, Fort Lauderdale, Boise, Albuquerque, and Lancaster.

[AquaMan]

They need a study to back up their decisions. Simple as that. Then its someone else's fault if it fails.