I know I've occasionally been critical, but Steve deserves credit for drawing parallels to Core to Shore and the disastrous Victory Park development in Dallas.

http://newsok.com/a-look-at-dallas-offers-aid-in-downtown-plans/article/3379909?custom_click=columnist

A look at Dallas offers aid in downtown plans

BY STEVE LACKMEYER
Published: June 23, 2009


DALLAS — Time and again I’ve found it helpful to look to Dallas when Oklahoma City hits another crossroads developing its own downtown.

This past weekend I did just that, and have no doubt, downtown Dallas has exploded with the addition of new retail, housing, hotels and offices. Dallas could well be on its way to becoming a world-class city — if only it could find its own soul and center.

Oklahoma City is moving full steam ahead with development of the currently blighted Core to Shore area between the Central Business District and the Oklahoma River. But we’ve now heard publicly from one consultant, Jeff Speck, to slow down on such plans. I’ve heard reports other consultants have provided the same advice — but for various reasons we may never hear from them.

Core to Shore is praised by Speck as a great plan, one for the future. The city already has spent millions buying up key properties and Mayor Mick Cornett has made no secret of his desire to see a "central park” included in a potential MAPS 3 ballot. That park would be complemented by a new convention center and ample retail and housing in the mix.

But here’s what worries Speck: creation of a rival development area could stunt or reverse downtown’s progress.

Some top downtown civic leaders believe the same but have yet to speak publicly. But that silence is beginning to break with housing developer Ron Bradshaw telling me he’s very worried about what will happen to the fledgling Maywood Park/Deep Deuce area housing if he has to compete with homes built next to a new giant park.

And what will happen to efforts to establish retail in Bricktown and Automobile Alley if a rival retail area with ample free parking is set up in Core to Shore? The questions go on and on.


What did Dallas do?
So what can we learn from Dallas? It too pursued a similar plan — Victory Park — in a blighted area that was cleared and then anchored with a brand new arena. What’s now a reality is an architecturally stunning area with plenty of empty store fronts and no street life whatsoever.
This latest visit revealed that yet another development started in 2000 — West Village — is still the best example of a thriving mix of housing, retail and offices. West End, meanwhile, is seeing a bit of resurgence. Many of the surface parking lots used by visitors were gobbled up by big housing projects once the West End Marketplace closed and the area lost its buzz.

Compared to three years ago, West End is back to being primarily a restaurant area with a couple of shops in the mix. It doesn’t have the glitz and excitement it did a decade ago and the marketplace remains closed. But it has survived, likely because West End offers what Victory Park does not — a sense of place.

I wonder what will happen if Oklahoma City, like Dallas, tries to force creation of a new "place”? Thirty years ago Oklahoma City leaders ignored all warnings about the failure of downtown malls and tore out Main Street. They didn’t want to reconsider plans they had put in motion years earlier.

We know the results looking back. Will there be repercussions if Oklahoma City ignores all advice and refuses to reconsider its path as it pursues Core to Shore?

Thanks Sooner.

Steve, why are you thanking him, aren't you mad at him for posting the whole article?

Metro, I've made my thoughts known on this, and yes, I still wish my stories were simply teased and linked and that I were given the courtesy given to bloggers. I'm upset that it happens, I'm not mad at you, not mad at Sooner. You, meanwhile, are being quite feisty today.

No, no hard feelings, just knew you called me out on posting the whole article before, but not Sooner, even though the Oklahoman freely gives permission to do so, if anything one should be mad at your employer for allowing to do so. I have been lately posting a teaser w/ link.

Guys, I'm not going to be the bad guy on this discussion. But did The Oklahoman really give permission for stories to be reposted? All I can speak for in this matter is my preference when it comes to what I write. I've stated it clearly, and I'm not wanting to be the heavy-handed cliche old media guy who over-reacts. I think there's a way we can all play nice in this big new playground.
Now, that said, let's get back to the Central Park/Core to Shore discussion... (or not).

So do you think Victory Park will be turned around? I'm curious on what you Dallasites have to say....

I talked to several Dallas residents and they all say it's a disaster. As for myself, I was surprised to see West End on the rebound. But after seeing the influx of housing, it makes sense. Odd how failure can end up being fertile ground for success. But Victory - well, it's cold. It has stunning architecture - but only if you're looking up. It's Jane Jacobs' worst nightmare. I guess a few thousand housing units could turn it all around...

Pardon my ignorance on this subject...its been awhile since I visited Dallas. Isn't Victory Park basically a residential, retail area? I looked it up online and couldnt get a good feel for the development. Is there an actual park included? Im biased since I want the central park in OKC to be built, but I think building the park first then letting the area grow around it would work. As far as the future development of residences around the park affecting deep duece and bricktown Id say they are two different lifestyles. And any future residences would be several years away in the c2s district. Plenty of time for dd and bt to get their roots.

No, I saw no big park as part of Victory Park. The comparison is that both cities set about creating new mixed use districts in blighted areas while there were still questions about long term viability of other downtown areas. For more on this, read my coverage in yesterday's Oklahoman about Jeff Speck's report.

So do you think Victory Park will be turned around? I'm curious on what you Dallasites have to say.... Victory Park has been somewhat of a dissapointment. It just seems to be overhyped in "some" areas. There is the swank "W' Hotel with the nightclub atop of it that attracts the young and upward. Hard Rock Cafe will be reopening in Dallas at Victory Park. There has also been a number of casualties in several restaurants and shops have closed. Last time in the DMN it stated it is trying to cater to a more diverse crowd instead of the affluent upward and have more to offer than just upscale.

You know, I have slowly begun to have the same feelings about core to shore and especially the way MAPS 3 seems to be more and more looking away from the city’s current strengths only to spend money on a big unknown that will only add competition to an area just now starting to find its legs.

Core to Shore plans are intoxicating and tempting. I would love to see it happen, but it's hard to make a case that it makes sense at this point when most new development in the core is still in progress, continually compromised, or often scrapped altogether. When MidTown, the Triangle, and Deep Deuce aren't even fully developed or occupied and with downtown office occupancy rates still below average, why are so many rushing to say we need to add a large scale development project to the other side of the core? Wouldn't that just increase competition and lower margins for developers, while spreading out the demand for downtown living? The end result is that we would be stretching out the time line for seeing at least one vibrant densely populated urban living district even longer.

There is no doubt that greater Oklahoma City is hampered by its general development strategy of spreading little bits of development over an unusually large amount of real estate. This is probably why we have so few large scale development successes. We just have too many compromised or unfocused developments in the city that we never see any real critical mass emerge that elevates the city as a whole.

Now, core to shore is trying to create more development right next to an area that still struggles to maintain respectable occupancy and attract big name tenants. There is no doubt that any large scale developments would undercut the efforts to create a vibrant and livable core. At this point, it wouldn't supplement downtown, it would compete with it. So, in a real sense, isn’t Core to Shore simply an extension of our long history of disposable development strategy that makes it hard to sustain any single area long term?

I like the idea of a park that connects downtown to the river. And I would love to see it filled with multiple permanent attractions that fill it with people every weekend. But I am not sure we ready to support the development that is supposed to surround it and still achieve a real urban living option in Oklahoma City in the next 15 years or so. No doubt, if premature, core to shore could prevent OKC from achieving that goal within the next generation.

So, to me, the question for MAPS3 is can we build a park for the sake of having a park while at the same time resisting the urge to develop around it in such a way that the central part of the city simply becomes overdeveloped and underused? I'm not sure that the city could control the developments and I kind of suspect that city leaders really aren't interested in developing the park if recent real estate prospectors can't develop the area around it. One the flip side, would such a park be ignored and/or neglected if it doesn't have neighborhoods and offices around it?

That's why when I look at MAPS 3, I think we should be asking how we can further solidify downtown as a main attraction and somehow tie all the districts together so that they support each other and enhance commercial synergy between their assets. Instead of first looking to create more assets that need to be supported and maintained for the next generations, why don’t we strengthen the assets created directly or indirectly from the initial MAPS projects so that we ensure the success of current developments in the core and help create the neighborhoods that are on the verge of being born.

I honestly think a better, more comprehensive transportation option to move people around the core is a much better bet at this point and should be given more priority. This way we are supporting areas that we know are working or may just need that extra push over the top, instead of gambling on the complete unknown, which will largely be directed by an authority that frankly doesn't have a lot of vision or even much competence in enforcing someone else's agreed upon vision. Do we really want a large Lower Bricktown with just more square footage? Given our history, there is a much better chance of that than what we see in Core to Shore renderings today.

I love the Core to Shore plan. But I have loved a lot of Oklahoma City "plans" and many have never even come close to what was proposed or couldn’t be supported in the way the developer originally envisioned. However, we actually do have some real life and rejuvenation coming to downtown and its immediate districts. I think they have hit a speed bump with the economy and its initial narrow focus on "luxury" living, but the potential is still there and it's a lot closer than Core 2 Shore will be even 15 years from now. Why start over with a new district, when we have multiple districts that haven't reached maturity or occupancy? So, I guess, unless we can find a way to build the park without adding empty office space and housing, maybe we should just wait and see if the emerging districts can find real success before we begin subsidizing competition against it.

It seems almost certain that the powers to be are moving on the park and convention center. I was in the park meeting last week and probably the most important comment that I heard was from Grant Humphrey's. He emphasized the need to "frame" the park. He is absolutely right. If we are going to stimulate development down there, we need to start modestly and "frame" the park so that it is a success. As Speck outlined in his speech at the Skirvin, we have those natural protective instincts that are assuaged when there are boundaries. Not framing the park with mixed development is a sure way to create the feeling of insecurity and thus a underutilized space. "The sense that the vagrants and other undesirables are lurking behind the bushes."How Core to Shore develops itself behind the frame can only be told by time. If we are to "create" a district overnight, it has to have a neighborhood feel scaled appropriately as to be a Southern bookend that is "forced" towards the river. Hopefully, the development and availability of land can become available in an more organic way as a result of demand rather than the Urban Renewal concept of giant "super blocks" that beg to be "mis-developed".

I also heard a very interesting and worthwhile concept that is being explored. The idea that vacant lots have fees for sitting idle and progressive fines for not being properly maintained. Nothing aggravates me more than the plethora of vacant lots owned by speculators that think they are sitting on gold. So many of these people have absolutely no vision and are stunting growth in the areas that you guys so frequently discuss. These individuals in Bricktown, Midtown, and other areas need to price their land appropriately and sell it to people with vision. It is a free country, but their greed is hurting our city.

Steve,

Sorry. I put the link to the story above the reprinted version. From now on, I'll just take parts of the story and link to the full one.

BDP,

Your thoughts are right on the money.

Why don't they do something to "finish" an area first. Midtown is a great place to start.

There are tons and tons of empty lots festering on the northern side of downtown.

Urban Pioneer is also right: greed and lack of vision are holding this city back. A fancy Jestons-looking rendering for Core to Shore does not guarantee anything except more of the same. It's a nice distraction.

Thanks Sooner.

[QUOTE=Urban Pioneer;
I also heard a very interesting and worthwhile concept that is being explored. The idea that vacant lots have fees for sitting idle and progressive fines for not being properly maintained. Nothing aggravates me more than the plethora of vacant lots owned by speculators that think they are sitting on gold. So many of these people have absolutely no vision and are stunting growth in the areas that you guys so frequently discuss. These individuals in Bricktown, Midtown, and other areas need to price their land appropriately and sell it to people with vision. It is a free country, but their greed is hurting our city.[/QUOTE]

Amen!!!

I agree with the thought that we should encourage growth with what we have before we create something that competes with it. Everytime I go to Mcnellies or Cafe do Brazil I sit there and look around and wonder how midtown isnt more developed, or at least have more residential buildings. Midtown is primed to be the best urban district/neighborhood in the city, but has stalled for whatever reasons (yea, yea, yea, its the credit markets...). If we cant get midtown to where it should be, then I think we should go very slowly on the C2S, which in reality will probably be a slow developing project anyway.

Why isn't midtown more developed? Because owners are thinking that if they sit on their property, they'll make out better. I agree that certain districts should be targeted and that fees and taxes could be assessed to encourage these speculators to either s*** or get off the pot.

Why isn't midtown more developed? Because owners are thinking that if they sit on their property, they'll make out better. I agree that certain districts should be targeted and that fees and taxes could be assessed to encourage these speculators to either s*** or get off the pot.

Interesting discussion developing here. But let's swap out MidTown and replace it with Bricktown.
Here's what's going on:
Most of the undeveloped or empty buildings in MidTown are in play. While I can't get into specifics, I can tell you that regardless of the economic crash, it's looking like more housing is coming and yes, a hotel too.
Your assessment could be applied, however, to Bricktown. Enough said on that.

It'd be difficult to make something like this work. I know that (not the best example) many residential developers who sell lots in a neighborhood have covenants requiring builders to build within x months or sell. To beat this, builders just set up a couple of LLCs and flip the properties back and forth until an opportunity comes up. I have to imagine that these speculators would probably do exactly the same thing.

The only solution I can think of would be to impose a stiff non-development tax on all land in Bricktown not being used in conformity with Bricktown's scheme. That'd probably put the Brewers out of business, but too bad/so sad.

Has such a solution ever been used elsewhere to motivate speculators? Would such a scheme force a lot of subpar development like we have in lower Bricktown?

Interesting discussion developing here. But let's swap out MidTown and replace it with Bricktown.
Here's what's going on:
Most of the undeveloped or empty buildings in MidTown are in play. While I can't get into specifics, I can tell you that regardless of the economic crash, it's looking like more housing is coming and yes, a hotel too.
Your assessment could be applied, however, to Bricktown. Enough said on that.
That was my first thought as well.


It'd be difficult to make something like this work. I know that (not the best example) many residential developers who sell lots in a neighborhood have covenants requiring builders to build within x months or sell. To beat this, builders just set up a couple of LLCs and flip the properties back and forth until an opportunity comes up. I have to imagine that these speculators would probably do exactly the same thing.

The only solution I can think of would be to impose a stiff non-development tax on all land in Bricktown not being used in conformity with Bricktown's scheme. That'd probably put the Brewers out of business, but too bad/so sad.

Has such a solution ever been used elsewhere to motivate speculators? Would such a scheme force a lot of subpar development like we have in lower Bricktown?
Yes it would, just like charging property taxes on abandoned building in Downtown Dallas made more surface parking lots. When I worked there in the early 90's there wan article in Texas Architect magazine (http://www.texasarchitect.org/texasarch_articles.php) about the building boom of the 80's and collapse thereafter. It stated that 35% of the land in the Dallas CBD (at that time) was surface parking lots, from our office on the 27th Floor, I could believe it. Most of the buildings on those lots were 2-3 story buildings, in fact in the lot across the street from our building you could see where they left some of the flooring from the buildings as the parking surface. It's not like they made even enough money from the parking to pay for demolition, the only reason for doing it was to get the reduction in assessed value. The only way to solve a situation like that is to keep the assessment on an "improved" lot with a building or an "unimproved" lot with surface parking the same, demolition shouldn't reduce your taxes if you aren't going to do anything with it.

So, it's "greedy" for a land owner to exercise his property rights?

That was my first thought as well.


Yes it would, just like charging property taxes on abandoned building in Downtown Dallas made more surface parking lots. When I worked there in the early 90's there wan article in Texas Architect magazine (http://www.texasarchitect.org/texasarch_articles.php) about the building boom of the 80's and collapse thereafter. It stated that 35% of the land in the Dallas CBD (at that time) was surface parking lots, from our office on the 27th Floor, I could believe it. Most of the buildings on those lots were 2-3 story buildings, in fact in the lot across the street from our building you could see where they left some of the flooring from the buildings as the parking surface. It's not like they made even enough money from the parking to pay for demolition, the only reason for doing it was to get the reduction in assessed value. The only way to solve a situation like that is to keep the assessment on an "improved" lot with a building or an "unimproved" lot with surface parking the same, demolition shouldn't reduce your taxes if you aren't going to do anything with it.

I would simply let the Bricktown Public Trust act like the local homeowner's association. They'd decide what the highest and best use for land is, e.g., office/restaurant/hotel and then assess the penalty against nonconforming lots. What Dallas did wrong was base the tax upon assessed value. Just as easily (and more effectively) the tax could be based on square footage of underdeveloped property.

Would it cause property values to plummet? Probably... but even the threat of this sort of action would be enough to motivate speculators to either sell or start putting together serious offerings.

Most of the undeveloped or empty buildings in MidTown are in play

Steve, that sounds great, but what about the blocks and blocks of vacant lots?

Steve, that sounds great, but what about the blocks and blocks of vacant lots?

Midtown doesn't actually have too many vacant lots - many are owned by St. Anthony's or Micky Clagg, amongst others. I've heard bits and pieces of rumors regarding the future development of many of these. Also, the Overholser Green is actually Urban Redevelopment property... which is a whole other issue related to vacant land and development.

Dead on, cafe

OK, then maybe we're talking about different areas. I'm talking about the expanse of several blocks immediately north of the new Federal complex, and westward. There are literally entire blocks of empty space -- not even parking lots, and, in a few cases, parking lots.

This is literally hundreds of acres of undeveloped infill space.

Perhaps there are many plans I'm unaware of.

Also, I'm not discriminating between Urban Renewal vacant land and other vacant land. To me it's all just vacant land.

This is an interesting thread with lots of different tangents but I think a very important subject is being touched upon and needs to be fully explored before MAPS 3: Should we concentrate on building critical mass in key areas like Midtown and Bricktown before spreading our resources to yet another area that is likely to take decades to fill in?

My quick response to this is a resounding YES, and I've made this point several times.

The whole idea behind MAPS and these urban districts is to create a THERE to OKC. Before MAPS there simply wasn't one and now we have a good start on several (Bricktown, Midtown, Arts District, Film Row, The Triangle, Auto Alley, The Paseo, 23rd Street Corridor, etc., etc.) but NONE of them are close to being fully fleshed out in a way that creates even ONE true urban district.

I agree with guru about the emptiness of the area between Midtown (and much of that area, too) and the CBD / Arts District. I created this aerial overlay a couple of years ago to illustrate the vast amount of un- or under-developed properties in that area. I did this after a visit to town and being somewhat shocked by it after being away for some time. It effectively cuts off the residential from everything else:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res17zef/midtown2.jpg

Most of you know I'm very excited about Core to Shore, the prospect of a grand new convention center, a beautiful gateway boulevard and a park that will feature the jewel that is Union Station.

But I think this may be a case of trying to ride too many horses with one behind. I'd rather see the initiatives go towards getting one or two areas to the point of being able to live, work, play, eat and shop all by walking. We simply don't have that now and until we do, I'm not sure we should be plowing our resources into yet another vast new urban frontier.

I really want to see the business people that have taken the risks (like Tuck) be rewarded with success rather than diluting their market.

All the districts I listed have fantastic yet largely unrealized potential. I think mass transit, sidewalks, streetscaping, bike lanes and the like in the existing areas might be a better way to go then biting off yet another big chunk before we have come close to digesting what has already been started.

Why isn't midtown more developed? Because owners are thinking that if they sit on their property, they'll make out better. I agree that certain districts should be targeted and that fees and taxes could be assessed to encourage these speculators to either s*** or get off the pot.

Instead of punishing people with high taxes for literally doing nothing, why not reward developers for building projects. We could encourage development by freezing property taxes for a number of years based on the number of housing units built. As people develope their property, their tax will remain consistant while surrounding property taxes will go up due to the natural increase in property value.

The city will see an off-set in the reduced property tax because the new housing units will tie into exisiting infrastrucutre that the city won't have to build and maintain on the suburban fringe. In other words, the city might lose a few hundred thousand in defered property tax (at some point the freeze will be released) but they won't have to spend $3 million widening or repaving some rural road.

I suppose that'd work..

But I'm admittedly a bit of a fascist, so I prefer the stick to the carrot. Also, my method would have the added benefit of actually increasing tax revenue for the city, at least in the short term. That revenue goes to the schools mostly, so we could call my proposal the "Raise Ad Valorem Taxes on Deadbeat Property Owners to Educate the Children" bill.

I suppose that'd work..

"we could call my proposal the "Raise Ad Valorem Taxes on Deadbeat Property Owners to Educate the Children" bill.

That is hilarious.

So, it's "greedy" for a land owner to exercise his property rights?

I think that it is greedy when people think that they are sitting on Goldmines and have absolutely no vision of their own- therefore it sits there. There real problem with most development in downtown is the super-inflation of property values because of this greed. Some of it is just arrogance too.

A property is overvalued by someone down the line or "flipped" so many times that no type of development with exception of a skyscraper could ever have a enough rental space to "cost-justify the development. Then there is the whole "mom and pop" situation. Quality downtown environments are derived from mix use and mom and pop, not chains. When rents are to high (such as in Bricktown) mom and pop can't even make a stand and therefore it sterilizes the property. Only commercial conglomerates and box restaurants can afford it.

And regarding Midtown Renaissance, I have a friend who tried to buy a few of their vacant lots at their initial asking price. He was willing pay what they wanted. After some weeks of deliberation, they decided to hold on to the property because they were concerned of competition. I am sure that some of their properties will be gems, but they have too much land that will not be developed simply to be a security blanket.

I think that it is greedy when people think that they are sitting on Goldmines and have absolutely no vision of their own- therefore it sits there.

But, it's their land, not yours. If you think you can do better, buy it from them.

Some would consider you imposing your will onto land you don't even own even more greedy.

Let the market figure it out.

If the market figures it out, we'll be waiting a much longer time for progress .......

If the market figures it out, we'll be waiting a much longer time for progress .......

Time is money. And if the property has the potential to make money, someone with no time and lots of money will make an offer.

What's the alternative? Strong arm a private property owner out for what you think is a better use of their property?

If the market figures it out, we'll be waiting a much longer time for progress .......

Then, so be it. It seems to me you want to force "progress."

Luke,

The market is a joke. Look around. Planned developments require planning.

OKC had no zoning laws for years. Being a free market advocate does not mean you fail to see the value of covenants, zoning and planning.

The fact is that most of these people are clueless, many don't live here, and many more couldn't care less if the city improves.

Your laissez faire approach was tried in Oklahoma City for many generations, and it's a proven disaster.

Laissez-faire doesn't really work with land and urban planning. You're talking about a finite, in fact, unique and expensive resource. Some land is entitled to be left the hell alone by government. If you're out in the sticks, you should be able to expect to be left alone. If, however, you own land in the urban core and your land's development is an important aspect in the city's core getting a much needed facelift (which will benefit all landowners who participate and invest), then yes, the government has a highly legitimate interest in seeing that you use your land in conformity with its common scheme or plan.

There's a time and place for laissez-faire. This ain't it. These people squatting on empty lots are holding back the landowners who are trying to make a go of it.

It definitely does work.

However, we just live in a more socialistic society instead of one where the individual has rights. If the group thinks one person's land is (whatever), then the group, by way of government, can force the landowner into what they want. It gets really bad when private developers collude with government councils in order that their private development gets built regardless of the landowner's legal rights.

We can see how local government has created a great use of urban space with lower bricktown and bass pro. :rolleyes:

It IS possible to respect the constitution and still develop in urban areas.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/x-V8ljoCmmg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/x-V8ljoCmmg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The Constitution doesn't say we can't develop urban areas using eminent domain. In fact, according to Kelo, it says just the opposite.

Yeah, if YOUR property can earn the city more revenue from a business plan that someone else has for it, then the city can take it.

Ahhhh, freedom.

We have too much 3rd world thinking in this city already. Underdeveloped neighborhoods served with all city services increase taxes for everyone else, or it results in an inefficient supply of services. There is a reason for planning and order to development. Buying property and holding the city as hostage isn't right either. So, property owners of vacant lots should pay a TRUE fair share of what it takes to maintain the area.

Awhile back I was in Beirut. There are many standing examples of buildings torn up by the war. They have been their as a blight for 20 years. The reason....vacant buildings aren't taxed. The owner has no incentive to clear the building and do something more productive with it. It doesn't cost them to hold it. They hope it is enough of a problem that they will be bought out. The government subsidizes this blackmail with no taxes. Face it, there are many who are happy to be leeches. The citizens should have a right to be protected from them through actions of city government oversight. Remember, your INDIVIDUAL rights end when they abridge MY individual rights. I don't want to pay for leeches.

We have too much 3rd world thinking in this city already. Underdeveloped neighborhoods served with all city services increase taxes for everyone else, or it results in an inefficient supply of services. There is a reason for planning and order to development. Buying property and holding the city as hostage isn't right either. So, property owners of vacant lots should pay a TRUE fair share of what it takes to maintain the area.

Awhile back I was in Beirut. There are many standing examples of buildings torn up by the war. They have been their as a blight for 20 years. The reason....vacant buildings aren't taxed. The owner has no incentive to clear the building and do something more productive with it. It doesn't cost them to hold it. They hope it is enough of a problem that they will be bought out. The government subsidizes this blackmail with no taxes. Face it, there are many who are happy to be leeches. The citizens should have a right to be protected from them through actions of city government oversight. Remember, your INDIVIDUAL rights end when they abridge MY individual rights. I don't want to pay for leeches.

Good points, Rover. It certainly cuts both ways. There should be a system in place to make sure everyone carries their own weight.

In case you guys haven't noticed, people aren't exactly limning up to develop large projects now. So unless every land owner is greedy and have no vision, then there must be other economic factors in play. Penalizing people who are doing nothing will not increase development. Giving people incentives to develop will increase development. Promising not to punish, is not an incentive. That is like saying, "The floggings will continue until moral improves."

In case you guys haven't noticed, people aren't exactly limning up to develop large projects now. So unless every land owner is greedy and have no vision, then there must be other economic factors in play. Penalizing people who are doing nothing will not increase development. Giving people incentives to develop will increase development. Promising not to punish, is not an incentive. That is like saying, "The floggings will continue until moral improves."

What do you suggest? Other than Bass Pro and some TIF's (Tax Increment Financing) here and there our city has historically been quite resistant towards providing incentives. MAPS for incentives? lol

What do you suggest? Other than Bass Pro and some TIF's (Tax Increment Financing) here and there our city has historically been quite resistant towards providing incentives. MAPS for incentives? lol

Money.

Pay for their property. Make them an offer they can't refuse.

Yeah, if YOUR property can earn the city more revenue from a business plan that someone else has for it, then the city can take it.

Ahhhh, freedom.

Ah, so you understand. The 5th Amendment only requires the government to give you fair market value and only requires that there be some sort of 'public purpose' for the taking.

In Oklahoma, our rights are protected a bit more. Takings have to be for an actual public use (the requirement for public use is someone more than in Kelo). There does exist, however, an exception for this type of property we're talking about here which doesn't normally exist -- blight. Most, if not all of these properties can easily be called 'blighted' and therefore, the taking itself is enough of a public purpose to justify the taking on the theory that correcting blight anywhere it can be found benefits the public at large.

What developments has Midtowner been involved in? He seems to be an expert on this subject.

I'm far from an expert. I'm just well acquainted with the public policy and the relevant mechanics of the situation here. That's enough to have an opinion on the internet I hope.

Money.

Pay for their property. Make them an offer they can't refuse.

I think that exasperates the problem. lol

I think that exasperates the problem. lol

Yup. Make one landowner an offer he can't refuse (with what money?) and everyone in the area or any similarly situated area will be holding out for the same deal. Eventually, you've got a lot of dilapidated structures (if anything) in an area which has a couple of nice buildings, but is otherwise undeveloped.

One thing I think might help is removing any ad valorem exemptions which developers can take advantage of -- either that or scale those exemptions way way back.

Money.

Pay for their property. Make them an offer they can't refuse.

Ah yes... but then you have the situation we have today - several prime parcels of Bricktown property that were bought at inflated prices and now development can't financed (Example: the Cotton Exchange project). Very few land owners in Bricktown now have properties bought early on at reasonable prices that would allow for favorable development financing. Which brings us to ... OKC Boy, want to take it from here?
(Ain't I a stinker?)

I understand what you are saying.

Since you choose not to buy the land outright then you will collude with government entities to force the property owner out. Then the very developer who colludes with government and didn't want to pay for the property will make TONS and TONS more money on that property. Way more money than it would have cost to just buy it in the first place.

What exacerbates the problem isn't so-called squatters. It's the developers who KNOW they don't have to play by the rules nor accept the offered original price that exacerbates this problem. Heck, if the developer plays his cards right (depending who is on the council, board or agency) he might not even have to pay for this property. Whats worse, on top of all that, financial incentives can be given to the developer all on behalf of the TAXPAYER.

New fancy development is great. He's making so much money he could have bought the original property ten, fifty, one hundred times over.

When the mafia, gangs, syndicates, or other organized crime units engage in these tactics, it's illegal. I suppose the government doesn't like competition.

Well, there is another option - one that is becoming more and more feasible: justice via bankruptcy. There is a risk to these buy, sit and flip games. You might just end up with a down economy and no way to continue making those payments. I do not wish anyone to end up bankrupt, but it would do wonders for Bricktown property values and development prospects.

Well, there is another option - one that is becoming more and more feasible: justice via bankruptcy. There is a risk to these buy, sit and flip games. You might just end up with a down economy and no way to continue making those payments. I do not wish anyone to end up bankrupt, but it would do wonders for Bricktown property values and development prospects.

Hey, at least that's legitimate.