Towerview Apartments

[MichaelC]

The only potential difference I see between what happened earlier with the Health Department, and the way it is now is:

Originally, it was shut down because it was substandard.  Right now, the question I have, is whether or not this building rises to the level of public nuisance.  Is it hazardous for this building to exist?  Or, Is it an attractive nuisance?  If either of those is true, and the owner won't take care of the problem, does that allow the Health Department and the City of Tulsa to take matters into their own hands.  Condemning the property to demo the building.

I think there may be a new available issue here for the Health Department and/or City of Tulsa to explore.

[Wrinkle]

I'm sure the plan is laid.

[rwarn17588]

The saga of Towerview should provide a cautionary tale to absentee landlords.

The vermin problems that shut it down, and now vagrants accidentally setting fire to the building -- all these things would have been much less likely had the building's owner been more hands-on and, um, present.

[Wrinkle]

Or, just to anyone who owns property.

[deinstein]

Convenient timing.

[}:)]

[deinstein]

quote:Originally posted by 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?

A private university should never be able to use eminent domain for student housing.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

The saga of Towerview should provide a cautionary tale to absentee landlords.

The vermin problems that shut it down, and now vagrants accidentally setting fire to the building -- all these things would have been much less likely had the building's owner been more hands-on and, um, present.

Thank you.

I don't understand why out-of-state people were allowed to buy/run a single-room-occupancy transient hotel in the first place... and this went on for months after they bought it... maybe we should care MORE about those people paying $125 a week for substandard rat-infested housing than the west coast landlords who bought the Towerview sight unseen...  

All you have to do to qualify as a modern-day slumlord is........... well............. nothing.

[carltonplace]

As promised above, the saga doth continue:

Fire may fuel city's effort to acquire, raze Towerview By BRIAN BARBER World Staff Writer
1/16/2007

The weekend blaze that gutted the vacant Towerview Apartments could give the city leverage to tear down the building, one city official said Monday.

"We'll need to get someone out there to look at it," Tulsa's Economic Development Director Don Himelfarb said.

"It was an eyesore before and now it could be unsafe. With the building still standing, someone could easily get in there and have it all fall in on them."

He goes on to say that the building did make some great s'mores.

Read more

[akupetsky]

So here's my question.  The city was proceeding to take the property through Urban Renewal, meaning that a determination would be made that the area (ie, the building) was blighted.  Eminent domain for the purposes of removing blighted property is within the public interest.  But if they tear down the building before using eminent domain, won't they have eliminated the blight?  If a surface lot is "blighted", much of downtown is then blighted and subject to eminent domain. May or may not be a good thing.

[MichaelC]

In order to demo the building, the city will likely have to take the property.  So it will already be owned by Tulsa via the TDA or some entity.

The problem essentially is, will the owner take care of it?  Same problem as before, but NOW it's a question of is this building a hazard to the general public?  The owners can't be allowed to leave a burnt out shell of a building downtown.

Even though it's now basically useless as a building, it's still owned by the folks from Oregon.  To me it seems like the owners options boil down to: 1) Repair the building, 2) Demo the building, or 3) sell the property.  They probably will have a very limited timeframe to make a decision because of the current state of the building, and up to this point I see no reason to believe that they'll take option 1 or 2.  If they won't do any of those, the city has no choice but to take this property.

On surface lots, many of the surface lots are already owned by the TDA or other city entities.  So turning them into something else is no big deal.  Not sure how much is privately owned.  When you see "Central Parking" or "American Parking" or whatever, those companies are contracted to run parking lots and garages.  I don't think they own the lots.

[akupetsky]

^I am sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that's true.  There is a procedure for determining that a building is "dilapidated," and requires demolition, and another procedure for determining that property is blighted and subject to urban renewal.  The city can tear down a building on your property if it is unsafe, and you would continue to own the underlying land (plus you would be responsible for paying for demolition costs).  After thinking about it, I am guessing that the city won't proceed under the "dalipidated building" proceedings, since they have already begun the eminent domain proceedings.  Still it would be an interesting question whether the city can determine that a empty lot is blighted.  My impression is that most parking lots downtown are owned by either TCC or the churches.  Wouldn't it be great if the city determined the parking lot next to the Tulsaworld was blighted?

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by PRH

If I were the out-of-town owner, I'd double the price to the City after this fire.

They can't really double the price.  Eminent Domain is at least partially determined by market value.  The value of the property didn't go up when the building caught fire.  The price should come way down.  

If I were the owner, I'd see what could be done about taking the biggest offer they've had to date.  The offer could very well go down from here.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by akupetsky

^I am sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that's true.  There is a procedure for determining that a building is "dilapidated," and requires demolition, and another procedure for determining that property is blighted and subject to urban renewal.  The city can tear down a building on your property if it is unsafe, and you would continue to own the underlying land (plus you would be responsible for paying for demolition costs).

I'm not an expert on this stuff, but I'm relative sure that is true.   However, the mentality of the owners IMO has never indicated that they were willing to sink large amounts of money into this property.  They were just holding on to it so the value would go up, and they'd make more money off the city.  Are they willing to pay demolition costs now?  Given that the market value of the property will likely go down from here, I would doubt that.  I'm sure they'll have the option of paying for demo, but I don't see where they'd have any more incentive than they would have to rehab the building.  Which of course they chose not to do.

quote:Wouldn't it be great if the city determined the parking lot next to the Tulsaworld was blighted?

Yes.

[waterboy]

I'm guessing you never sold real estate or followed its history. I'll repeat something that didn't sink in earlier. The value of the property is in the land.

Valuation of real estate falls roughly into two methods, income producing ability or market for resale. Since the property was not likely to be rehabilitated and sold as rental, its income producing value dropped to $0. Maybe even negative if you figure fines, taxes, removal. Its market resale value then becomes what its value is. No one else wants to rehab the building either so the value is in the land.

The land is only of value for development based on current condition, value and activity of its setting. Comparative values will be hard to find. Guess what? It sits near a new arena where $200 million is being pumped into construction. Surrounding land is "not being made anymore" and thus its value is determined by what it could be, not what it is. The owners asking price may be determined by what was paid per foot to other taken/sold properties or they may pull it out of their rear end. Either way, the city has to take all this into consideration in determining its value for eminent domain as will a court. They need not declare it dilapidated, blighted or even irradiated to take it. Only that it serves the public good. Whether or not the owners now clear the property depends on the cost.

I somewhat agree with PRH. Its valuable property now. Many had a chance to buy it in the past and do something with it but these guys took the risk. Lousy, out of state slumlords? Absolutely. But no one else stepped up.

[Rico]

Point taken H20 .. Let's look at the land acquisitions for the property for the development of the Arena...

If you do, you will find that the value.... at least as it would be comped in this case, would not raise the value that much..

The taking of the land, if not developed, by current E D cases, will be somewhat easier than with a structure in place..