I am tired of seeing the empty buildings in Bricktown! These building need to be occupied and generating tax revenue. A tremendous amount of tax dollars have been invested to improve the value of that area and it is time for property owners to pony up their share. If the owners are unable to negotiate reasonable lease rates that businesses can afford, then the owners need to be paying a higher tax rate than the occupied buildings to offset the tax revenue loss.

That is a great idea, the building owners are being greedy, so they need to pay for being stupid. Lease the damn building at a resonable rate or pay up. These empty buildings make bricktown look ghetto.

How would this work exactly? You'd give a property owner a certain period of time in which to get a business opened? How much time would that be? And what if the building is empty due to a renovation? And would it be for just retail applications, or would you also include office, industrial and residential? And would this also apply to building owners who couldn't find a tenant because of unfavorable economic times (like now) in which few businesses are opening? Finally, how can you compare ad valorem taxes (paid to the county) with sales taxes (paid to the state, county and municipal governments)? Or are you simply wanting to punish property owners who haven't filled their buildings?

In addition to what OKCTalker said, how would this affect buildings that *are* leased out but the current occupants haven't done anything to the upper level of the building they occupy? Not every bombed-out-looking building in Bricktown is unoccupied.

Just what we need, more "BIG GOVERNMENT"

Not to throw a wrench in your plan but how is that not illigal??? Does that mean the City can raise taxes on my neighbor because thier house has been empty for 3 years or more??? You cant raise taxes on someone just because you dont like what they are doing. As long as what they are doing is legal, They could keep that building empty forever. Not to rain on your parade but thats not the way to get stuff moving down there.

The city could simply declare certain structures to be 'blighted,' seize them by eminent domain and select new developers to acquire them from OCURA upon proving they had a plan and finances in place.

That'd actually work.

Another good idea....

And to cut down on harmful second hand smoke, they could hire sharp shooters to man the roofs in Bricktown and pick off anyone that dare smoke.

I'm hoping you guys are just stirring the pot and not being serious.

NO MORE BIG GOVERNMENT: BIG GOVERNMENT EQUALS LESS FREEDOM

That's not a bad idea! They could do the same for fat people, and poor people who mistakingly wander into Bricktown.

lol

Some of you are making this to hard. Bricktown was established to attract bars, resturants and businesses in an effort to generate tax revenue. If a property is not developed or empty, it is losing sales tax revenue and not contributing to the overall success of Bricktown.

Greedy property owners need motivation to contribute to the overall success of Bricktown. Their property needs to be developed and occupied with jobs! They can still choose to leave their property undeveloped or empty, they will just pay a higher tax for the priviledge.

The rules can be very simple. Everyone starts at the same tax rate. The longer your property goes undeveloped, the higher your rate increases. If your building is partially filled, then you pay a partial rate. As their tax rate increases, property owners would eventually be financially motivated to make lease agreements that would get their building occupied.

I have talked to a couple of resturant developers and asked why they did not have a location in bricktown. The first thing they complained about was the cost of the leases. They claimed that they would have to have a higher menu price to cover the increased costs. With the higher menu price, people would be reluctant to frequent the resturant. So they do not come to bricktown and as a result, bricktown has empty space.

Its not BIG GOVERNMENT, its SMART GOVERNMENT

Agree! In Dallas, that is what they are doing, however, before they seize the property in question they make a reasonable effort to work with the owner(s) on either renovating the structure(s) in question and give them a certain amount of time to comply with the code of the city. If they do not comply and show a reasonable effort, then they get fined and sometimes a lien is placed on the property. This seems to be working in Dallas as it forges onward to get rid of their unsightly areas and empty buildings by bulldozing large swaths of urban blight and this gives opportunity for the land to be redeveloped and gets rid of unsightly mess. OKC needs to step up to the plate. You all have improved alot but there still is quite alot of urban blight and dilapidated structures around. We cannot use the excuse it's the economy, as in even tough times you still have to keep your property intact and even become more flexible such as mentioned above in previous threads make leasing rates affordable where it not only benefits the owner(s) but allows occupancy to an empty building.

Actually, the City of Oklahoma City declares houses dilapidated and tears them down all the time....

Have you spoken to any of the property owners in the area. I would imagine there is nothing more than most of them would like than to fill their spaces if there were businesses or groups that would move in. This is a pretty poor economy to be starting a business (ie: retail or restaurant) in.

Let's apply a simple macroeconomic model: Vacant property owners have their taxes raised because their buildings are empty, meaning that they have to further raise rental rates to cover increased costs, further diminishing demand for the buildings. The end result is a market like Detroit's which has tens of thousands of vacant, abandoned buildings and no tax base. All in favor say "aye."

I think you mean microeconomic since you're speculating on the effect on consumer demand for space in Bricktown. And you forgot to connect it to the end of the world there at the end.

I think if the city provided free public parking in Bricktown you'd see all of the vacant parking lots getting developed, since those would go out of business. Brewers would take a hit for sure, and they own a lot of the empty space, too..although they're putting 1 business in right now so that's not bad.

__________________
I'm just your typical OKC enthusiast..that's not always "enthusiastic."

Spartan - No, I was thinking macro. Wiki: "...deals with the performance, structure and behavior of the economy of the entire community." It's not Paul Samuelson, but it's close enough.

???

there's tons of free parking in bricktown.

One method of handling this issue through property taxation has been to tax the value of the land rather than the value of the building; This way the expensive land in Bricktown has the same high tax rate whether it is occupied, renovated, dilapidated, or a parking lot.

Its excellent that you mention Dallas. The "Deep Ellum" portion of Dallas is on a downward cycle becuase of "lease speculators". Bars and resturants were there becuase the leases were inexpensive enough operate at a profit and still have an inexpensive cover charge and drink prices to attract customers. Speculators started buying up property and raising their leases. The clubs and resturants started closing becuase they could no longer maintain their inexpensive price structure to attract customers and make a profit. Now many of these properties sit empty becuase the owners are charging to much for their leases. At this point, they have no incentive to drop their prices and get their property occupied. The only clubs and resturants that remain are ones that own their own building. The owners of the "Angry Dog" have turned down offers to sell their property becuase they do not want to see the property end up empty like so many others around them. But I consider "Deep Ellum" very different from Bricktown since there was never a tax generated to specifically develop the area.

It's socialism is what it is. Just because YOU are unhappy with someone’s PRIVATE choices with their PRIVATE PROPERTY doesn't give you, the city or anyone else the right to come it and 1) tax; or 2) take your land so that government can control urban development. If you don't like what Bricktown property owners are doing with their buildings then buy it or shut up.

Let us just keep dismantling American rights (like the right to enjoy the gains of their own industry. Article 2 Clause 2 Oklahoma State Constitution) let us continue to say "I don't care what YOU want to do with YOUR LAND, I want to do something different with it so I am going to FORCE you through taxation and proverbial 'sword' of the government to develop YOUR LAND the way that I see fit." It is not like they are wanting to turn the grounds into a nuclear waist dump that is hazardous to the health and well being of the public, they are just choosing or may be unable to not develop the property as YOU think they should.

GO TO CHINA WITH THAT THINKING BUT KEEP IT OUT OF AMERICA!

Seth,

Property owners can not have it both ways. They can not both benefit from government involvement and shun government involvement. Prior to MAPS, the Bricktown area was nothing more than public urinal and dropping place for stolen cars. The only reason the value of the property in the Bricktown area has increased is becuase of the city's efforts in having voter's approve a sales tax collection to specifically develop the area. As a voter at the time, it was my hope that the tax money collected go to develop the area to its utmost potential. Am I wrong for wanting to see the biggest value gained for my tax dollar?

Shane is correct. That is something that has been discussed for ALL of downtown, not just Bricktown. Also, I think everyone would be shocked and pretty excited if they knew the details of MULTIPLE unrelated projects being discussed for canal-front properties. I'd be interested to know if people feel the same way a year from now as they do today on this subject.

A couple of other observations, as someone who has run one Bricktown business for the better part of a decade, is a partner in a second (canal-front retail), as someone who owns no property and has no interest, financial or otherwise, in paid parking operations:

While overly-optimistic leasing prices may have been a legitimate problem in 1999, I don't think "greed" is the problem AT ALL these days. Most of the space down here could be leased for far less than space in successful strip centers or malls (this is actually reasonable, however, owing to the seasonality challenges associated with Bricktown). Of course, it's a lot easier to paint owners with the same "greed" brush...

I think there HAS been perhaps a lack of imagination (owners not willing to develop and sub-divide space on spec to lure tenants), and an unwillingness to break up large floorplates for smaller tenants. I think some owners anticipated that they would be able to lease the entire floor to a large national tenant and the tenant would make improvements. I think they hesitated to make improvements or smaller leases that would preclude such a full-floorplate lease, just for a 500 to 1,200 sq ft tenant (the type that actually would work the best here), OR have to be torn out and wasted based on different tenant requirements. That part is changing. I've seen evidence of it first-hand, and I know more development is on the way.

Next issue: large amounts of free parking in Bricktown would be disastrous IMO. Again, let me point out that I don't own parking lots or benefit from them in any way. In fact, as a merchant that caters to visitors and retail customers, you would think I of all people would want it. However, tons of free parking encourages squatting from people who aren't here to spend money, day parking by workers here and in other districts (quickly eating up the free spaces and still saddling you with the same problem), and perhaps worst of all, free parking caters to juveniles and trouble-makers.

We saw this first-hand in 2006, when we had a problem with juveniles and gang-bangers. It is the same problem that malls (even nice ones) have when kids figure out they can come in, hang out, hassle folks, start fights and such, all while not spending a dime. The difference is that malls are private property and can run off loiterers. You can't do that legally on public streets. Free parking is a red herring; an excuse often tossed around by bad business operators who failed to plan for Bricktown's unique challenges related to seasonsality, event-driven business and other things.

I don't think many of the people on here grousing about empty space have paid much attention to all of the places recently renovated in Bricktown, projects currently underway, and of course can't know about several of the game-changing deals working down here.

I know it's really popular these days to hate on Bricktown, but it's a few years too late, and doesn't give appropriate credit to the great projects that HAVE taken place. Besides, there is a reason national consultants such as Jeff Speck have continued to label the district as OKC's best hope to create a fully-realized urban environment downtown. The district is making more progress right now than ever, and if you're open-minded you will see this upon close examination. Be ready for lots more good news in coming months.

Wow was that a recorder playing back? I swear I have heard this somewhere before.