Classen Circle

[TheTravellers]

https://www.thelostogle.com/2017/09/...-city-culture/

"A month or two ago, I received several emails from a former Braum’s insider containing gossip and details about Drew Braum, his business associates, and other members of the company’s executive team. The emails painted a picture of a frat house corporate culture that would make even the most experienced Oklahoma lawmaker blush.

At the time, I wasn’t sure if the tabloid accusations were worth covering or vetting, but for some reason, I now think it’s in our city’s best interests to pursue them. If you have any tips or details about Braum’s, their corporate culture, or the playboy lifestyle of Drew Braum, send them our way. We will pursue each lead, and if something comes from our investigation, the details will be released at a special “Community Meeting” at the Hilo. If Braum’s is going to destroy our community’s culture, we might as well go after theirs, too."

[Pete]

^

Holy cow.

I give them credit... The Lost Ogle really puts their necks out in a town where you generally get punished for doing so.

They are basically the counter-balance to the Oklahoman's "everything is fantastic! and we'll never say a discouraging word about local power brokers and big business".

[stile99]

Do they have open campus for lunch?

I would think very few schools allow this anymore.

I honestly thought the claim that one could purchase a delicious burger and shake from Braum's meant it was said in jest.

[Swake]

Just looked at their student handbook and open lunch is for seniors only.

How big is a senior class at McGuinness? 150 kids? There's not much business there to get.

[Pete]

How big is a senior class at McGuinness? 150 kids? There's not much business there to get.

They have an ADM of just under 700 kids in 4 grades, so your guess is probably darn close.

They are the smallest school in 5A.

[UnFrSaKn]

Don’t read the Facebook comments from local news.

[pickles]

100% agree with you on just because they can doesn't mean they should.

I definitely am not on the side that Braum's should do it, my stance is that once they own the properties the buildings are on, it's their legal right to do so and if that's what they choose to do so be it.

Wow what a mind blowing take.

[FighttheGoodFight]

Don’t read the Facebook comments from local news.

I love those gold mines. Reminds me why I should vote.

[Pete]

I love those gold mines. Reminds me why I should vote.

Right, and I think too many people kid themselves about the true nature of a very large percentage of the population.

I always laugh when people go to the fair and are amazed at the crowd they see there. Just goes to show how sheltered most of us live.

[king183]

Right, and I think too many people kid themselves about the true nature of a very large percentage of the population.

I always laugh when people go to the fair and are amazed at the crowd they see there. Just goes to show how sheltered most of us live.

This is why we get results like the Braum's development, massive, unnecessary, ugly parking garages in prime downtown spots, a downtown boulevard that repeats the failures of the very roadway it replaced, etc. Many of us don't understand how other people think and live outside of our social circle. We don't fully comprehend the size of the population that truly sees these developments as progress (or they don't care).

[jerrywall]

This is why we get results like the Braum's development, massive, unnecessary, ugly parking garages in prime downtown spots, a downtown boulevard that repeats the failures of the very roadway it replaced, etc. Many of us don't understand how other people think and live outside of our social circle. We don't fully comprehend the size of the population that truly sees these developments as progress (or they don't care).

I get amazed when people unfriend folks on Facebook or block them on Twitter because they disagree. Living in a social media bubble is, imo, a big problem for lots of people nowadays.

[bchris02]

This is why we get results like the Braum's development, massive, unnecessary, ugly parking garages in prime downtown spots, a downtown boulevard that repeats the failures of the very roadway it replaced, etc. Many of us don't understand how other people think and live outside of our social circle. We don't fully comprehend the size of the population that truly sees these developments as progress (or they don't care).

This is very true. Central OKC has a very different culture compared to most of the state or even the metro.

[d-usa]

I got enough friends to disagree with in real life. For me Facebook is mainly used for staying in touch with family scattered all around the world and good friends. It's about sharing what is happening in our lives and reading what is happening in theirs: work, kids, free time, etc.

For me, Facebook is not about sharing what pisses you off in politics today, why you think Obama/Trump are the devil, and being constantly bombarded with crap that you should know is fake if you spend even 5 seconds reading the article you are sharing. Those are the people that get either unfriended completely if they are friends, or unfollowed if they are family. Not because I disagree with them, but because I have better things to do than to get worked up about stupid crap on Facebook.

[dankrutka]

I get amazed when people unfriend folks on Facebook or block them on Twitter because they disagree. Living in a social media bubble is, imo, a big problem for lots of people nowadays.

I agree in general. I don't block people on Twitter, but I've unfriended a few distant friends who are clearly not interested in engaging in meaningful dialogue. If you're just going to rant conspiracy theories without considering other points of view or evidence then what is the point in continuing to engage? It's rare, but those are the people I've unfriended.

Facebook's algorithms have actually done more to create ideological filter bubbles than users' individual decisions.

[dankrutka]

Everyone uses social media differently. If you don't want to engage in political discussions on Facebook (hopefully you do elsewhere though) then it's a reasonable position to unfriend people who do. I agree that we should aim to learn from those with different views, but that doesn't mean people have to do it on Facebook. Having said that, filter bubbles are a legit problem.

[bchris02]

For me, Facebook is not about sharing what pisses you off in politics today, why you think Obama/Trump are the devil, and being constantly bombarded with crap that you should know is fake if you spend even 5 seconds reading the article you are sharing. Those are the people that get either unfriended completely if they are friends, or unfollowed if they are family. Not because I disagree with them, but because I have better things to do than to get worked up about stupid crap on Facebook.

I agree with this. I have unfriended people for constantly sharing fake political news, but it's also always somebody from a past era of my life that I will never see or associate with again. Somebody from high school for instance. Most people who post that kind of stuff might get unfollowed but I won't unfriend them.

[BDP]

my stance is that once they own the properties the buildings are on, it's their legal right to do so and if that's what they choose to do so be it.

But, should it be their legal right to do so?

I hear similar arguments all the time when demolition is proposed. That is, "well they own the land, they can do whatever they want with it". But it always seems that the closer it gets to where they live, the more exceptions to the philosophy they're willing to entertain, or even insist upon.

[T. Jamison]

But, should it be their legal right to do so?

I hear similar arguments all the time when demolition is proposed. That is, "well they own the land, they can do whatever they want with it". But it always seems that the closer it gets to where they live, the more exceptions to the philosophy they're willing to entertain, or even insist upon.

I see where you're coming from, but it must absolutely be their right to do so. Property rights are the backbone of real estate. Beginning to take individual property rights away would have significant unintended consequences.

It also can work in the opposite direction. For example (maybe not the best one), I (as well as probably plenty of people in Edmond) am disappointed that Edmond residents overturned the zoning change for a higher density, mixed use development near 15th and Bryant, but that doesn't mean I think we should take away their legal right to do so.

Somewhere there is a balance. You win some, you lose some, but taking rights away is not the solution.

[David]

But, should it be their legal right to do so?

I hear similar arguments all the time when demolition is proposed. That is, "well they own the land, they can do whatever they want with it". But it always seems that the closer it gets to where they live, the more exceptions to the philosophy they're willing to entertain, or even insist upon.

Technically speaking it isn't their legal right to do so, considering how zoning works.

For example, imagine that the Strawberry Fields development's real goal is to buy up all the property to the west of the new park and then put in a big pig farm. We'd find out real quick that just because you own the property, it doesn't mean you can freely implement whatever crazy idea you dream up without the say-so of the city.

[BDP]

Technically speaking it isn't their legal right to do so, considering how zoning works.

For example, imagine that the Strawberry Fields development's real goal is to buy up all the property to the west of the new park and then put in a big pig farm. We'd find out real quick that just because you own the property, it doesn't mean you can freely implement whatever crazy idea you dream up without the say-so of the city.

Right, because no one really believes in that right as an absolute one. None of my neighbors are going to argue that I should be able to scrape my house for Braum's because, well, I own it.

Somewhere there is a balance. You win some, you lose some, but taking rights away is not the solution.

Well, but that's how the balance is achieved. At some point the rights attached to pieces of land are restricted (i.e. removed).

I think I was being more academic with my comment and in context of this specific example, I can see how it sounded like I was saying we should take this specific land owner's rights away. I have lived in Oklahoma long enough to know that this one is a lost cause. But at some point, we should maybe reconsider how we can better achieve balance between development and community going forward. So, not proposing we take it away from this land owner specifically, but really just seeing if we're ready to look at future policies that can help mitigate it from happening again, either by restricting what can be done or more effectively encouraging development that doesn't default to demolition.

[Teo9969]

More than anything, I want to know the car count of people who are "going to Braum's" and end up half way Frontier City because that section of Expressway is among the very must confusing in the entire state.

[Pete]

Planning Commission just reached a stalemate on the Braum's rezoning issue.

It is automatically continued to next PC meeting.

Reminder that City Council will have the final say, whether the commission approves, disapproves or sends to council without recommendation.

Surprised the commission did not approve but lots of good discussion.

[Questor]

I just heard that too and was stunned. I have been looking online but cannot find anything on what the discussion centered around. Any details Pete?

[Pete]

I just heard that too and was stunned. I have been looking online but cannot find anything on what the discussion centered around. Any details Pete?

The main issue was that of proper use considering the OKC Plan and how this transitions into the neighborhood.

Reminder that the only thing to be decided is the rezoning of 3 residential lots.

Lots of concerns about the narrowness of 50th and how the project didn't fit into the area due to the immediately surrounding homes. Several mentions of curtailing the taking of homes along Western and converting to commercial use, often after owners let them sit in disrepair for a long time.

Once it became clear there would be a deadlock, the attorney for Braum's (Box) asked for them to send it to City Council without a recommendation. Typically, the Planning Commission either recommends for or against but they do have the option of sending it to the final decision by council without a recommendation one way or the other.

A vote was taken to send forward without opinion but that ended in a stalemate as well.

Box wanting to get this to City Council tells me he thinks they have the votes for approval there and no matter what happens at Planning Commission, their votes are the only ones that matter.

[Pete]

BTW, the attorney for the current building owners said they will demolish the current structures regardless of what happens with Braums.

I see that as a hollow threat and an attempt to bully the committee, as a new buyer may very well choose to keep and restore the buildings. They have paying tenants, after all.

The Braums sale is contingent on the rezoning so if that doesn't happen then no way they just demolish the buildings *then* try and find a buyer.

Just another ugly turn in this whole thing.