Bringing the hammer down

[rwarn17588]

Seize it by eminent domain, citing nuisance laws, and turn it over to someone who actually wants to do something with it. The owner has a basic obligation to keep up his property, and he clearly isn't doing it.

I know a few folks loathe eminent domain, but I think many of them would be OK with it for historic preservation.

Even Senor Bates indicated he would support such a use of ED.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Seize it by eminent domain, citing nuisance laws, and turn it over to someone who actually wants to do something with it. The owner has a basic obligation to keep up his property, and he clearly isn't doing it.

I know a few folks loathe eminent domain, but I think many of them would be OK with it for historic preservation.

Even Senor Bates indicated he would support such a use of ED.

This may be a really stupid question, but I have to ask:  How does that process work??? Not the the seizure, but the 'turning it over to someone who wants to do something with it'.  Does the city sell the property?  Does it find a party with an interest in fixing it up?  Does it hand it over to DTU or some authority?  [?]

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Seize it by eminent domain, citing nuisance laws, and turn it over to someone who actually wants to do something with it. The owner has a basic obligation to keep up his property, and he clearly isn't doing it.

I know a few folks loathe eminent domain, but I think many of them would be OK with it for historic preservation.

Even Senor Bates indicated he would support such a use of ED.

This may be a really stupid question, but I have to ask:  How does that process work??? Not the the seizure, but the 'turning it over to someone who wants to do something with it'.  Does the city sell the property?  Does it find a party with an interest in fixing it up?  Does it hand it over to DTU or some authority?  [?]

The government has the power to seize property from a private party for its fair value as long as the seizure is for "public use."  This power was historically used for things like roads, bridges, and military bases.  But in the last, oh, 25 years or so, the U.S. Supreme Court has held in a series of opinions that "public use" is just about any purpose the government sees fit.  The only real check on this power is whatever democratic system happens to be in place to control the government entity doing the seizing.  

So in other words, as long as it pays the guy what the building is worth and the City Council approves, the City of Tulsa can seize the Tulsa Club and do whatever it wants with it, including selling it off to the highest bidder.

(Edited to be more specific.)

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd
The government has the power to seize property from a private party for its fair value as long as the seizure is for "public use." This power was historically used for things like roads, bridges, and military bases. But in the last, oh, 25 years or so, the U.S. Supreme Court has held in a series of opinions that "public use" is just about any purpose the government sees fit. The only real check on this power is whatever democratic system happens to be in place to control the government entity doing the seizing.

So in other words, as long as it pays the guy what the building is worth and the City Council approves, the City of Tulsa can seize the Tulsa Club and do whatever it wants with it, including selling it off to the highest bidder.

Thanks, Floyd!

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Even Senor Bates indicated he would support such a use of ED.

Doubt it.

[Renaissance]

I would certainly be in favor of an eminent domain seizure by the city if the property owner were to slate the Tulsa Club for demolition.  Short of demolition, though, I think the fines are plenty.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

They should have done that with the Skelly, but I think we all know the press wouldn't have been good on that one.

Can't they also make it harder to get demo permits?

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Even Senor Bates indicated he would support such a use of ED.

In what context?  

This morning on KFAQ, I heard discussion of a private revolving fund to save and secure historic structures such as the Tulsa Club Building.  That's a better idea than eminent domain IMO.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Even Senor Bates indicated he would support such a use of ED.

In what context?  

This morning on KFAQ, I heard discussion of a private revolving fund to save and secure historic structures such as the Tulsa Club Building.  That's a better idea than eminent domain IMO.

He won't in any context.  With eminent domain and many other public tools, Bates is a conservative dogmatist looking for a wedge issue.  Thus, eminent domain will always be evil and unnecessary.  Likewise, public mass transit will always be a taxpayer-subsidized waste (as if streets aren't subsidized), and raising taxes will always be the wrong idea, even when it's what the citizens want.

Bates' problem is that he speaks about a fictional world, where jitneys, free enterprise, and NIMBY-fights will transform Tulsa from a hemorrhaging, sprawling, stagnating mess into a charming, urban, whatever.  He advocates for change, but is distrustful of every measure, every tool, and every person, who tries to get from A to B.

Don't get me wrong, a private revolving loan fund is a great idea, but it is not a replacement for eminent domain.  A crazy, intransigent building owner won't use it.  Then what?

[si_uk_lon_ok]

My worry would be that this fund would turn into money for paying ransom for buildings. I don't think the city should be forced to pay over the odds because some wanky Californian slum landlord wants lots of money for a building he paid a pittance for ten years ago.

I think eminent domain and the use of fines costs the tax payer very little and looks like a way of potentially generating money. While the fund could end up rewarding people for neglecting there buildings and costing more money.

[Renaissance]

My view is that in situations where the "public use" is not infrastructure-related, the eminent domain power should only be used in extreme circumstances.  But, I would characterize the potential loss of architectural heritage through demolition by an out of state landlord as extreme.

It's all conjecture until this guy figures out what he's going to do with the property.

[patric]

quote:The government has the power to seize property from a private party for its fair value as long as the seizure is for "public use."  This power was historically used for things like roads, bridges, and military bases.  But in the last, oh, 25 years or so, the U.S. Supreme Court has held in a series of opinions that "public use" is just about any purpose the government sees fit.  The only real check on this power is whatever democratic system happens to be in place to control the government entity doing the seizing.

Yes, we remember when the city decided we needed an Albertsons at 15&th & Lewis (across from a former Safeway/Buds/whatever).  A neighborhood was bulldozed, the existing store went out of business, then Albertsons bailed.

[Wrinkle]

Has anyone actually made an offer to the owner?
What's his price? And, what is the building actually worth?

Is it really too much, or just more than whomever wants it is willing to pay?

Actually, I'm wondering if the owner is even aware of what is going on. Did officials just mail a letter to the record address and call it "it"? For that matter, do we actually know they did that much?

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Has anyone actually made an offer to the owner?
What's his price? And, what is the building actually worth?

Is it really too much, or just more than whomever wants it is willing to pay?

Actually, I'm wondering if the owner is even aware of what is going on. Did officials just mail a letter to the record address and call it "it"? For that matter, do we actually know they did that much?

The article says that the city has been trying to contact him for months to no avail.  I'm assuming they didn't hire a PI to hunt the man down; they're probably using his last known contact info to try to settle the fine.  There's no detail one way or another about private attempts to buy or negotiate a sale.  

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

The article says that the city has been trying to contact him for months to no avail.  I'm assuming they didn't hire a PI to hunt the man down; they're probably using his last known contact info to try to settle the fine.  There's no detail one way or another about private attempts to buy or negotiate a sale.  

I think we should just go over and file a quick claim deed. Move some furniture in and declare it as our building.

TulsaNow could office on the first floor or the penthouse and lease out the rest.

Tulsa Club...now TulsaNow Club.