With all the discussion of the public vs. private interest in downtown development, I am wondering what everyone thinks about the city just taking ownership of all buildings and declaring the best use and best owners for those buildings and properties. It seems there are those who believe it is a right to privately own and control within the laws that are in place, and those who believe it is the public's right and responsibility to dictate the future of the property based on what a public body believes is in everyone's best interest. I am interested in how everyone feels about this.

With all the discussion of the public vs. private interest in downtown development, I am wondering what everyone thinks about the city just taking ownership of all buildings and declaring the best use and best owners for those buildings and properties. It seems there are those who believe it is a right to privately own and control within the laws that are in place, and those who believe it is the public's right and responsibility to dictate the future of the property based on what a public body believes is in everyone's best interest. I am interested in how everyone feels about this.

The city has eminent domain. It certainly could be used in this case. Not bloody likely, though.

With all the discussion of the public vs. private interest in downtown development, I am wondering what everyone thinks about the city just taking ownership of all buildings and declaring the best use and best owners for those buildings and properties. It seems there are those who believe it is a right to privately own and control within the laws that are in place, and those who believe it is the public's right and responsibility to dictate the future of the property based on what a public body believes is in everyone's best interest. I am interested in how everyone feels about this.

If you are referring to the Sandridge issue, this has been one of the central points of the debate taking place on the thread discussing it.

However, you are trying to characterize the publics involvment as something other than it is. It is most certainly not to dictate what those two buildings are to become but rather the issue of if local legally enforceable city ordinaces are to be enforced or waived alltogether when a large corporation really really wants to knock down some buildings that have been deemed as potentially significant, just so they can have more of an unobstructed view of their tower downtown.

The question posed was assuming local laws, covenants and restrictions are known, universally and uniformly interpreted, and are met. When does the public opinion/right supersede the private right? I have seen the results of central planning and design in other cities. I am curious how far OKCity citizens want to go with the idea.

For SR and all others, is the issue the breaking of laws or the interpretation and application of the "intent" of the law?

Just my opinion but the private citizens influence should be used to feed into the design guidelines and city ordinaces that are then put in place. That is where they should have influence and make their voices heard. If a property owner is runing afoul, or the committee that is supposed to enforce the city ordinaces fails to do its job then the public has an obligation to puch back and appeal the decision.

As far as Property rights, and the public opinion, really there should be no impact as the property owner owns the right to do what he will so long as what is proposed satisfies the local laws, zoning and city ordinaces and design guidelines.

The property owner needs to do some research into the property to see what kind of encumbrances and limits there may be on his property prior to making the purchase so that his investment is not in wasted.

The public may have wishes for a property to be "this or that" but so long as the property owner has satisfied all of the requirements placed on it. Green light.

Serious Q here.
What ordinances, designations etc... are leagally in place right now that would be violated by demolishing the buildings? State, City, district or otherwise?

For SR and all others, is the issue the breaking of laws or the interpretation and application of the "intent" of the law?

From what I have heard SR completely ignored and disregarded the city's repeated request for changes to their plan. They met with the city four times and each time they wouldn't discuss changes. IMO The city had no other avenue but to request denial. Which they did. The majority of DDRC did not follow the ordinances.

I have to assume SR think they are allowed(priviledged) to break the law(ordinances).

I disagree.

SR needs to follow the process as well as all others that want to develop in OKC; especially in the urban core.

With all the discussion of the public vs. private interest in downtown development, I am wondering what everyone thinks about the city just taking ownership of all buildings and declaring the best use and best owners for those buildings and properties. It seems there are those who believe it is a right to privately own and control within the laws that are in place, and those who believe it is the public's right and responsibility to dictate the future of the property based on what a public body believes is in everyone's best interest. I am interested in how everyone feels about this.

Whoa whoa whoa. All of the buildings downtown? Bad idea. That is far too much interference. I understand your intention with this post, and I agree with taking ownership if you have a wreched, ugly fifteen story building that needs to see some action, but taking ownership of the entire CBD is bad business. I think we need to think this through with Sandridge. Their campus may have positive influence in the long run. Creating a thriving environment for employees like what Devon is doing right now and what Sandridge is wanting to do could be just the incubator we need attract more companies which will in turn create a real population boom downtown. That could create a residential construction boom that would lead to FAR more urban density than the five useless buildings we are pissing and moaning about.

Serious Q here.
What ordinances, designations etc... are leagally in place right now that would be violated by demolishing the buildings? State, City, district or otherwise?

Somewhere is the recommendation from City Staff that came out against the proposal. Someone more sophisticated with navigating the city web site would need to post a link though.

From what I have heard SR completely ignored and disregarded the city's repeated request for changes to their plan. They met with the city four times and each time they wouldn't discuss changes. IMO The city had no other avenue but to request denial. Which they did. The majority of DDRC did not follow the ordinances.

I have to assume SR think they are allowed(priviledged) to break the law(ordinances).

I disagree.

SR needs to follow the process as well as all others that want to develop in OKC; especially in the urban core.Are you saying that the DDRC not following the ordinance = Sandridge breaking the law?

Andy157: indirectly, from what I have read and seen, that appears to be the case (they convinved the DDRC to their view and pushed for the ordinance to not be followed).

With all the discussion of the public vs. private interest in downtown development, I am wondering what everyone thinks about the city just taking ownership of all buildings and declaring the best use and best owners for those buildings and properties. It seems there are those who believe it is a right to privately own and control within the laws that are in place, and those who believe it is the public's right and responsibility to dictate the future of the property based on what a public body believes is in everyone's best interest. I am interested in how everyone feels about this.

From my reading of it that is essentially what the City has done with the all of the land in the Core to Shore area. Declaring all of the area as blighted and using eminent domain as needed to buy the properties for the MAPS 3/C2S Park and immediately adjoining properties. The rest could be acquired in the same manner (but there are a limited amount of funds, so unlikely) but through zoning etc, the City is effectively going to determine what gets developed where (see the Core to Shore master plan).

I don't really agree with any of it because Eminent Domain is supposed to only be used not just for the "public good" but actual public needs (not wants). If you are talking about a need such as a water treatment plant that is one thing, but a Park (when numerous parks abound) is more of a want. IMO

As I recall a few years ago we did that, called it urban renewal, and tore down a whole bunch of buildings.

What if the city was able to declare any building or lot which has been vacant or less than X% occupied over a period of X years as abandoned and have the right to acquire at a fair market value? They could review the state of any development plans the current owners have and make periodic decisions on allowing them to retain ownership past the X years. Should the public have this right?

Andy157: indirectly, from what I have read and seen, that appears to be the case (they convinved the DDRC to their view and pushed for the ordinance to not be followed).If that is indeed what happen it says alot about the integrety of the DDRC board members.

From my reading of it that is essentially what the City has done with the all of the land in the Core to Shore area. Declaring all of the area as blighted and using eminent domain as needed to buy the properties for the MAPS 3/C2S Park and immediately adjoining properties. ...

I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the only properties acquired by the city to date were acquired in arms length transactions. Two that come to mind are the former postal facility and the goodwill property.

What properties, if any, in that C2S area has the city acquired via the ED process?

Eminent domain is a costly and lengthy process and not something that can be used just because they want to.

Eminent domain is a costly and lengthy process and not something that can be used just because they want to.

You think it'd be hard to show blight here? The buildings, even according to Sandridge are blighted. Legally speaking, a taking here would be about as sure a thing as there could be. Politically speaking.. well, that ain't my cup 'o tea.

You think it'd be hard to show blight here? The buildings, even according to Sandridge are blighted. Legally speaking, a taking here would be about as sure a thing as there could be. Politically speaking.. well, that ain't my cup 'o tea.

The City would still have to pay just compensation, and then have some sort of plan in place. I just dont think the City would want to do anything like this with all the other stuff that is going on wit the City right now.

Reminds me of the Bolton's Hardware fiasco that occurred prior to building 235 then called Centennial Expressway or some such. We had 2 properties we were forced to sell and chose not to fight the government because of the Bolton experience.

The compensation for the properties confiscated were insignificant compared to the losses to the small businesses and their employees.

The City would still have to pay just compensation, and then have some sort of plan in place. I just dont think the City would want to do anything like this with all the other stuff that is going on wit the City right now.

Oh sure.. and you know Sandridge would probably be able to convince the jury to go up on the Commisioners' Award by the requisite amount. I'm just saying that it meets the test for blight and that Sandridge has admitted as much. Such an admission is evidence that they don't expect the city to use ED. As tied in as the Chamber types are with city hall, I think they're probably right.

Should the city do this? They don't need to. They can simply require Sandridge to either leave the buildings as they are or figure out some use for them conforming to the applicable Codes or they can deal with the fallout of having Sandridge opt for Memorial Road.

Not my cup 'o tea, but politicians are prone to choosing the path of least resistance even when it's wrong. In that case, such a path leads to a big 'ole wide open space in the heart of the CBD.

Not my cup 'o tea, but politicians are prone to choosing the path of least resistance even when it's wrong. In that case, such a path leads to a big 'ole wide open space in the heart of the CBD.

We already saw this with the Downtown Design Review Committee - and they aren’t even professional politicians. They were supposed to protect the city from these kinds of plans and instead, they folded faster than a lawn chair.

We already saw this with the Downtown Design Review Committee - and they aren’t even professional politicians. They were supposed to protect the city from these kinds of plans and instead, they folded faster than a lawn chair.

No, they are not supposed to "protect the city from these kinds of plans" like you say. You simply disagree with the result at that hearing and spew crap like this. They voted in the way they saw fit and this is why we have an appeals process, but to say they folded just because the result does not match your side is a bit much.

No, they are not supposed to "protect the city from these kinds of plans" like you say. You simply disagree with the result at that hearing and spew crap like this. They voted in the way they saw fit and this is why we have an appeals process, but to say they folded just because the result does not match your side is a bit much.

Very good point..

As long as we have committees, boards, etc. making subjective decisions we will have controversy. The best way is to have extremely clear and strong laws, covenants, restrictions, etc. and to insure they are enforced. Laws which are ambiguous or are subject to a lot of interpretation are not good laws which breed controversy and encourage bypassing.

It seems we have two choices....strengthen the rules and/or accept the translation and judgement of the governing committee. Or, the city needs to take ownership of everything and become the developer...in which case we will still have controversy of how they do that function.

As long as we have committees, boards, etc. making subjective decisions we will have controversy. The best way is to have extremely clear and strong laws, covenants, restrictions, etc. and to insure they are enforced. Laws which are ambiguous or are subject to a lot of interpretation are not good laws which breed controversy and encourage bypassing.

It seems we have two choices....strengthen the rules and/or accept the translation and judgement of the governing committee. Or, the city needs to take ownership of everything and become the developer...in which case we will still have controversy of how they do that function.

The problem is that strong laws do not necessarily apply in all situations ... that is why there is a Board of Adjustment in the first place, so people can request variances to the code because the code does not or should no apply in certain situations.

I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the only properties acquired by the city to date were acquired in arms length transactions. Two that come to mind are the former postal facility and the goodwill property.

What properties, if any, in that C2S area has the city acquired via the ED process?

You are correct, as of yet no properties have been acquired thru ED. Yet.

But they have taken the steps to set everything up so if they can't acquire thru normal offers, they can do it thru ED. Will see if I can dig up the article and post later.

No, they are not supposed to "protect the city from these kinds of plans" like you say. You simply disagree with the result at that hearing and spew crap like this. They voted in the way they saw fit and this is why we have an appeals process, but to say they folded just because the result does not match your side is a bit much.

I don't have the text of the ordinance handy but that is exactly what the board is supposed to do.

I don't have the text of the ordinance handy but that is exactly what the board is supposed to do.

That may be what your interpretation of their job description is, but I can tell you that is not totally accurate. If you think their job is to protect the City from these types of plans, what types of plans is that?? The ones that you do not agree with?? The ones that some other guy does not agree with?? Their job is to hear an application and make a decision based on the ordinance and how the ordinance relates to a particular set of facts presented.

That may be what your interpretation of their job description is, but I can tell you that is not totally accurate. If you think their job is to protect the City from these types of plans, what types of plans is that?? The ones that you do not agree with?? The ones that some other guy does not agree with?? Their job is to hear an application and make a decision based on the ordinance and how the ordinance relates to a particular set of facts presented.

The types of plans that run contrary to the ordinance. Most of SandRidge's plan is fine. Some of it isn't. Here's the ordinance....


The charge of the Downtown Design Review Committee is to “promote the development and redevelopment of the downtown area in a manner consistent with the unique and diverse design elements of downtown, ensure that uses are compatible with the commercial, cultural, historic and governmental significance of downtown, promote the downtown as a vital mixed-use area, create a network of pleasant public spaces and pedestrian amenities, enhance existing structures and circulation patterns, and preserve and restore historic features” (Zoning Ordinance Sect. 7200.2A Downtown Business District, Purpose and Intent).

We already of a network of "pleasant public spaces" (there are something like 5 or 6 plaza/park areas in the immediate vicinity. That sit empty and underutilized.

Tearing down the oldest remaining building and replacing it with a corporate plaza (by SandRidge's own admission is just to improve the sight lines to the SandRidge Tower), doesn't qualify as "development and redevelopment".

Destroying a building hardly "enhances existing structures"

Destroying a building doesn't exactly fit in with preserving and restoring "historic features"

The reason for this ordinance seems fairly straight forward. You better have a darn good reason (several in fact) if you want to tear something down. The obvious problem is, once the building is gone, there is a zero percent chance of it ever being restored/redeveloped/repurposed etc.

When it is gone, it is gone.

The city does not need to take ownership of the SandRidge buildings because those buildings sitting vacant for years is not a failure of the private sector to come up with a solution for how to fix it. You just have a rogue property owner with enough money, supposedly, for an impractical and obsolete headquarters..and they refuse to share a block with ANY other use. That's what you have, an abandonment of important planning tenets such as MIXED USE. Private v. public ownership is NOT the issue here.

The only city action that would be prudent is to simply enforce the ordinance that this community worked hard to get in place to prevent this very thing from happening again.

The city has eminent domain. It certainly could be used in this case. Not bloody likely, though.

That would be horrible.

I tend to take the side of the property owners in almost all cases.

It's not the government's job to decide what the people want to do with privately owned estate.

Let's try to avoid the "tyranny of the majority" moniker.

So, should the city issue its own development plans and only authorize ownership of buildings if the owner will forego their own interests or options and commit to the city's vision? Will everyone in the city agree to agree with the city's vision?

Seems to me that is what happened with urban renewal.

With all the discussion of the public vs. private interest in downtown development, I am wondering what everyone thinks about the city just taking ownership of all buildings and declaring the best use and best owners for those buildings and properties. It seems there are those who believe it is a right to privately own and control within the laws that are in place, and those who believe it is the public's right and responsibility to dictate the future of the property based on what a public body believes is in everyone's best interest. I am interested in how everyone feels about this.

There's a dangerous morphing of codes and zoning into government confiscation implicit in this notion.

It is the city's place to establish the playing field for construction of various entities, eg zoning, safety codes, etc.

It is the market's place to decide what needs to be built.

The notion of the city dictating what must be built is, simply, wrong.

We already see cities abusing the purpose of eminent domain, and people rightly recoiling to stop such abuses. Power to them.

Isn't it amazing, the "people" love the city to dictate what others must do, but reject it when it interferes with their own ideas and plans. LOL

Isn't it amazing, the "people" love the city to dictate what others must do, but reject it when it interferes with their own ideas and plans. LOL

You sort of described our system of government right there. Nothing amazing about it really. Those in power dictate while those out of power are dictated to. Occasionally, those in power will actually be responsible with their power and listen to both sides of the argument with an open mind before dictating what will be done, but that is increasingly rare.