Updates on Abundant Life Bldg (Tulsa Club moved to its own thread)

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Where is the update on the other 60 buildings on the "list"?

...or, is it only the Tulsa Club which draws interest?

I got stuck on the fact they had to break into an empty building to discover code violations, which do not apply to unoccupied buildings.

Existing provisions in law allow the City to both clean up and secure unoccupied/unkept buildings and bill the owner these costs, but the outright theft is government out of control.

The new $1,000/day fine was built and applied specifically to do so.

Did he, or did he not pay his Ad Valorem Taxes?

If the City did clean the graffiti off the building and apply locks to prevent access, these costs are legally applied to the owner, and, if not paid, would be grounds for a lien on the property. That's it.

They are not making us safer by the actions being applied. The intent is to get this building for next to nothing and use it for purposes of their own design.

To delcare it need be 'functional' is overreaching government role.

This deal makes me sick to my stomach.

This is the single most important building in Tulsa that is in danger of being lost.

That is not the topic. Whether it is or is not is the single most important building could be debated, but it for sure is not in any current danger of being "lost".

The topic is whether government can decide to take your property. First, fine the dickens out of you if they don't like what you're doing, then steal your building because you didn't pay the fines.

All this in spite of existing provisions for handling any public safety concerns, which is all they should be concerned with on this building.

They are literally stealing this building.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle
[
The topic is whether government can decide to take your property. First, fine the dickens out of you if they don't like what you're doing, then steal your building because you didn't pay the fines.

All this in spite of existing provisions for handling any public safety concerns, which is all they should be concerned with on this building.

They are literally stealing this building.

But it's "for a good cause".

Could a law (regulation?) be passed that buildings must be inhabitable or show progress that they are being made so?  You probably cannot regulate that a building actually be inhabited but it may be possible to require that it could be.  Retroactive is another subject.

[tshane250]

Personally, I am of the opinion that it is not your God given right to let your property fall into disrepair.  And certainly not your God given right to negatively affect the value of your neighbor's property.

Edit: I love the idea for the Abundant Life Building.  Though, I seriously doubt it will ever happen.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by tshane250

Personally, I am of the opinion that it is not your God given right to let your property fall into disrepair.  And certainly not your God given right to negatively affect the value of your neighbor's property.

Edit: I love the idea for the Abundant Life Building.  Though, I seriously doubt it will ever happen.

Didn't suggest it was. But, property rights are mentioned in our Constitution. So long as the property is not a public safety concern, nor negatively affecting surrounding properties (other than being just vacant), it should be left alone.

But, even more significant are the existing provisions for dealing with such, which were totally ignored, replaced with new 'rules' and then used to steal the building from its current owner.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle


But, even more significant are the existing provisions for dealing with such, which were totally ignored, replaced with new 'rules' and then used to steal the building from its current owner.

Puhleeze. The owner had every opportunity. This is not the only property this man owns, it's just vacant so he wasn't willing to even secure the doors. It wasn't swiped out from under him, he let it go.

[tshane250]

Ah, Wrinkle, I re-read your previous post and understand what you are getting at.  From a purely legal stance I completely agree, but my inner urban revitalist hates to see this building go the way of the Dodo.  Something similar recently happened in Sand Springs, where they used Eminent Domain to acquire property to redevelop.  While I like the idea of improving a "blighted" area, I think using Eminent Domain is wrong in that case.

[SXSW]

Any more information about the Freese proposal for Abundant Life??  That is an ambitious project.  Reminds me of a more contemporary Utica Place.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle


But, even more significant are the existing provisions for dealing with such, which were totally ignored, replaced with new 'rules' and then used to steal the building from its current owner.

Puhleeze. The owner had every opportunity. This is not the only property this man owns, it's just vacant so he wasn't willing to even secure the doors. It wasn't swiped out from under him, he let it go.

If you re-read the orginal TW story on this you'll note code officials had to break into this building initially. It was secured. Because some vandal managed to get in through an upper window or such (probably had to borrow the FD ladder) and paint graphiti isn't grounds to steal the building.

As I stated, there are existing provisions for dealing with instances of just this sort and those were not used.

What does it matter how much property the guy owns?

[wordherder]

I've heard from several people (not city officials, mind you) that the owner of the Tulsa Club building has shown his face in Tulsa a few times over the past couple years, and he STILL hasn't paid a cent of his fines or done anything to spruce up or secure the building. Meanwhile he was cracking jokes about hiding from city officials.

If that doesn't tell you that he intended to do nothing with the building until it collapsed from neglect, I guess nothing will.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by wordherder

I've heard from several people (not city officials, mind you) that the owner of the Tulsa Club building has shown his face in Tulsa a few times over the past couple years, and he STILL hasn't paid a cent of his fines or done anything to spruce up or secure the building. Meanwhile he was cracking jokes about hiding from city officials.

If that doesn't tell you that he intended to do nothing with the building until it collapsed from neglect, I guess nothing will.

Just starting rumors now as justification?

His behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with the existing provisions for handling the problem, and which were not only ignored, new rules were put in place just to apply here.

The building itself is in no danger of collapse or in being demolished today. Never has been. It was secured and when it became trespassed, there are provisions to make it secure again, to clean up public offenses and to recoupe the costs. None of which were used.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by wordherder

I've heard from several people (not city officials, mind you) that the owner of the Tulsa Club building has shown his face in Tulsa a few times over the past couple years, and he STILL hasn't paid a cent of his fines or done anything to spruce up or secure the building. Meanwhile he was cracking jokes about hiding from city officials.

If that doesn't tell you that he intended to do nothing with the building until it collapsed from neglect, I guess nothing will.

The guy sounds shrewd enough that his intent may be to make his money back from the City when he files suit for the theft of his building. Grounds I suggest he has.

Personally, I'd have Ms. Taylor on a witness stand trying to explain herself to the Judge and Jurors.

[DowntownNow]

Well Wrinkle, sounds like Carl Morony listened to you.  He has retained a lawyer and is seeking dismissal of the default judgement.  I, for one, hope he has somemerit to his arguement and finds a way to restore the building or sell it to someone who can.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2102304&db=Tulsa

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

Is that a heli-pad on top or a shade for a roof top terrace?

All we need now is the Bat-Signal, and we're complete!

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by DowntownNow

Well Wrinkle, sounds like Carl Morony listened to you.  He has retained a lawyer and is seeking dismissal of the default judgement.  I, for one, hope he has somemerit to his arguement and finds a way to restore the building or sell it to someone who can.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2102304&db=Tulsa

Perhaps you cited the wrong link, but that one's for the City of Tulsa suing him to take his building because he hasn't paid the $1000/day fines.

Even Ad Valorem deliquencies have a three-year right of redemption. Want to know why? It's so people have a chance when up against government hacks who want to steal your property.

[cannon_fodder]

Wrinkle... that would be the case in which he would enter:

12/23/08: VERIFIED PETITION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE (JASEN R CORNS ENTERS AS COUNSEL - COVERSHEET ATTACHED) / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

He is seeking to have the default vacated.  It is past 30 days so it is not automatic but with this amount it is certainly up to the judge.

FWIW, he was mailed notice (to the tax address he is Required to keep on file) on 2 separate occasions, then notice was officially published, and then someone in his residence was personally served (and refused to give her last name).  Then a default was filed and a copy of that mailed to him.   After 30 days the default was granted and a copy of the judgment was mailed to him.

All of that AFTER a year of fines, haggling, and trying to pester him into action.

Now he suddenly acts like he doesn't know any of it was going on?

I'm not buying it.  If I was his attorney I'd make damn sure I got paid up front.