101st and Memorial

[nathanm]

Hey inteller, those are some nice illegally placed signs you've got out there on Memorial.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

Hey inteller, those are some nice illegally placed signs you've got out there on Memorial.

they aren't "my" signs.  but if signs are the only thing you are concerned about with this issue you have your priorities wrong.

[FOTD]

What did the neighbors think when they bought homes abutting the backside of the property?

Harkening back on the Nelson dealership zoning down the street, I tend to think we will see some compromise. But as many here have suggested, Tulsa needs this development and passage is likely. Property rights are just that.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

Hey inteller, those are some nice illegally placed signs you've got out there on Memorial.

they aren't "my" signs.  but if signs are the only thing you are concerned about with this issue you have your priorities wrong.

My priorities are obviously not where yours are, given that I think the development should be fine, given that they are being required to keep their light away from the residential areas. I think they probably ought to have only pedestrian access to the neighborhoods, too.

I somehow doubt you'd support the development regardless.

Perusing the website advertised on the illegally placed signs did lead me to believe that most of your neighbors are twits. They think that a Wal-Mart a mile away is a good reason to not have a Target next door? They think the rest of the city should pay for you to have gates installed and then continue to pay for the street maintenance in your newly gated community?

I do think it might be wise to eliminate access to the subdivision from 84th, but installing gates at taxpayer expense? I think not.

Reading the proposal posted, I was struck by how reasonable the developers were being. All the issues the neighborhood residents have put forth have been issues for many, many years, ever since the dealerships were put in.

I'm sorry your developer chose to ram the houses up against what was always intended to be heavy commercial development. Memorial is not Mingo, and it never has been, despite what many of your neighbors seem to think. Your opposition reminds me of people who move near a major airport and then complain about the noise. Of course, a bit more foresight would have provided a nice solution to the issue. It's too bad that in this part of the country, cities don't require developers to install collector streets inside large subdivisions, thus mitigating the impact of any cut through traffic, since no houses front on the collector street.

Despite all that, I still think the development should be required to mitigate their impact by installing decent lighting fixtures and making an effort to prevent late night noise.

Of course, I might be biased because I have experienced the impacts of heavy commercial development directly adjacent to single family homes and seen that when there is no direct access, it's a non issue. Of course, that's in Fayetteville, not Tulsa. Maybe something magical happens in Oklahoma to make it a problem.

I'll be very happy to see this thing go in. I'd be even happier if I lived closer to it.

[inteller]

the developer threatening to punch one of the homeowners is reasonable?

and you are sitting there complaining about tax payers putting in gates, have you seen the litany of things the developer wants tax payers to fit the bill for?  2 traffic signals for starters.  And they tax payers will be paying for all the extra officers to take care of the increased crime at target.  don't sit there all smug and lecture us about tax dollars.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

the developer threatening to punch one of the homeowners is reasonable?

and you are sitting there complaining about tax payers putting in gates, have you seen the litany of things the developer wants tax payers to fit the bill for?  2 traffic signals for starters.  And they tax payers will be paying for all the extra officers to take care of the increased crime at target.  don't sit there all smug and lecture us about tax dollars.

Is Tulsa so behind the times as to not have impact fees to pay for things like traffic lights? Besides, I can drive through the traffic lights, making use of them, all day long if I so choose. If we all pay to put up gates in your neighborhood and still end up paying for the streets, that's an entirely different story.

Increased crime at Target? I think you're just grasping at straws here. Surely you're not so anti-development in general to expect me to believe that's a valid argument against this development. I think everything in the original proposal plus not having entrances on the side street is a pretty reasonable accomodation.

Given that I haven't been present at the discussions between the developers and the homeowners, I can only go by what's in the public record, not third or fourth hand stories of threatened violence.

[sgrizzle]

Target is statistically very low crime (unlike it's blue counterpart) and like stated above, the housing developer should've built a buffer zone along the boundary instead of thinking you can force the commercial side of the property line to do so.

Gates are one of the dumber ideas I've heard this week.

The developer should pay for all or part of any infrastructure changes needed, however.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

Target is statistically very low crime (unlike it's blue counterpart) and like stated above, the housing developer should've built a buffer zone along the boundary instead of thinking you can force the commercial side of the property line to do so.

Gates are one of the dumber ideas I've heard this week.

The developer should pay for all or part of any infrastructure changes needed, however.

oh really?  CY2007 there were 416 crimes within a half mile of target at 71st/169.  CY2007 at the proposed location there were 57.  That is taking into account all of the car dealerships and existing retail.

And no we don't have impact fees.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

Target is statistically very low crime (unlike it's blue counterpart) and like stated above, the housing developer should've built a buffer zone along the boundary instead of thinking you can force the commercial side of the property line to do so.

Gates are one of the dumber ideas I've heard this week.

The developer should pay for all or part of any infrastructure changes needed, however.

oh really?  CY2007 there were 416 crimes within a half mile of target at 71st/169.  CY2007 at the proposed location there were 57.  That is taking into account all of the car dealerships and existing retail.

And no we don't have impact fees.

We're talking about Target itself. There are about a hundred stores within a half mile of Target on 71st. Many of those crimes would be car theft and shoplifting.

WM @ Woodland Hills had to put up screening walls, landscaping, fix roads, etc. No reason Target shouldn't also.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

Target is statistically very low crime (unlike it's blue counterpart) and like stated above, the housing developer should've built a buffer zone along the boundary instead of thinking you can force the commercial side of the property line to do so.

Gates are one of the dumber ideas I've heard this week.

The developer should pay for all or part of any infrastructure changes needed, however.

oh really?  CY2007 there were 416 crimes within a half mile of target at 71st/169.  CY2007 at the proposed location there were 57.  That is taking into account all of the car dealerships and existing retail.

And no we don't have impact fees.

We're talking about Target itself. There are about a hundred stores within a half mile of Target on 71st. Many of those crimes would be car theft and shoplifting.

WM @ Woodland Hills had to put up screening walls, landscaping, fix roads, etc. No reason Target shouldn't also.

200 of those crimes were at the Target address itself.  Try again.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by inteller


200 of those crimes were at the Target address itself.  Try again.

That statistic is actually useful. Got any breakdown on what they were?

[sgrizzle]

Here's what a walmat could do for you in comparison:

Reported Incident Category       Wal-Mart /       Target

Assault with a deadly weapon, assault, and battery                     198 / 33
Auto theft                     303 / 34
Robbery and attempted robbery    109 / 18
Sex crimes                      31 / 14
Kidnapping and attempted kidnapping    3 / 0
Rape and attempted rape    2 / 1
Homicide and attempted homicide    221 / 0

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by inteller


200 of those crimes were at the Target address itself.  Try again.

That statistic is actually useful. Got any breakdown on what they were?

mostly theft.  who cares what they are, crime is crime.  Crime that wasn't there before.

[TheArtist]

There was a field there before.

[Kashmir]

We drove by Ridge Pointe on our way home last night and saw a fire truck going in...My husband said "Homes are being torched in protest!"   LOL

I want to hear more about this alleged fight/threats/throw down.  I will say that my family is on the Bumgarner smoked ham Christmas list and whatever happens with Target better not affect my smoked meat fix.


Edited b/c see and say are not the same word.