Should one developer destroy HP zoning?

[pmcalk]

For those who are new to this forum, sometime ago I became obsessed with posting & reading because of my involvement in a bank that was being built at the corner of 15th & Utica.  Actually, I didn't care so much about the bank as I did about the surface lot behind the bank.  For those who were not reading the forum then, or who need a brief refresher, in sum, here is what happened:  A developer, John Bumgarner, purchased 2 houses, and later a third house on a residential street in a historically zoned neighborhood.  He needed the space for a surface lot for his bank at 15th & Utica.  When he first asked, the Tulsa Preservation Commission said, fine, you can build your surface lot on the first two houses, but when he came back with the third house, they said, no, cuz really a surface lot doesn't meet the guidelines required for HP zoning.  So Bumgarner went to the TMAPC and said I want HP zoning removed from my property, and the TMAPC said, fine, cuz we granted HP zoning, we can take it off if we want.  Finally, it went before the City Council and all of the city councilors said no, you cannot take one house out of HP zoned neighborhoods just cuz you don't like it, but we will still let you build your surface lot.

It was not a great decision for the neighborhood, but at least we were confident that HP zoning was still an effective tool for maintaining the integrity of historic neighborhoods.  Obtaining HP zoning designation is a long, arduous process which requires notification of all property owners in the affected area, public educational meetings, and opportunities for public input.  The TPC must make studies of the area, look at historic maps and information, and draw lines determining inclusion and exclusion.  It can take many, many months.  Ultimately, if more that 20% of the neighborhood objects to HP zoning, it will not pass.  To allow one person to opt out years later for no good reason would completely destroy any affect that HP zoning laws might have.  And it would discourage other neighborhoods from adopting HP zoning.

Unfortunately, this developer is not the type to stop at anything.  He has continued to purchase property in HP zoned areas, though like anyone who buys HP zoned property, he must know that his property is subject to legal restrictions.  No matter:  for Bumgarner, if the law gets in your way, simply change the law.  He did that at 21st & Utica when banking laws prevented him from building the Bank of America building.  Now he wants the law with respect to HP zoning changed.

Bumgarner tried hard to affect the current city council makeup.  Altogether, he donated $8,500:  $3,000 to Patrick, $3,000 to Prather, $2,000 to Martinson, and $500 to Henderson.  (http://www.batesline.com/archives/002417.html)  He lost in two races, and one is a bit vulnerable right now.  So he moved on to the state level.

Currently, there is a bill before the state house (Engrossed House Bill No. 2559) regarding the authority of the Board of Adjustment.  Russ Roach, a lobbyist who lists Bumgarner as a top client, has gotten an attachment that would allow property owners to appeal directly to the city council, without any input from either the TPC or the TMAPC, or the rest of the neighborhood, for removal from HP zoning.  It would allow property to be removed from HP zones simply because it is on the fringe of the neighborhood (obviously, where the most protection is needed), is not individually significant (most are not), and is not an "integral part of the historic identity," whatever that means.

PLEASE, take a moment to write to your house representative.  The senate has already approved this, but it wouldn't hurt to let your senators know that you disapprove.  Even if you don't give a hoot about HP zoning, this is democracy at its lowest—creating a specific law to benefit one person who has enough money to buy influence.  Don't let this developer re-write the laws to his own benefit.  Help preserve Tulsa's historic neighborhoods.

PS—sorry for such a long post, and sorry for the personal attacks.  I don't normally attack specific individuals, but in this case I do believe it is justified.