Bringing the hammer down

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

I'm all for it. I got a crowbar.

[Renaissance]

After ten years, it's yours for free--adverse possession doctrine, yeah!

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by 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.  

I am aware that attempts have been made and there have been interested parties.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

The city had nothing to do with the 15th & Lewis Albertson's. The developers acquired each parcel on their own. There was no threat or exercise of eminent domain.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

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

Oy vey!!

I'll try again:

rwarn17588, in what context did he indicate his support of eminent domain?  

Yesterday on KFAQ, I heard discussion of a private revolving fund to save and secure historic structures such as the Tulsa Club Building, although without such a fund in place, it most likely will not work in the short term.  In the long run, I think the revolving loan fund is a better idea than eminent domain.

I don't understand the urgency of this issue.  Other buildings (such as the Mayo Hotel) remained vacant for a long time.  Perhaps there were fines of $1,000 per day against the owners of the Mayo Hotel and other vacant and unsecured buildings -- I'm not sure.  We have lost so many Art Deco buildings already.  I think another vacant corner site downtown will be worse than a vacant building.


Monday, Monday, can't trust that day
Monday, Monday, it just turns out that way
Oh Monday, Monday, won't go away
Monday, Monday, it's here to stay    
  ~John Phillips

[Renaissance]

Can you explain how the revolving loan fund would work?  I'm not familiar with the concept.

As far as the urgency of the issue, my guess is that the city has learned from experience.  The farther you allow these absentee landlords to let their buildings languish in illegal conditions, the more difficult it is for restoration to occur.  Ultimately, without code enforcement, the most profitable way to "restore" the property is to demolish and start over.  That's obviously undesirable, hence the "urgency."

[Townsend]

http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=7793179

So if the city is going after other buildings, what will happen to the Quicktrips, example 15th and Main?  

I'm not attacking Quicktrip.  It was the first abandoned building of its kind that popped in my head.

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

The city had nothing to do with the 15th & Lewis Albertson's. The developers acquired each parcel on their own. There was no threat or exercise of eminent domain.

I was told something very different by some owners of those properties.
All those homes all at once, and not one of them not wanting to just pack up and go?  Surely that gives one pause to wonder.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Townsend


http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=7793179

So if the city is going after other buildings, what will happen to the Quicktrips, example 15th and Main?  

I'm not attacking Quicktrip.  It was the first abandoned building of its kind that popped in my head.

Why do people keep bringing that up, that place was turned into a Bill and Ruth's years and years and years ago
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=bill+and+ruth's+tulsa+main&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.106236,92.8125&ie=UTF8&cd=1&ei=M6ygR9a0NJWKiwHxgvT6Bw&sig2=rd5s3-zbcSLQVqXqjB0ajg&cid=36140289,-95987104,6474310060465676609&li=lmd&om=0&ll=36.140864,-95.987377&spn=0.003015,0.005665&t=h&z=18&iwloc=A

[Townsend]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Townsend


http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=7793179

So if the city is going after other buildings, what will happen to the Quicktrips, example 15th and Main?  

I'm not attacking Quicktrip.  It was the first abandoned building of its kind that popped in my head.

Why do people keep bringing that up, that place was turned into a Bill and Ruth's years and years and years ago
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=bill+and+ruth's+tulsa+main&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.106236,92.8125&ie=UTF8&cd=1&ei=M6ygR9a0NJWKiwHxgvT6Bw&sig2=rd5s3-zbcSLQVqXqjB0ajg&cid=36140289,-95987104,6474310060465676609&li=lmd&om=0&ll=36.140864,-95.987377&spn=0.003015,0.005665&t=h&z=18&iwloc=A

Sorry, then what will they do with the abandoned QT/Bill and Ruths on 15th and Main?

It's surrounded by fencing and hasn't had a sub or QT wrap walk out of those doors for a long time.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Townsend

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Townsend


http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=7793179

So if the city is going after other buildings, what will happen to the Quicktrips, example 15th and Main?  

I'm not attacking Quicktrip.  It was the first abandoned building of its kind that popped in my head.

Why do people keep bringing that up, that place was turned into a Bill and Ruth's years and years and years ago
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=bill+and+ruth's+tulsa+main&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.106236,92.8125&ie=UTF8&cd=1&ei=M6ygR9a0NJWKiwHxgvT6Bw&sig2=rd5s3-zbcSLQVqXqjB0ajg&cid=36140289,-95987104,6474310060465676609&li=lmd&om=0&ll=36.140864,-95.987377&spn=0.003015,0.005665&t=h&z=18&iwloc=A

Sorry, then what will they do with the abandoned QT/Bill and Ruths on 15th and Main?

It's surrounded by fencing and hasn't had a sub or QT wrap walk out of those doors for a long time.

Hey, if someone is willing to convert a Luby's I can imagine the QT/B&R won't stay empty forever.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Can you explain how the revolving loan fund would work?  I'm not familiar with the concept.

As far as the urgency of the issue, my guess is that the city has learned from experience.  The farther you allow these absentee landlords to let their buildings languish in illegal conditions, the more difficult it is for restoration to occur.  Ultimately, without code enforcement, the most profitable way to "restore" the property is to demolish and start over.  That's obviously undesirable, hence the "urgency."

The Mayo Hotel was abandoned for a long time.  The Ambassador Hotel was empty for years also.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Can you explain how the revolving loan fund would work?  I'm not familiar with the concept.

As far as the urgency of the issue, my guess is that the city has learned from experience.  The farther you allow these absentee landlords to let their buildings languish in illegal conditions, the more difficult it is for restoration to occur.  Ultimately, without code enforcement, the most profitable way to "restore" the property is to demolish and start over.  That's obviously undesirable, hence the "urgency."

The Mayo Hotel was abandoned for a long time.  The Ambassador Hotel was empty for years also.

Completely agree.  Those are good examples of how aggressive code enforcement might have prevented deepening disrepair of Tulsa's architectural icons, thus saving the city money in subsidizing renovations and preventing tragic degradation of historic buildings.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Can you explain how the revolving loan fund would work?  I'm not familiar with the concept.

As far as the urgency of the issue, my guess is that the city has learned from experience.  The farther you allow these absentee landlords to let their buildings languish in illegal conditions, the more difficult it is for restoration to occur.  Ultimately, without code enforcement, the most profitable way to "restore" the property is to demolish and start over.  That's obviously undesirable, hence the "urgency."

The Mayo Hotel was abandoned for a long time.  The Ambassador Hotel was empty for years also.

Completely agree.  Those are good examples of how aggressive code enforcement might have prevented deepening disrepair of Tulsa's architectural icons, thus saving the city money in subsidizing renovations and preventing tragic degradation of historic buildings.

My emphasis.  We don't know.  Aggressive code enforcement also might have increased the pressure for demolition in those cases, as it took years to find developers willing to take on those hotels.  Dozens if not hundreds of buildings have been razed downtown.  I don't see how another vacant lot is going to help the city.  


Monday, Monday, can't trust that day
  ~John Phillips

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

My emphasis.  We don't know.  Aggressive code enforcement also might have increased the pressure for demolition in those cases, as it took years to find developers willing to take on those hotels.  Dozens if not hundreds of buildings have been razed downtown.  I don't see how another vacant lot is going to help the city.  


Monday, Monday, can't trust that day
  ~John Phillips

With no pressure at all on negligent building owners, they won't even keep their buildings weatherized.  Yes, people are that stupid.  Once you start getting water in the building, you've got demolition through neglect.  So, what's the difference?