Towerview Apartments

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

This morning's paper has an editorial by Ken Neal supporting the use of eminent domain to acquire and demolish the Towerview Apts.  Whether or not this may be the best decision, I am really tired of the TW continuing to use the following picture whenever they discuss the Towerview issue:


Strange that they don't want to show the FRONT of the building (which, until an article by the TW caused it to be condemned, was not a bad looking building).  If they're going to show only the backside of the building when debating its future, perhaps they should also show a picture of Ken Neal's naked butt (instead of his head shot) to accompany the editorial.  It may not be his best angle, but at least it would be consistant.  (No offense to Mr. Neal...just pointing out the TW's bias in its choice of photography.)

Sorry Ponder, but after driving by the front of the Towerview, it really isn't much better than the rear-view photo... and after re-reading the three part story in the TW by Michael Overall from Sept. 2004, I don't care if politics did play a role in the condemnation of the Towerview... those  owners should be in jail for allowing people to live in those conditions.

And yes, if eminent domain has to be used to protect Tulsa taxpayers from a couple of internet speculators from Portland who sat for months and let their rat/roach/flea infested SRO pay-by-the-week hotel turn into something beyond "substandard," so be it.

Those guys can't even pay the previous owners for the property they bought... but are still counting on making a hefty profit...

[perspicuity85]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex


Sorry Ponder, but after driving by the front of the Towerview, it really isn't much better than the rear-view photo... and after re-reading the three part story in the TW by Michael Overall from Sept. 2004, I don't care if politics did play a role in the condemnation of the Towerview... those  owners should be in jail for allowing people to live in those conditions.

And yes, if eminent domain has to be used to protect Tulsa taxpayers from a couple of internet speculators from Portland who sat for months and let their rat/roach/flea infested SRO pay-by-the-week hotel turn into something beyond "substandard," so be it.

Those guys can't even pay the previous owners for the property they bought... but are still counting on making a hefty profit...

I agree.  The Towerview is an absolute eyesore and I'm willing to look the other way on the political implications as long as something that enhances downtown is put in its place.  The Heavenly proposal was fine with me exxxxcept for  the part about the bus station.  Heavenly obviously sterotyped bus riders as degenerate members of society that they didn't want around their upscale development.  In NYC the subway is the cheapest way to get around, and there are tons of subway street accesses in every part of the city.  I've never heard of upscale property developers in NYC complain about the proximity of their site and the subway.  Furthermore, a lot of people want to see Tulsa Transit expand its rubber-tire trolley system, which would get some more upscale type traffic on city buses.  An obvious rendezvous point for the trolley bus would be a large bus station right in the middle of downtown!

Why can't someone convince Heavenly to drop the bus station demand?

Or better yet, try to find other developers so we have more than just one to choose from!

[carltonplace]

I completely see PonderInc's point. The Tulsa World uses the same euphemisms and rhetoric in every article or opinion about the Towerview (condemned, eyesore). They present the same picture everytime and the same bias.

I'd like them to present some alternatives or answer some questions about the property. Is it structurally sound? Is it possible that a developement plan could include a rehabilitated Towerview? Why do they hate it so much? Why do they keep comparing it to old Tulsa  at First and Main that was torn down to make way for the BOK? Why do they continually propose eminant domain and public funds?

I think the Tulsa World would support the demolition of almost any building in downtown. Why stop at the Towerview? The McFarlin and Mayo buildings are missing some cornices and the Philcade looks a little dusty. Tear 'em down!

[akupetsky]

What stood out in the TW article to me (and was pretty much ignored by Mr. Neal) is that Heavenly Host & the Towerview owner had reached a contract, proving that private parties are capable of working this out without using eminent domain.  The article wasn't clear about what the title & timing issues were, but I don't know that eminent domain would resolve that anyway (it will be a long process).  It's as though they can't get this building torn down fast enough.  If a private developer decides to buy the building and tear it down, so be it.  But why such pressure to bring it down?

[David Arnett]

FYI, Tulsa Today (http://www.tulsatoday.com) posted a publisher's editorial today on this issue titled "Towerview Taking."  It may provide this fine forum of reasoned opinion additional perspectives.

[rwarn17588]

From what I've gathered, ownership issues are in such a mess with Towerview, taking by eminent domain is about the only option left. Restoration of the building isn't going to happen for years -- if ever -- because of the ownership entanglements. And the health and code issues with the building are so severe, it's ripe for condemnation anyway.

I also find it interesting that Mr. Arnett calls TulsaNow a "fine forum of reasoned opinion." Not that long ago, he espoused shutting down TulsaNow's forum entirely for a myriad of reasons, including attacks, and had his own forum on his TulsaToday site.

Now Arnett's forum is gone, and he essentially calls TulsaNow a model of public discourse.

So what changed your mind, David?

[TheArtist]

Booted off santa and davas or whoever that was.

[David Arnett]

In answer – I am not a forum person and don't post that often, but I have always been a voracious reader online and off.  As for "shutting down TulsaNow's forum entirely" that is incorrect.

As one who has watched Tulsa Now as an organization from the beginning, their mission and methods are not the dominate trend now expressed in this forum.  Both are good, but different and I did and do suggest that they would each be stronger separate.  It is amazing to me that the suggestion could be twisted.  That idea was not posted but suggested by e-mail directly to the leadership.  Leadership did not invite open discussion, to my knowledge, but I remain open to defending the perspective in any membership meeting.  Maybe this will be done at some future date.

I discontinued the Tulsa Today forum because it is not the core of what Tulsa Today, Inc. (www.tulsatoday.com) does.  What we do is provide an independent platform for professional writers of different perspectives to research, interview, and be published – the work of journalism.  We are pleased to serve ever growing numbers of unique readers as Tulsa Today is the first, best, and original local internet news service in this metropolitan area – in fact, we have found no other site independent of traditional media, but operating by journalism standards.  Established in 1996 we predate blogs and with their growing popularity believe those individual expressions in addition to community forums such as this one serve the need for diversity of opinion in Tulsa.

[carltonplace]

And now Jamie Pierson's take on the Towerview in UTW

Whose Domain?
Much ado about Towerview. City's approach is telling

BY JAMIE PIERSON
The Towerview Apartments. Plenty of ink, digital and newspaper, has been spent on that little tenement. Starting two summers ago when Tulsa World reporter Michael Overall did his bit of "investigative journalism" into substandard housing by living there for two weeks, we began wondering why. It continues to this day as the city takes steps to obtain the property through eminent domain. This unassuming building has been Tulsa's own media flashpoint, a poster child for all sides in the downtown struggle for culture and money.


The entire issue of this building has smelled fishy from start to finish. After the World did its story, it was a matter of weeks before inspectors had descended and demanded the corrections to the health code violations. And as nice as it is to see city officials acting quickly and the public interest, but why just there? Why not the other slums being maintained all throughout midtown, behind their cheerful brick facades and archaic names over the front door?

Read More

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally written by Jamie Pierson

So whatever, the Towerview is history, that's cool. But pay attention to the signs, people. Don't imagine that this is just one little incident. This kind of M.O. has made a lot of people a lot of money in the past, and maybe next time it won't just be a run down, lonely old apartment building.

This is hipsterish for "I fear that which I don't understand, and I'm afraid it will eat me."  

If this author has a better idea for what to do with that particular city block, I'd love to hear it.  The alternative to eminent domain is to wait on market forces to act.  This seems to make sense, until you look at what's going on with landowners downtown.

The problem is that the Tulsa market is stuck.  It's stuck because speculators are sitting on parcels, waiting on somebody to pay inflated value.  I'm sure crusty jdb can give you a sermon about this.  It's what these out-of-state owners are doing with Towerview, and it's the reason the East End property acquisition is proceeding so slowly.  

Normally I'd say fine, let these people sit on their decaying downtown properties until the market is willing to pay what they want.  But that has led to the current state of downtown.  Eminent domain forces a landowner to take fair current value, rather than insist on inflated value, and it gets the development ball rolling.  Properly applied, it's a catalyst to get the property market moving.  I see nothing about the Towerview situation to suggest that this is improper use of government authority.  If the city allows these folks to insist on overblown prices, that block will never be developed and the so-called "arena district" will never get off the ground.  So that - a vibrant, non-blighted central business district -is why this is in the public's interest.

[perspicuity85]

I'm not a huge proponent of eminent domain, but I think it may be the only way to solve the Towerview problem.  The fact is, the Towerview owner doesn't just own an ugly building next to the arena, he violated health codes.  By now, any prospective buyer of the Towerview has heard plenty about its awful condition.  Eminent domain is the only feasible way for the Towerview to change ownership.  If eminent domain is used, the city will likely sell the Towerview site for much less than the current owner is apparently asking.  Only then will the Towerview be refurbished into upscale apartments or torn down to make way for a new mixed use development.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

When was the last time the city used eminent domain for private development?  It has been used for public uses like roads and public buildings and has been threatedned to be used, but settled later without it's use.

I can't remember the last time the government took land from one private group or individual just to give it to some other private group or individual.

Anybody know?

They were all geared up to use it for TU if necessary, probably still are.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:
They were all geared up to use it for TU if necessary, probably still are.

That bothered me, too.

I don't know what the rules are for government intervention in property deals, but I did not see the rational for the city to acquire land for a private university.

Was there any vote to allow the Tulsa Development Authority to be involved or did TU just get the permission from a department head to do it?

[Rico]

Well the Towerview apartments is one step closer to an almost certain eminent domain action by the City of Tulsa....IMO.

Last night a fire took out quite a bit of the interior of the building...  

My understanding is that if the structure is condemned the owner must tear it down within a certain time frame..

This is sure to give the City more leverage in any negotiations in acquiring the property..

Here is a link to the coverage given by KOTV Channel 6.

http://www.kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=118099

[inteller]

yeah, lets see...

downtown on a weekend with slick streets making it hard to get to the building....oh no this wasnt arson.