Oklahoma City has plans for blighted area
Urban renewal designation will allow use of eminent domain to buy land for MAPS 3 projects
BY BRYAN DEAN The Oklahoman
Published: February 10, 2010

The Oklahoma City Council voted 7-1 Tuesday to declare a 692-acre area south of downtown blighted and subject to urban renewal.

The move allows the city to use eminent domain to buy land for MAPS 3 projects, including a $130 million, 70-acre downtown park and a $280 million convention center. The city also could buy land in the area and turn it over for private redevelopment, a controversial urban renewal tool that drew the lone no vote from Ward 5 Councilman Brian Walters.

The area is part of the city’s Core to Shore program, an idea for developing the area between the current Interstate 40 Crosstown Expressway and the Oklahoma River as I-40 is moved south. The new I-40 will be just north of the river and is expected to be complete by 2012.

Louis Morgan, a resident and business owner in the area, said he agrees dilapidated properties in the area should be torn down. But Morgan worried that legitimate business owners also will be forced out by urban renewal.

"We were assured this wasn’t going to happen,” Morgan said. "There are a lot of landowners down there that if you start taking this property for public development, a lot of us will have to be closed. You all won’t pay me the money it will take me to relocate my business.”

Assistant City Manager Cathy O’Connor tried to quell fears that the city would push out all landowners in the area.

"This process does not mean we are going to acquire all the land in the Core to Shore area through eminent domain or urban renewal,” O’Connor said. "That’s not possible. There isn’t enough public money to do that.”

Officials likely will use eminent domain to purchase the 70 acres needed for the park. The proposed boundaries of the park are Robinson Avenue on the east, Hudson Avenue on the west, the river on the south and a new boulevard on the north, which will replace the existing I-40 after it is moved.

Officials have not chosen a site for the new convention center, but several of the possible locations are within the urban renewal area.

O’Connor said eminent domain could also be used for other properties, though it would be done sparingly.

"We may select some sites for private redevelopment that help protect the public investment and make the most of it,” O’Connor said. "The park is the best example of that. You might want to buy the property on either side of the park to help protect the development of that park and make sure that it feels safe to people.”

Property for the park and convention center could be purchased with funds from the $777 million MAPS 3 sales tax proposal passed by voters in December. Other sources, such as tax increment financing, would be used to buy land around the MAPS 3 projects.

"We will not use MAPS 3 money for sites that could be used for private redevelopment,” she said.

Before voting, council members watched a slide show of photos from the area showing run-down properties.

"These buildings are very deteriorated,” Planning Director Russell Claus said.

Council members were easily convinced the area is run-down, with several council members questioning how the city ever let such a large area go downhill so severely.

Walters was less enthusiastic about the idea of the city forcing property owners to sell so someone else can redevelop their land.

"We’re supposed to have private property rights in this country,” Walters said.

The Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority will develop a plan for the area, including which properties should be purchased. The rest of the plan will help property owners understand the kind of development the city wants to see in the area as improvements are made, officials said.

Leslie Batchelor, attorney for the Urban Renewal Authority, said the vast majority of property owners in the area will reap the rewards of the increased public investment.

"It will give the private landowner a reason to invest in their property,” Batchelor said.

Several council members expressed reluctance to put a negative designation on the entire area because of the few remaining property owners who are surviving. Batchelor said declaring the area blighted isn’t a negative judgment. It allows the city to use new tools to help the area come back to life.

NewsOK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-has-plans-for-blighted-area/article/3438450?custom_click=pod_lead_politics)

Interesting to consider the private property rights v. OKC's acquisition then turning over the land to private developers.

Oklahoma has some pretty strong protections for private property rights. The Oklahoma Supreme Court bucked the national trend of merely requiring a 'public purpose' for takings -- there has to be an actual public USE component, meaning that sans blight, the city can't take your land and then hand it over to another private interest. That came in the wake of Kelo v. Rhode Island, the famous case where several folks' homes were taken to build a condo development and a pharmaceutical plant (neither of which was ever built).

I've worked on several eminent domain cases where there was an absolute public use and the taking was going to happen. If the landowner is unhappy with the amount he receives in the commissioner's award, he can ask for a jury trial. If at the end of the jury trial, the jury awards just 10% over and above the commissioner's award, the condemning entity gets to pay the landowner's attorney's fees.

Eminent domain for the park - Yes.
Eminent domain so someone can build condos on someone else’s property - Not just No, but HELL NO.

Were they out of their minds when they approved this? I think the City Council better revist this decision. Otherwise, we will lose all the MAPS money to lawyers when all the lawsuits are filed.

Otherwise, we will lose all the MAPS money to lawyers when all the lawsuits are filed.

If the commissioner's awards are decent, that's fairly unlikely. Then again, if they handle their business like ODOT does, you're right. MAPS may damn well pay for my student loans.

And guess who was the only no vote for this, you guess it Mr. I vote No for everything Brian Walters.

Eminent domain for the park - Yes.
Eminent domain so someone can build condos on someone else’s property - Not just No, but HELL NO.

Were they out of their minds when they approved this? I think the City Council better revist this decision. Otherwise, we will lose all the MAPS money to lawyers when all the lawsuits are filed.

I have to agree with you Kerry. I don't like the direction this is taking us at all!:doh:

Thank you OKC for taking care of this horrible eyesore of land. I don't give a damn who gets rich off the land. As long as it looks nice, and brings new light to this trashy area!

Brian Walters - The Anti-City Councilman Councilman

I have to agree with you Kerry. I don't like the direction this is taking us at all!:doh: I am sure the City Council and the City Attorneys have already researched this before they make any so called " illegal" purchases through eminent domain. I think you all should give your city council a little more credit as they have been consulted by attorneys. It clearly states in the article that there is not enough money to buy out all the property/business owners. Also, Brian Waters, South Side council member seems to be the most unprogressive, unexciting council member. He really makes the Southside look bad as their elected official. I do not see a promising future for this man as a city leader or councilman, imho.

I wonder what would have happened had Dallas not protected the Cadillac Hieghts area here in Dallas? If Jerry World would have been built, the Trinity river Grand Park would have already been built, West end would still be a player, DART rail would be considered a huge success and South Dallas properties would be worth 30% more than they are now. Now, true this is just speculative, but it would have been likely. But, it is a mute point because the council didn't want to force a change for the people. Downtown is no better now that 10 years ago, in fact it is worse in some ways. Ahh, what might have been.

Having said that, objectively a few points come to mind with 'Eminent domain'.

1. Yes, the city may give what the market value is for the property, but the whole flaw to that thinking is, the property IS OLD and therefore not worth much. So, if they force the owner to move, likely they won’t be able to afford a new property. The City should assist with this process too, be it tax breaks for a while, providing the land to build on, acquiring unsold properties that these companies affected can buy at a more than reasonable rate, forcing the owners of UNSOLD properties to be proactive in Building City revenue even if it means giving the seller of that property tax incentives on new developments. If the city is in the mode of forcing change, it should be more prolific in its affect.

2. Since the properties ARE that old and dilapidated, owners of these properties should realize that the amount of time for those properties to be declared unfit is short. The cost for these properties to be maintained is substantial. Should the business be a legit business, they should be considering beautification and improvements anyway so they can be a part of this whole improvement, because in the end, winning more citizens should mean more business for them. But, from what I can see, most owners immediately affected by the Park are taking after the 'salvage yard' look instead.

3. How much will it really cost to move the likes of a Hub Cap shop, an auto parts store or a salvage yard? Seems the costs would be mostly for transportation, inventory and data entry. We're not talking factories and corporations for the most part. Minimal costs involved, can the city have independent contractors bid on the move, and establish a percentage of that to be paid to the company affected?
That leaves the citizens. Unfortunately the low-income citizens usually finish last in these situations. Wouldn't it be nice if OKC could revolutionize 'eminent domain' by going out of its way to set an example for other cities in how it handles relocating low income families? If OKC is thinking in a forward fashion...environmentally and in promoting a healthy lifestyle, they can shine to the nation in this instance with ethics. Not a lot of families would be moved. Spending a little more in this case would elevate the city’s ethics in the eyes of others.

I'm not really in the know about politics or hostile take overs, but I can see how the companies in this zone and the city can work together on this for the betterment of both. Granted, there will always be a few snags and feelings hurt. But, again I go to my stand-by: The city is a business. It must act and think like a business. Businesses go through periods where changes are a must for progress. Out with the old 486 computers and dot matrix printers, in with the speedy new ones. Trim off 5% of the work force to stay afloat and rehire later. Businesses are always in flux, adapting to demand. This situation is not much different.

I can't believe any of you thought the process would move forward WITHOUT this action. Did you really think that there wouldn't be landowners who were going to hold out for every penny and slow the process down as much as possible - like that one landowner who holds out so the office building has to be built around his house?

You know you only have to look over at Midwest City to see how this plays out. The exact same thing happened, MWC just tried to be a bit more sneaky about it.

Look back to about 1995, Midwest City Regional Hospital is sold by the City of Midwest City for some millions of dollars. The city holds on to this money for a grand plan they have to help revitalize the economy of the city. Target = 29th st, the "front doors" of the city. For years, the shopping centers had been declining and along with it, tax revenue in what was once a mecca of shopping.

The city puts the money from the sale into a Hospital Authority Trust. It cooks there for several years until the grand plan is developed and earns some interest. Fast forward and the city decides to use eminent domain to take the land. Through some interesting trickery, the funds change hands and eventually Town Center (a private development) is created with public funds.

Now there were countless lawsuits, and eventually the city actually lost. But by then the houses were gone and construction was well underway. It just ended up costing the city some cash.

Look into your future OKC...only you're being clear about it from the beginning.

Quote of the day... "declaring the area blighted isn’t a negative judgment"

Thank you OKC for taking care of this horrible eyesore of land. I don't give a damn who gets rich off the land. As long as it looks nice, and brings new light to this trashy area!

:congrats::congrats::congrats: AMEN!

"This process does not mean we are going to acquire all the land in the Core to Shore area through eminent domain or urban renewal,” O’Connor said. "That’s not possible. There isn’t enough public money to do that.”


Does this mean that if they had the money, that's what they would prefer to do?

That's just the way I read it on the first pass anyway.

Eminent domain for the park - Yes.
Eminent domain so someone can build condos on someone else’s property - Not just No, but HELL NO.

Were they out of their minds when they approved this? I think the City Council better revist this decision. Otherwise, we will lose all the MAPS money to lawyers when all the lawsuits are filed.

Well the reality in today's legal environment is that you can use eminent domain, not just for public acquisition like a park or a school, but you can also use it for private development too. Like Midtowner alluded to, Kelo v. New Haven (although he mistakenly refers to Kelo v. Rhode Island) is going to have to be reversed before they can actually fight eminent domain because the entire C2S area was declared as blighted.

Which it is. Can anyone literally tell us that C2S is not blighted?


Louis Morgan, a resident and business owner in the area, said he agrees dilapidated properties in the area should be torn down. But Morgan worried that legitimate business owners also will be forced out by urban renewal.

Uh... what legitimate businesses? I'm confused. Where are they finding these people? Who the hell is Louis Morgan--I'm guessing a junk yard owner or a flop house landlord?

Which it is. Can anyone literally tell us that C2S is not blighted?
flop house landlord?

When I do a Google view of that area, all I see is nothing but dilapidated homes, junk yards, and sloppy zoning.

If you go there in person...it's even worse.

There's some buildings along SW 3rd and SW 4th between Walker and Western that should ABSOLUTELY be preserved, but for the most part, that's it. Here and there are scattered buildings, like the Riverside Community Center, Santa Fe Depot, Little Flower Catholic Church, the old Film Exchange, and maybe one or two others..and that's it, for a large geographic area of nothingness.

Uh... what legitimate businesses? I'm confused. Where are they finding these people? Who the hell is Louis Morgan--I'm guessing a junk yard owner or a flop house landlord?

His property is at the SW corner 4th and Hudson. It looks like he has inherited the land from his father. He owns "CITY CARBONIC SALES & SERVICE CO." and it looks like they do something with tanker trucks.

I am sure the City Council and the City Attorneys have already researched this before they make any so called " illegal" purchases through eminent domain. I think you all should give your city council a little more credit as they have been consulted by attorneys.

Have agreed with most of the posts so far and I am sure the Council did indeed consult the legal staff. Sometimes legal advice is not accurate. They are called legal "opinions" for a reason. Often rulings are split in their decision.

Legal staff was consulted and we had (according to their own people) the original MAPS ballot that was "probably unconstitutional" (but no one challenged it). The most recent MAPS 3 seems even more unconstitutional as mid has explained before on a couple of counts, yet the legal advice said, "sure, not a problem"

One has to read carefully what is said and isn't said be "officials". True they don't have enough public money to buy ALL of the property in the area. At least not right now (remember Core to Shore is a 30 to 50 year plan so they have plenty of time to get more public money). Also you don't have to acquire ALL of the land through eminent domain, as many property owners are more than willing to sell for a fair price. The only areas they have to have the money for right now are the City Park and where ever the Convention Center ends up. Not only will they have access to the MAPS 3 money, but they also have bond money from the 2007 G.O. bond issue available (spent $6M of the authorized $26M so far). MAPS 3 sales tax money not available yet? No problem as the Ordinance authorizes them "for cash flow purposes" to use any sort of debt incurring vehicles. So really, not having enough public money isn't really an issue.

Obviously you don't set things up like this unless you intend to do it.

All of that said, there are definite areas that would qualify as being blighted I am sure but hundreds of acres? Hard to believe that every parcel fits the definition (am sure the legal definition is different than what most think of).

Eminent domain for actual public use (like the Park), while not preferred, am OK with that, but to take the property surrounding the Park to turn over to private developers, absolutely not.

I've driven that entire area multiple times, and there's no doubt in my mind it's blighted. I don't even remember seeing any residential areas, although newsok definitely has a picture of a few houses. I agree with Larry, essentially. I think that, were I the city, I would offer people a fair price for any land I wanted to use for the park, streetcar route or convention center and, if that tactic failed, I would use eminent domain. However, I don't think it's reasonable to use eminent domain for adjacent areas simply so they can be developed.

The plan, however, makes me think there's probably no hope for the convention center on the cotton gin site, as that's not in the "blighted area". The price we've heard mentioned for it far surpasses what the city would have to pay for land in the Core to Shore area, you can be sure, especially with the threat of eminent domain used as a bargaining chip.

IMO, it's blighted like the blighted areas of Detroit. Luckily our area is not as large as all that in Detroit!

City Carbonic does DOT required testing of compressed gas cylinders.

His property is at the SW corner 4th and Hudson. It looks like he has inherited the land from his father. He owns "CITY CARBONIC SALES & SERVICE CO." and it looks like they do something with tanker trucks.

Doesn't sound like anything I want to have next to an area of mixed-development with lofts, coffee shops, retail, etc. And a park. You've got to protect that public investment, first and foremost, and then the resulting development the city could incentivize in this regard is just an added benefit. The bottom line is you just can't have "City Carbonic Sales & Service Co" and tanker trucks and industrial uses next to a $120 million park that the people are paying for. That's the public's environment and the public has the right to assurance that the environment around it will be tip-top.

I think years of neglect and contribution to continual DEvaluation of the city should be considered too. There are many property owners who negatively affect their neighbors and the entire city by not only not investing in their properties, but letting them accumulate trash, to dilapidate and to not maintain any aspect of their property, generally accelerating the deterioration of value of the entire neighborhood and city. Where is the right of the citizens to fight back and insist that their actions do not continue to negatively affect OUR rights and values? In celebrating the rights of individuals, it has always been held that your right does not extend to negatively affect my right.

Midtowner referred to Kelo v. New Haven under another name and, I may be mistaken, but he also stated that the Pfizer facility was never built. I believe it was but Pfizer announced in the last few months they were vacating it. This is a different type of project. We're not taking land and giving it all to one corporation or one corporation dominating a larger product. This is a large scale redevelopment that will be well diversifed.

I will also echo that there are very few things in the C2S area that are worthy of saving.

Midtowner referred to Kelo v. New Haven under another name

This is true.

Doesn't sound like anything I want to have next to an area of mixed-development with lofts, coffee shops, retail, etc. And a park. You've got to protect that public investment, first and foremost, and then the resulting development the city could incentivize in this regard is just an added benefit. The bottom line is you just can't have "City Carbonic Sales & Service Co" and tanker trucks and industrial uses next to a $120 million park that the people are paying for. That's the public's environment and the public has the right to assurance that the environment around it will be tip-top.

Speaking of environmental liability, the city and future developers need to be dayum careful about which land they buy and the current landowners are likely terrified as to what sort of consequences will be in store for them when future owners start to do environmental surveys of this land. Just guessing, but due to the nature of many of these businesses, we're going to probably see a lot of environmental litigation down the road.

Agree Mid. the Gazette ran an article mentioning the environmental concerns (sorry don't have the link handy...will see if I can dig it up). In the article it mentioned that they weren't really all that concerned about the C2S property area (seemingly forgetting the 2 EPA Superfund sites that are near that area (both are supposedly cleaned up and off the list).

Speaking of environmental liability, the city and future developers need to be dayum careful about which land they buy and the current landowners are likely terrified as to what sort of consequences will be in store for them when future owners start to do environmental surveys of this land. Just guessing, but due to the nature of many of these businesses, we're going to probably see a lot of environmental litigation down the road.

True. C2S is the biggest load of crap ever. But I'm sure they'll spin this as, "Oh, we're cleaning up the environment.." one lawsuit against the city at a time.

Doesn't sound like anything I want to have next to an area of mixed-development with lofts, coffee shops, retail, etc. And a park. You've got to protect that public investment, first and foremost, and then the resulting development the city could incentivize in this regard is just an added benefit. The bottom line is you just can't have "City Carbonic Sales & Service Co" and tanker trucks and industrial uses next to a $120 million park that the people are paying for. That's the public's environment and the public has the right to assurance that the environment around it will be tip-top.

You can if it is in existence prior to the nearby purchase, a fully functional and on-going concern, and not for sale. Carbonics is the same as a vacant or run down or abandoned property. I don't know the chap, but unless I'm thinking of the wrong spot, the business doesn't look the least bit blighted.

Might prove interesting if the chap was a no intention to sell sort. I could be wrong, but I don't think Kelo provides near as much ground grab support here as some other places, stubborn lil' populist nature of our history and all that.

This is without a doubt one of the best decisions made by the mayor/council in years. This will definitely prove to be a wise move.

Might prove interesting if the chap was a no intention to sell sort. I could be wrong, but I don't think Kelo provides near as much ground grab support here as some other places, stubborn lil' populist nature of our history and all that.

There are *lots* of factors which may be considered as contributing to blight. I give you 11 O.S. 38-101(7).


8. "Blighted area" shall mean an area in which there are properties, buildings, or improvements, whether occupied or vacant, whether residential or nonresidential, which by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or obsolescence, inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation or open spaces; population overcrowding; improper subdivision or obsolete platting of land, inadequate parcel size; arrested economic development; improper street layout in terms of existing or projected traffic needs, traffic congestion or lack of parking or terminal facilities needed for existing or proposed land uses in the area, predominance of defective or inadequate street layouts; faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility or usefulness; insanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site or other improvements; diversity of ownership, tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land; defective or unusual conditions of title; any one or combination of such conditions which substantially impair or arrest the sound growth of municipalities, or constitutes an economic or social liability, or which endangers life or property by fire or other causes, or is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, mortality, juvenile delinquency, or crime and by reason thereof, is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare;

Takings based on blight don't even have to be done for a public purpose or for public use. It's sort of the exception that swallows the rule, at least where eminent domain in urban areas is concerned.

IMO its one of those things where you have the law and you hope your politicians will use it responsibly. Where you have had significant violations of responsible use, that's where the citizens and state legislatures have tightened the rules significantly. I've really not seen any sign the city has taken advantage of the law in the past and I don't see C2S as a violation. One responsible business sitting in a large-scale redevelopment project isn't a violation as long as they owner is paid a fair price for the property and the cost of moving.

Even in New Haven, the project was a reasonable project with Pfizer committing to a large percentage of it. It was the city of New Haven and the citizens that Pfizer screwed when they moved out long before the project was paid for.

Originally posted by Midtowner:

There are *lots* of factors which may be considered as contributing to blight. I give you 11 O.S. 38-101(7).


Quote:
8. "Blighted area" shall mean an area in which there are properties, buildings, or improvements, whether occupied or vacant, whether residential or nonresidential, which by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or obsolescence, inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation or open spaces; population overcrowding; improper subdivision or obsolete platting of land, inadequate parcel size; arrested economic development; improper street layout in terms of existing or projected traffic needs, traffic congestion or lack of parking or terminal facilities needed for existing or proposed land uses in the area, predominance of defective or inadequate street layouts; faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility or usefulness; insanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site or other improvements; diversity of ownership, tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land; defective or unusual conditions of title; any one or combination of such conditions which substantially impair or arrest the sound growth of municipalities, or constitutes an economic or social liability, or which endangers life or property by fire or other causes, or is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, mortality, juvenile delinquency, or crime and by reason thereof, is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare;


Typical, 198 words to say 'If we want it, we'll take it.'

Typical, 198 words to say 'If we want it, we'll take it.'

Sort of. Every situation is unique and there are things a landowner could do to defend against a taking based on blight.

Probably not in this case though... I doubt anything would really be feasible.

.... .....

Having said that, objectively a few points come to mind with 'Eminent domain'.

1. Yes, the city may give what the market value is for the property, but the whole flaw to that thinking is, the property IS OLD and therefore not worth much. So, if they force the owner to move, likely they won’t be able to afford a new property. The City should assist with this process too, be it tax breaks for a while, providing the land to build on, acquiring unsold properties that these companies affected can buy at a more than reasonable rate, forcing the owners of UNSOLD properties to be proactive in Building City revenue even if it means giving the seller of that property tax incentives on new developments. If the city is in the mode of forcing change, it should be more prolific in its affect.

2. Since the properties ARE that old and dilapidated, owners of these properties should realize that the amount of time for those properties to be declared unfit is short. The cost for these properties to be maintained is substantial. Should the business be a legit business, they should be considering beautification and improvements anyway so they can be a part of this whole improvement, because in the end, winning more citizens should mean more business for them. But, from what I can see, most owners immediately affected by the Park are taking after the 'salvage yard' look instead.

3. .... .....
That leaves the citizens. Unfortunately the low-income citizens usually finish last in these situations. Wouldn't it be nice if OKC could revolutionize 'eminent domain' by going out of its way to set an example for other cities in how it handles relocating low income families? If OKC is thinking in a forward fashion...environmentally and in promoting a healthy lifestyle, they can shine to the nation in this instance with ethics. Not a lot of families would be moved. Spending a little more in this case would elevate the city’s ethics in the eyes of others.



Great ideas BigD.

If OKC takes your suggestions (and I hope the city does), it will lend a LOT of credibility to the city and show that the city is progressive and also really cares about it citizens AND BUSINESSES, regardless of size or content. Even if the city isn't successful in every case, adopting these ideals as a mission and 'trying' to be as honest and fair as possible should minimize any legal confrontation and also put the city on very good light nationally.

As much as I hate blight that exists in the area, maybe we should be able to help move legitimate businesses by excusing some of the taxes of the 'new' location for a time period. These could be thought of as incentives that actually could be factored into the buyout offers and help spread around those funds. Nobody should plan on getting rich off of the new Central Park BUT we as a city should encourage our businesses to relocate and not contribute additional blight to new areas.

I hope we also assist homeowners in the blighted area into new housing in "say" Paseo or Midtown or other areas that we are trying to build up. These existing homes aren't the biggest nor best nor are they in the best of shape - BUT they are citizens of this city and should be taken care of FAIRLY. We could also give them first option for new housing (of same sq ft) that comes onboard. ..

This goodwill would go a long way and would truly show OKC as pro-business and also a very pro-gressive city!!!

HotRod, I just don't see that happening. Landowners get cash for their property -- not what the property is worth to them for their particular use, but fair market value, i.e., the price which would have existed between a willing buyer and a willing seller. They get a check for that amount (I'm ignoring the procedure aspects) and nothing more. They can fight the amount that's awarded, and many do. The good news is that if they get even 10% more than the Commissioner's Award (which is what a committee of appraisers say the property is worth), then they get their attorney's fees paid for. My firm has had a lot of success in that particular area as our senior partner (dad) oversaw the right-of-way takings for much of our interstate system... even won the lawsuit ending the environmental litigation threatening the construction of the Hefner Parkway.

As far as the relocation assistance goes, that too is cash. These folks will get to choose where to resettle. As far as the businesses go, there are plenty of areas. As for the few residential owners, I feel for them, but the statutes don't really allow transfers of wealth, just what the law allows.

Now.. if they want to demand jury trials alleging they didn't get offered fair market value, who knows what a jury will do. That's a situation the Urban Renewal folks would want to avoid for sure.

Midtowner, I agree with your assessment and have the up most respect for your and other lawyer member's opinions and advice.

But I (and I believe BigD) am talking about the city doing something a little bit different, a bit revolutionary - much like what MAPS has been. Is there a way we could head this off before it even happens?

We offer tax breaks to businesses all of the time, why not offer a 'grace period' for C2S businesses on the tax assessed in their new location. Surely, I would assume the land of their new areas would be worth more than the current blighted area in C2S. That added expense may not be part of the FMV of the current land, so many owners might feel undercompensated. But, if we consider this and offer a period of time where owners wouldn't need to pay the higher tax (or we keep the tax at the same original C2S rate for a period of time), I think it would go well to showing businesses that OKC 'cares' but also will help businesses improve. I would think, given this - that many businesses would do much better in their next location keeping their properties up (maybe we make this a requirement to be eligible for the forebearance) and we could turn these blight owners into successful and progressive business leaders.

Yeah, I know it's salvage yard owners and such - but if we can give them an incentive we might just avoid pointless lawsuits AND keep the business community morale while also improving OKC for all.

We might just be the first major city in America to do such a program and it wouldn't actually cost the city any more money (assuming the city isn't currently getting tax money in the new relocated areas already, so if we delay for a few years - there's no downside). It would recognize their contribution to the city and hopefully they would try better in their new location to keep it clean and organized.

as for the residents, I also agree with FMV and I know those houses will not get much value - but I think there is something to be said for goodwill and these people are POOR. If we could offer assistance, even having the city point the way towards development the resident's cash awards could afford and maybe also delay their property tax for a period; I just think it would be a very good think and also help expedite everything.

Again - I know it is a longshot from a legal pov, but OKC is a progressive forward thinking city and I think if we at least tried some of these ideas; we might just keep morale at an all time high and also change many more minds about OKC's viability as a major city (just like we have been doing with MAPS in the first place).

True. C2S is the biggest load of crap ever. But I'm sure they'll spin this as, "Oh, we're cleaning up the environment.." one lawsuit against the city at a time.

Ok, color me confused...if you believe C2S is "biggest load of crap ever" why were you such a supporter of MAPS 3? You do realize that many of the pieces (especially the high $$$ ones) were the 1st steps of the C2S plan?

Ok, color me confused...if you believe C2S is "biggest load of crap ever" why were you such a supporter of MAPS 3? You do realize that many of the pieces (especially the high $$$ ones) were the 1st steps of the C2S plan?

Good observation. I am probably MAPS 3's number 1 supporter, an epithet that entitles the bearer to an obscene amount of constructive criticism as well as praise. I am also one of the downtown area's staunchest advocates. The MAPS 3 projects are all GREAT projects with potential to continue the positive transformation full-steam ahead, provided each project is strategically located. The senior centers can all be great, in particular, with the right location and design. The convention center can be great in the right location, disastrous in the wrong location (but it's worth noting that I fully agree with the CONCEPT that we do need a new convention center, wherever it be). The streetcar and park are also very contingent on location, and so on.

I think Core to Shore, as envisioned by the non-planners in control of the project, is a negative for efforts to make downtown a great mixed-use 24/7 environment. Most developers have agreed that it poses a risk to residential demand in areas that are still not "finished," Bricktown merchants are all in agreement that the "chosen site" for the convention center will be detrimental them and the rest of Downtown (and in my opinion, including C2S), and so on. I think C2S is a great opportunity to build a great, urbanist neighborhood--but not as envisioned, and especially not with typical 1970s "urban renewal" elements like a convention center superblock and a super-wide boulevard (hello, E.K. Gaylord Deux). I think that the park is a great concept, a smaller, more intimate blvd would be a great concept, the river projects will be a great boon, and the city actively pushing for private redevelopment will help get the ball rolling. C2S just needs to be treated like any other part of downtown with potential.

HotRod, the biggest issue I see with all of this is the potential environmental litigation. If the city acquires that land, they're more than likely acquiring tremendous liability. That's to the HUGE advantage of many of these landowners. In most cases, I'd be more than tempted to say that that's enough... or even more -- to say that if possible, we should be suing the heck out of some of these businesses to take care of the cleanup costs if necessary (and I'm guessing it'll be necessary).

For others, there'll be negotiations for sure, but I just don't see the point in offering anyone anything more than they're entitled to. Assuming they've done everything they've been required to do environmentally (unlikely), they should be paid exactly what their land is worth plus relocation costs and C2S should happen.

I just don't see the upside of what you're proposing.

Here is why I don't think taking land from someone and giving it to someone else is a good idea. The whole idea of MAPS is to improve the city. But improve the city for whom? Well obviously it is to improve the city for the residents, but when you take the land away from the very people that you were trying to help in the first place did you actually do any good? No you didn't. Let these people have their economic ship come in. Why would you want to deny them that?

Let these people have their economic ship come in. Why would you want to deny them that?

To have the sort of expectation that having your property condemned due to blight is like winning the lottery is not only unrealistic, but potentially very costly (for both sides). I'm not saying that property owners should just lie down and take whatever the city offers -- that'd likely be foolish. What they need to do RIGHT NOW is to secure legal counsel so that their interests are looked after throughout this process.

The statutes say that the city is supposed to expend every effort to negotiate a 'fair' price. My experience is that condemning authorities start with insulting low ball offers. And those offers probably won't get a whole lot better. This could be different from other urban renewal movements, but I highly doubt it. The Urban Renewal folks are far more likely to play hardball than they are to be benevolent. Their duty is to the city -- not to the landowners.

Also, as I said before, due to the nature of many of these businesses, environmental cleanup costs are going to be potentially nasty.

At this stage, it's impossible to know how this'll play out.

MidTowner,
You are right. There is not a financial upside, and these ideas certainly won’t quell the inevitable negotiations. But, at the same time, as exemplary as OKC has been, I still feel the image and reputation of the city can benefit by considering some of the measures. I understand there are already legal parameters in place, and I'm not suggesting challenging the value of the current structure. It has been what it has been for a reason. However, every plan could and should be reviewed for improvement possibilities. If OKC is the trendsetting RENAISSANCE city it wants to continue to be, then those were just some ideas.
While I always pull the ‘Cities are Businesses and need to make tough decisions like businesses’ card in these situations, at times I lean to the ‘At strategic times Businesses improve their image through charity and innovation’ mode. I think this is a good opportunity.

And, I’m not suggesting that properties be forced to sell at fair market value to the displaced companies, if the potential for those properties requires a reasonable amount of time to reach its maximum value.
OK, let me choose one area as an example of what I’m thinking...
The Blocks between 44 and Macarthur and the Oklahoma (Canadian) River south to Newcastle. Just by estimation, I would say only in the last 5 years has any effort been made to developed this mostly barren area. What triggered the development? DELL was probably the largest reason. Maybe the river too? But, why did Dell choose this spot? Likely… land value. And tax incentives were nice too! BOTH played into the development. Taxpayers are allowing for those breaks so Dell can build the community with employees and revenue. Why not for a few local businesses to continue to exist? Just for a couple of years to offset the expense of being forced to move? And because the city already would have established
A. by a third party estimate, what those moving costs would be, but also
B. an unprecedented plan to assist with an established % those cost through creative measures. Funds that under normal 'eminent domain' procedures, they would not receive.
The reason I chose this tract of land is, until Dell moved there, no one was saying ‘I think I’ll choose to develop the land over here by the run-down apartment on 15th, you know, in the flood plain! Behind the hotel strip and industrial warehouses!’ There are numerous areas like this area was 10 years ago, large areas, undeveloped that could reasonably be afforded. Naturally, once the owners of these tracts become aware of any intent to move numerous businesses in, they would inflate the value. I’m just suggesting that these tracts be frozen in value should the city designate it as a ‘relocation zone’, so to speak. Whatever the current value shows, this value should hold for the duration of each stage of implementation. This would only apply to the businesses directly associated by the ‘eminent domain’ move. If OKC has anything that most big cities don’t have, its LOTS of undeveloped land within the city limits.
Why? There could be any number of reasons. Wealthy developers purchasing inexpensive land until decades later when demand produces the desired profit is likely the number one reason. Undesired location is probably a second reason. It’s this second reason that would make me choose a relocation zone. It would likely be an outlying /suburb, mid-low income or industrial zone. Reasoning: If downtown OKC, midtown and river areas become the hotspot they are projected to be, the residents that are there will not likely be the type to hop in the car and drive to pull-a-part for an inexpensive replacement. By and large, they will take it to a shop, or when in that much of disrepair, will just claim insurance and get another. Salvage yards and hubcap businesses, while somewhat affected by location, would not as much so even if moved to an outlying area, near the ‘burbs or in industrial like undeveloped areas. And auto part/accessories stores can easily, affordably make a transition to small vacant commercial properties in decent locations. It would not greatly increase the drive or inconvenience for someone who seek that business either. It’s not like it is with restaurants and retail outfits who are more strategically located near residential and business hot spots. That would handle more than ½ of the displaced businesses between walker & shields and 3rd to the river.

It bears bringing out that this creative measure would be 'case specific' though! In this case I feel it could work because
A. There are merely a few businesses affected
B. Even fewer citizens/residences
C. The measures could be implemented in stages, as citizens watch implementation, should the see it is not advantageous, just discontinue the venture at stage one. But, at least a creative measure was attempted.

Again, I will always wonder what creative measures could have beed taken in Dallas so that the Stadium could have been built HERE instead of Arlington...ESPECIALLY after seeing the droves of people coming in to that area. What stopped it in part was the council and citizens too, felt it was unfair to the large number of low-income families that would have been displaced due to eminent domain. What if some kind of creative measures could have assisted with these costs? We'll never know because neither side wanted to help, and now the city is the only one hurting. But both could have had a better image if they had a more charitable tone.
Oops, I’m ranting…not good!

I'm not sure what you're proposing. To treat them nicely? Do you think that the citizens owe these folks more than they owe any other subject of a condemnation proceeding? Why should the salvage yard owner (whose property, I might even argue is less than worthless due to possible environmental contamination) be compensated at a higher rate or in a better way than some other schmuck who loses his lot because the city needs to build a drainage ditch or a wider road?

If what you're talking about is inherent fairness, let's be sure you're making an apples to apples comparison. We have procedures -- very specific ones which we follow in these cases... so why should the rules apply for everyone else and not these folks?

To have the sort of expectation that having your property condemned due to blight is like winning the lottery is not only unrealistic, but potentially very costly (for both sides). I'm not saying that property owners should just lie down and take whatever the city offers -- that'd likely be foolish. What they need to do RIGHT NOW is to secure legal counsel so that their interests are looked after throughout this process.


Yes, but these people actually have the winning ticket in their hands, and under this analogy, the city is going to come in a say, "Tough, you didn't cash in your winning ticket soon enough so we are going to give it to someone else. Here is your dollar back."

The thing that made MAPS so successful is that it built infrastructure and the private sector developed the land around it. The only thing the city built along the canal that was not MAPS funded was Bass Pro Shop. Does anyone want to argue that it was the best use of canal front property? The city needs to build the park, but let the private sector, and only the private sector, develop the land around it.

Yes, but these people actually have the winning ticket in their hands, and under this analogy, the city is going to come in a say, "Tough, you didn't cash in your winning ticket soon enough so we are going to give it to someone else. Here is your dollar back."

Well, that winning ticket is going to get paid fair market value (whatever that is) or they could try to go for broke and take it to a jury... might come up lucky. Juries are strange and often terrifying creatures.

I disagree with your analogy though. Pull-apart, for example, never had any designs of utilizing that land for anything other than a salvage yard. And even then, I'm wildly speculating here, I'm guessing they're going to leave millions of dollars worth of environmental liabilities behind before that land can be developed as anything other than a parking lot.

But even as to prospectors -- real estate prospecting is a risky business, 'specially in blighted areas where condemnation is a real (and in this case, imminent) concern. Again, our job as taxpayers (and you argue this with respect to the Obama administration, but seem to do a 180 when you're talking about OKC) is not to make sure that investors make bucks on their investments. Our interest as taxpayers is that the city is able to develop some sort of plan for this area which benefits the entire city in terms of image, revenue, etc.

My stocks were doing pretty good before the crash at the end of '08... I had the proverbial winning ticket and failed to cash it in. Wanna bail me out too?

... Landowners get cash for their property -- not what the property is worth to them for their particular use, but fair market value, i.e., the price which would have existed between a willing buyer and a willing seller. ...


...The statutes say that the city is supposed to expend every effort to negotiate a ‘fair’ price. My experience is that condemning authorities start with insulting low ball offers. And those offers probably won’t get a whole lot better. ...

This is where I have some of the problem with the whole process (even if for a legitimate public need...not want). The whole concept of the fair deal is summed up in the 1st quote. It takes two parties to come to an agreement on that amount. If the landowner is being forced to sale, what constitutes "fair"? The mere fact that he is being forced to sell IMO negates the whole "fair" concept. This is similar to entering into a contract under duress.

The second quote plays into it as well. By condemning or declaring the property bighted, hasn't the City immediately devalued the property? Sounds like it. Can anyone else even come in at this point and make an offer or is the landowner stuck with whatever the City decides (understand that the Landowner does have some legal recourse). By devaluing the property by the condemnation/blighted designation, it seems understandable that the City starts with a "low ball" offer. After all, who in their right mind would offer anything for such a property (other than the bare minimum)?

Used to work for an auction company and we would often have a Seller who didn't get what they thought was a fair price for their property. In that instance, if a seller is that concerned, a minimum bid or reserve price has to be set beforehand. If that amount isn't reached, there is no sale. If the property is sold without a reserve, what constitutes fair market value? It is the price willing to be paid by competing bidders. If there are few or no competing bidders, the fair price is the highest amount bid. For instance. Let's say there are 3 bidders for a particular property. Bidder one is only willing to pay $1/2M. Bidder 2 is willing to go to $1M. But bidder 3 is willing to go to $2M. Is the fair market value what bidder 3 was willing to pay? No, the fair market value is only $1M. The seller looks at that and thinks he just lost $1M. But the only way he was going to get the full $2M is if both bidder #2 & #3 are willing to bid that high. Bidder #3 thinks he got a bargain and the seller thinks he may have gotten ripped off (unless the Seller thought it was only worth the same as bidder #1)

The condemnation itself doesn't affect the appraisal. But if the property is in poor condition, that would. The auction analogy doesn't quite work because at an auction, you're limited by the folks who show up, so you might not actually get a 'willing buyer.' Fair market value is more of a legal fiction than anything else. It assumes a willing buyer and a willing seller and that the property isn't condemned.

And as far as that 'low ball' offer goes, I do think this situation is a lot more unique and public than, say, someone's land being taken or damaged for a drainage easement in NW OKC, so we might see politics playing a role in the value of these properties.

A better analogy might be this -- say you have a Stradivarius violin that's been in your family for generations. There's a fire and it's destroyed. You have a really good insurance policy, but you haven't had it appraised in 25 years. Well, the insurance company is going to offer you X, but you think it's worth more, so you hire an appraiser, and sure enough, it appraises at Y. You now have the choice to either take the insurance company's original offer or take them to court and get them to pay more. The price that the court's going to make up is going to be the fair market value of the violin. That's reached by listening to your expert's testimony as well as the other guy's, then arriving at a number that is equitable, probably going with whichever expert is more believable, or just splitting the difference.. or whatever. Juries do what they do and God knows they do some weird things to get where they go... so that number that comes out of the jury room? That's fair market value.

Urban renewal project to aid Oklahoma City area, official says
BY BRYAN DEAN The Oklahoman
Published: February 22, 2010

Oklahoma City officials say they have no intention of using eminent domain to buy the entire 692 acres south of downtown recently declared blighted.

The city council voted earlier this month to begin an urban renewal project in the area generally between Interstate 40 and the Oklahoma River south of downtown.

The city plans to buy a small portion of the land for a 70-acre downtown park included in MAPS 3, Assistant City Manager Cathy O’Connor said. A few surrounding parcels could also be bought to protect the park development, she said.

Some property owners in the area have expressed concern that all the land will be bulldozed to make way for private development. City officials said the concerns reflect confusion about the urban renewal process, which they say is complicated and misunderstood by the public.

Leslie Batchelor, attorney for the Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority, said the purpose of urban renewal is to help responsible property owners in a blighted area by bringing up the neighborhood around them.

How urban renewal works
Urban renewal begins when the city conducts a blight study for an area. The study looks at various factors, including dilapidated buildings, environmental hazards and rundown infrastructure. The completed study is then presented to the city council, which decides whether to declare the area blighted.
Oklahoma City officials began looking at the area south of downtown after plans were announced to move the I-40 Crosstown Expressway to the south. City officials started a program called Core to Shore, aimed at developing the area between I-40 and the Oklahoma River.

Batchelor said urban renewal and planning development made sense for the city’s Core to Shore plan.

"Nothing is happening there because of what’s going on in the area,” Batchelor said. "That doesn’t mean there aren’t pockets of economic activity, but as a whole, it isn’t operating as an effective part of the city. It needs help.”

The council declared the area blighted at its Feb. 9 meeting. The next step is for the Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority to come up with an improvement plan for the affected area.

The plan identifies the types of urban renewal actions that will be used in the area, including conservation and rehabilitation of buildings and the acquisition of property for redevelopment. The plan also functions like a city master plan, setting out the kinds of development the city would like to see in the area.

This acts as a guide for private developers who might want to buy land in the area and re-develop it, Batchelor said.

"The hope is that if the public makes its investment, the private will respond,” Batchelor said. "We’ve seen that work with other public investments in Oklahoma City.”

Urban renewal also allows some special forms of public assistance. For example, the city could more easily offer incentives to encourage retail development in certain areas, Batchelor said.

The plan also identifies the specific properties that will be targeted for public purchase.

"Even though it’s a 692-acre area that’s been identified, the area of acquisition is primarily going to be the park and the edges of the park,” Batchelor said.

The proposed boundaries of the park are Robinson Avenue on the east, Hudson Avenue on the west, the river on the south and a new boulevard on the north, which will replace the existing I-40 after it has been moved.

Negotiate or eminent domain?
Although the city can use eminent domain to buy property in a blighted area, Batchelor said it is a last resort. Property owners usually negotiate and agree to move on their own.

"When we go in to make someone an offer for their property, the offer will be not only for the fair market value of their property, but there will be a relocation specialist who determines where they could move and what it would cost them,” Batchelor said.

Those moving costs are factored into the offer. Property owners who aren’t satisfied can negotiate. If the negotiations reach an impasse or a property owner can’t be located, eminent domain comes into play.

If the city persuades a court to condemn the property, three appraisers are appointed to determine a fair market value. Batchelor said the owner can fight the appraisal in court if not satisfied.

She said most of the property is likely to change hands privately as interest increases.

The plan is expected to come before the city council for approval next month. The rest of the process will move slowly, Batchelor said.

"A decade will only begin to accomplish the overall objectives for the area,” she said. "Development takes time.”

NewsOK (http://newsok.com/urban-renewal-project-to-aid-oklahoma-city-area-official-says/article/3441302?custom_click=pod_lead_news)