View Full Version : SandRidge Center & Commons




Larry OKC
06-19-2010, 11:01 PM
I just don't understand how anyone could have read the story that started off this thread
SandRidge Energy threatens to leave downtown Oklahoma City over resistance to headquarters plans | NewsOK.com (http://www.newsok.com/sandridge-issues-warning/article/3469383?custom_click=lead_story_title)
and come to the conclusion it was nothing but a cut-n-paste SandRidge press release.

Amazing.

Then to attack Mr. Lackmeyer personally (then claim he was attacking the Oklahoman). Again, Amazing.

Steve and I have had some differences in the past, but his willingness to ask questions (often ticking off both sides of an issue, getting accused by both sides of being biased etc) is very much appreciated. More often than not, come away from his articles with a since of balanced reporting. Sometimes wish the media in general would dig deeper and we could get some more in depth, investigative type reporting but I also realize that those decisions are often not left up to the individual reporter.

All to often there is a cut-n-paste-rewrite-a-press-release type of mentality but there is absolutely no way I would describe that to Mr. Lackmeyer or his body of work.

SkyWestOKC
06-19-2010, 11:01 PM
....

Spartan
06-19-2010, 11:09 PM
I just don't understand how anyone could have read the story that started off this thread
SandRidge Energy threatens to leave downtown Oklahoma City over resistance to headquarters plans | NewsOK.com (http://www.newsok.com/sandridge-issues-warning/article/3469383?custom_click=lead_story_title)
and come to the conclusion it was nothing but a cut-n-paste SandRidge press release.

Amazing.

Then to attack Mr. Lackmeyer personally (then claim he was attacking the Oklahoman). Again, Amazing.

Steve and I have had some differences in the past, but his willingness to ask questions (often ticking off both sides of an issue, getting accused by both sides of being biased etc) is very much appreciated. More often than not, come away from his articles with a since of balanced reporting. Sometimes wish the media in general would dig deeper and we could get some more in depth, investigative type reporting but I also realize that those decisions are often not left up to the individual reporter.

All to often there is a cut-n-paste-rewrite-a-press-release type of mentality but there is absolutely no way I would describe that to Mr. Lackmeyer or his body of work.

I can say firsthand that Steve is doing as much as he is able to. He is trying to highlight the concerns of a huge segment of OKC that cares about downtown. He has to tread carefully because downtown is power central.

soonerguru
06-19-2010, 11:54 PM
go and dye your nose braids....


PLEASE TERMINATE THE ACCOUNT....IT WILL NOT BE A BIG LOSS....


THIS IS WHY YOU WILL NEVER SELL ADVERTISING ON THIS SITE...

I say we take gm wise up on it. What an ass.

ljbab728
06-20-2010, 12:14 AM
That's your opinion, but it doesn't come close to reflecting the Steve I know.

Agreed, Spartan. I think he will have a difficult time finding much support for that way thinking, even among others who have disagreements with Steve. I have seen numerous personal attacks here and even been the object of a few but this has to be the worse yet. I hope our future discussions are never lowered to that level again.

rcjunkie
06-20-2010, 05:03 AM
I say we take gm wise up on it. What an ass.

Cut him some slack, he's just pissed because the paper boy keeps missing the porch and he has to walk a few feet.

PennyQuilts
06-20-2010, 09:45 AM
GM!! What are you doing, man? What have you done?

Oh, come on, folks. He had a really, really bad day. Can he be suspended, instead?

Dang, GM.

Spartan
06-20-2010, 11:15 AM
Yeah, I didn't really want to see anyone get banned either. He already made an ass of himself--that should be enough. I would like to see as many people continue to contribute, despite that some such as gmwise and oil capitol and others have established a solid reputation of being pricks. That's their reputation to deal with. I think that Steve's reputation for investigative and lead journalism (how many of us have had one of our causes spotlighted by an article of his) stands for itself, and does not need to be defended by moderators on this board. Sure, delete the posts--but I don't think Steve needs us to ban posters for him, and I doubt he'd want that. I would rather see gm continue to post here and perhaps some day make it up with Steve.

Martin
06-20-2010, 11:31 AM
gmwise has been banned for a week, not permanently.

let's try to steer this back to topic, folks. -M

Spartan
06-20-2010, 11:48 AM
gmwise's behavior is a great example of how SandRidge is behaving, actually.

SkyWestOKC
06-20-2010, 11:51 AM
I say let's just stop talking about him. It's over and done with. Back on topic.

andy157
06-20-2010, 12:26 PM
Everyone cries and whines and moans that we don't have enough density downtown, and major corporate presence is obviously the primary driving force in having people want to live, work, play downtown.

Now, one of our biggest corporations, presumably at major, major, unnecessary expense, moves from NWEXP to downtown. Just to be downtown, to put its footprint there and build its own space in the place we need it the most.

They'r enot being allowed to do what they want with the empty, financial drain buildings that they own. They're being told they can't do what they want with their own stuff, which is a pain in the ass to the extreme.

So, very fairly, they say- if we can't do what we want to do with our stuff and our money, maybe we need to go where we can, because it's important to us.


And then you two messageboard posters start shooting off at the mouth, so to speak, that they can just move to the suburbs, eff them out of downtown, who needs them, etc.

It's pathetic, to be honest. SR leaving downtown would be a devastating blow. All because you two jokesters think a little green space is pointless and you want to save buildings that no one in the last however-long have wanted to touch.

You want to keep those ghost-buildings, you're going to end up with a ghosttown.See there, you and I are able to agree on certain issues. Didn't Devon use the "H" word not to long ago?

trison
06-20-2010, 12:47 PM
I find the whole debate about Sandridge very interesting. Oklahoma City needs companies like Sandridge. Sandridge donates money to almost every cause and event in Oklahoma City, hires tons of employees and is a very large user of office space in downtown.

We need large companies occupying space downtown if we are going to have the vibrant downtown that everyone seems to want. The idea that having open spaces in downtown is bad baffles me. I don't find the idea of tearing down buildings to achieve this very appealing either. If you ask ten people their opinion on what they want downtown to look like you are going to get ten different responses. That being said I don't think bashing Sandridge or any other major employer in Oklahoma City is productive. Our economy has not suffered like the rest of the country because of the employers that we have here in Oklahoma City.

I strongly agree that if the buildings in question can be redeveloped then they should, however not every old building is functional. Unfortunately that is the sad truth. I personally love old architecture and hate the idea of losing two of the buildings in question. I can express my opinion, which I have to numerous individuals, without getting into bad mouthing Sandridge. I support what Sandridge is doing for Oklahoma City and hope that with time they change their development plans so that a compromise can be reached in where they do get some open spaces and we have two buildings brought back to life.

Fight the fight but do it in a positve manner instead of slinging mud.

Steve
06-20-2010, 01:46 PM
Here's something to get things back on track - and it's probably the crux of this whole debate: how does one weigh corporate needs against community needs when the two appear to be separate? And would it make a difference to preservationists if the buildings proposed for demolition were to be replaced by new ones?

Spartan
06-20-2010, 02:17 PM
I find the whole debate about Sandridge very interesting. Oklahoma City needs companies like Sandridge. Sandridge donates money to almost every cause and event in Oklahoma City, hires tons of employees and is a very large user of office space in downtown.

We need large companies occupying space downtown if we are going to have the vibrant downtown that everyone seems to want. The idea that having open spaces in downtown is bad baffles me. I don't find the idea of tearing down buildings to achieve this very appealing either. If you ask ten people their opinion on what they want downtown to look like you are going to get ten different responses. That being said I don't think bashing Sandridge or any other major employer in Oklahoma City is productive. Our economy has not suffered like the rest of the country because of the employers that we have here in Oklahoma City.

I strongly agree that if the buildings in question can be redeveloped then they should, however not every old building is functional. Unfortunately that is the sad truth. I personally love old architecture and hate the idea of losing two of the buildings in question. I can express my opinion, which I have to numerous individuals, without getting into bad mouthing Sandridge. I support what Sandridge is doing for Oklahoma City and hope that with time they change their development plans so that a compromise can be reached in where they do get some open spaces and we have two buildings brought back to life.

Fight the fight but do it in a positve manner instead of slinging mud.

Well keep in mind, that it is SandRidge and the few pro-Commons people who have turned this into a debate over whether SandRidge is good. Of course urbanists aren't going to win a debate in those parameters, which is why SandRidge has made that the debate. The debate should really just be about this development proposal. The Board of Adjustment is tasked with determining if the SandRidge Commons development proposal is consistent with the language and intent of the city ordinance, and not whether SandRidge is good or bad.

Spartan
06-20-2010, 02:42 PM
This post is absolutely brilliant. "Hi, my name is OKCMallen, and I am pure evil. I will demonstrate my ability to cloud the topic, spread false accusations, fabricate misleading evidence, and flat out lie to everyone in order to convince people the urbanists are bad and SandRidge is good."


Everyone cries and whines and moans that we don't have enough density downtown,

*Acknowledging the fact of the urban environment in OKC. Then to define "density" (something we all know downtown lacks) as something else:


and major corporate presence is obviously the primary driving force in having people want to live, work, play downtown.

Ah-ha! Density is thus defined by the volume of corporate presence downtown. SandRidge = corporate density. SandRidge Commons = the only way SandRidge will stay downtown (despite already being almost done renovating the tower). Brilliant logic..they'll fall for it, surely..or at least start debating SandRidge leaving.


Now, one of our biggest corporations, presumably at major, major, unnecessary expense, moves from NWEXP to downtown.

Yeah, KMG's properties were on the selling block for a truly cheap price (cheap enough that a corporation 1/10th the size of KMG bought it and start acting big and bad) .. but we'll go ahead and call it major, major, unnecessary expense. Because we all know downtown is a lot more expensive to office in than the NWEXP.


Just to be downtown, to put its footprint there and build its own space in the place we need it the most.

Wow. I am so in awe of SandRidge. Reading to kids, putting poor people in homes, being good stewards of the environment (unlike BP), and putting their footprint on downtown by razing everything else. Gee, what a company. I'm in tears because of their awesome generosity. My new heroes!


They'r enot being allowed to do what they want with the empty, financial drain buildings that they own. They're being told they can't do what they want with their own stuff, which is a pain in the ass to the extreme.

GASP. Someone is causing trouble for MY NEW HEROES. I can't let that happen. Who the hell could disagree with reading to kids, putting poor people in homes, being good stewards of the environment, and putting their footprint on downtown by razing everything else? Who are these terrible, evil people? Oh my god, they're anti-OKC. These people literally must want us to fail!!


So, very fairly, they say- if we can't do what we want to do with our stuff and our money, maybe we need to go where we can, because it's important to us.

Definitely, SandRidge! If you can't get a corporate moat around your downtown block, you need to teach those damn urbanists a lesson so that they don't get in the way of MY NEW HEROES again! That corporate moat is important to them. They need that, or they can't be downtown. Obviously. Duh. It's as simple as that.


And then you two messageboard posters start shooting off at the mouth

No way!! There are some of them on this message board?? Get them! I hate them, they're anti-OKC! Spartan and Kerry--you two make me want to puke. I hate you pricks. You guys are against SandRidge! I am for SandRidge! You guys suck. You're anti-OKC. Don't you get it, SandRidge needs that corporate moat. Duh..


It's pathetic, to be honest.


PATHETIC! What he said. Spartan and Kerry are PATHETIC.


SR leaving downtown would be a devastating blow. All because you two jokesters think a little green space is pointless

They need that corporate moat, don't you get it? They just need it. It's important to the existence and survival of SandRidge. Do you want them to not exist? Do you want them to die? Do you want them to move away and take their heroism with them somewhere else? SR leading would be a devastating blow to OKC, to downtown, as well as me. I am taking this personally. Spartan and Kerry, stop trying to put SR out of business! Please, please, let them have their corporate moat. They have to have it, don't you get it?


and you want to save buildings that no one in the last however-long have wanted to touch.

See this is especially brilliant, as well. This is sort of the grand finale of what must be intentional deception, and I feel bad for the unfortunate fools who fall into this argument. Obviously, because they're old buildings, nobody in their right mind would want to touch this. No, there weren't any development proposals in the past for these buildings. No, there weren't any deals that fell through. These pathetic urbanists, ugh. Hey Spartan and Kerry, if you guys love these buildings so much, why don't you buy them and renovate them yourselves? I don't get these urbanists--there is nobody among them willing to do anything, but they want to tell the doers what to do. It's pathetic, as Mallen already said. Pathetic. None of them know anything about buildings, they just hate OKC and want us to be stuck with old buildings instead of glorious corporate moats.


You want to keep those ghost-buildings, you're going to end up with a ghosttown.

Hey, I don't like ghost-buildings (whatever that means)! Ghosts are in old buildings, and we don't need ghosts, and we also don't need old buildings. We need to get rid of both!! SandRidge is the ghost busters! Spartan and Kerry are also opposed to that. They must be mamby pamby libs because they're trying to save ghosts as well as buildings. They want ghosts to roam OKC and kick other corporations out and make people unemployed. I just can't stand for that.

(What any of this has to do with SandRidge Commons, the city ordinance, reality, or the truth.....is utterly beyond me. If we got rid of one poster, can we also just ban OKCMallen? Definitely don't need lies and deception.)

andy157
06-20-2010, 03:01 PM
Well keep in mind, that it is SandRidge and the few pro-Commons people who have turned this into a debate over whether SandRidge is good. Of course urbanists aren't going to win a debate in those parameters, which is why SandRidge has made that the debate. The debate should really just be about this development proposal. The Board of Adjustment is tasked with determining if the SandRidge Commons development proposal is consistent with the language and intent of the city ordinance, and not whether SandRidge is good or bad.I thought the B of A was tasked with determining if the DDRC made the correct ruling.

Spartan
06-20-2010, 03:11 PM
Based on city ordinance, strictly. Not whether SandRidge is good or bad. Not whether it was the ruling the something for nothing crowd likes.

soonerguru
06-20-2010, 03:21 PM
Yeah, I didn't really want to see anyone get banned either. He already made an ass of himself--that should be enough. I would like to see as many people continue to contribute, despite that some such as gmwise and oil capitol and others have established a solid reputation of being pricks. That's their reputation to deal with. I think that Steve's reputation for investigative and lead journalism (how many of us have had one of our causes spotlighted by an article of his) stands for itself, and does not need to be defended by moderators on this board. Sure, delete the posts--but I don't think Steve needs us to ban posters for him, and I doubt he'd want that. I would rather see gm continue to post here and perhaps some day make it up with Steve.

I agree that we should think long and hard before banning. BUT, when it's merited, it's merited. Think of how much time is wasted here just responding to troll bait. It pretty much sucks.

He's lucky to get off being banned for just a week. It should probably be a month.

Larry OKC
06-20-2010, 03:21 PM
Here's something to get things back on track - and it's probably the crux of this whole debate: how does one weigh corporate needs against community needs when the two appear to be separate? And would it make a difference to preservationists if the buildings proposed for demolition were to be replaced by new ones?

IMO that is why we have ordinances, design committees etc (weighing the corporate need against the public need). That said, it might also come down to want v. need. Sandridge wants to improve the sightline to their tower. Not exactly a need. If they need to divest of these financially draining buildings (as claimed). Then put them on the market at whatever the appraised value is and be done with them. Even if they sell for below appraised, it will be more than what they think they are worth now ($0). But again, selling the buildings doesn't help them with their stated want.

If we didn't know about the history of the former India Temple (the oldest building left downtown and its use as the home for the Legislature for a couple of years)... what is probably intact underneath the modern skin... I don't think there would be opposition to them replacing at least that building with another building.

Can't recall now, what is the other building that is still in question?

Do find it interesting and a bit perplexing that supposedly NONE of the downtown property owners have voiced opposition and many have out right supported it. The Skirven folks especially are bewildering. Maybe they are of the mindset, "we want to be able to do whatever we want too"

Steve
06-20-2010, 03:30 PM
Larry, there are some downtown property owners who do not agree with the SandRidge plan, but they don't want to come out publicly. Also, when Frank Hill says all of the endorsements have been volunteered, not solicited, I have several sources who say that simply isn't true.

Larry OKC
06-20-2010, 03:40 PM
Steve, I don't doubt that at all...just as when they "misspoke" and claimed that the buildings hadn't been occupied in decades(?)

soonerguru
06-20-2010, 03:50 PM
Larry, there are some downtown property owners who do not agree with the SandRidge plan, but they don't want to come out publicly. Also, when Frank Hill says all of the endorsements have been volunteered, not solicited, I have several sources who say that simply isn't true.

I know for a fact that that is a blatant falsehood.

Steve
06-20-2010, 03:51 PM
Which part Sooner? That there are downtown property owners who don't agree with SandRidge? Or that some of the endorsements were actually solicited?

Spartan
06-20-2010, 04:04 PM
According to the OK County Assessor, the India Temple is worth $460,000--$210,000 of which is sheer land value. The KerMac Building is worth $942,000--$420,000 of which is sheer land value.

I just don't understand how you demolish a "worthless" building with wonderful architectural styling that is valued at $522,000 and then just pave over land that is appraised at $420,000. I just don't get it.

Steve, I don't believe that guru was disagreeing with you. I think we know there are downtown property owners, and those of us that aren't the Almighty Steve Lackmeyer (and not privy to insider info) are also aware of the coerced letters of support. Lasomeday and krisb saw that Jane Jenkins is a supporter of Keep Downtown Urban on Facebook.

soonerguru
06-20-2010, 04:25 PM
Which part Sooner? That there are downtown property owners who don't agree with SandRidge? Or that some of the endorsements were actually solicited?

What I'm saying is that I agree with you, and that I heard too that these "endorsements" were solicited. No one I've spoken to is fond of the proposal. No one.

Steve
06-20-2010, 04:26 PM
I'll go one step further - two of the people involved with the endorsement letters say they were solicited. I only wish I could get them on the record. What's interesting is that I can't find anything in the ordinance or the matters before the Board of Adjustment that make endorsements from either side relevant to the decision at hand.

Steve
06-20-2010, 04:36 PM
As an aside, I do believe Rick Dowell's endorsement is sincere and unsolicited. There are others too, I'm sure. But to say they're all unsolicited. Nope. Not according to my sources. This is about as accurate as saying the buildings have been empty for more than 20 years.

Larry OKC
06-20-2010, 10:18 PM
Which brings into question any other claims SandRidge is making.

Soonerus
06-20-2010, 11:24 PM
SandRidge should move out of downtown with the grief they have received over this "improvement" effort...some of you people are ridiculous...

OKC@heart
06-20-2010, 11:27 PM
SandRidge should move out of downtown with the grief they have received over this "improvement" effort...some of you people are ridiculous...

Said the pot to the kettle...

Spartan
06-20-2010, 11:49 PM
As an aside, I do believe Rick Dowell's endorsement is sincere and unsolicited. There are others too, I'm sure. But to say they're all unsolicited. Nope. Not according to my sources. This is about as accurate as saying the buildings have been empty for more than 20 years.

What about Mayor Mick's statement?

soonerfan_in_okc
06-20-2010, 11:57 PM
A downtown with sandridge is much better than one without it, plain and simple. I LMAO @ the quote by friddle saying it would be an unfortunate decision for them to make. Does she not realize she is part of the reason why?

Either way, it would be humorous to sandridge leave downtown, and then we not only have the proposed buildings to be demolished still sitting there empty, but we have a big tower vacant as well. I am sure that the opposition would sure look good to the public after that happened.

Larry OKC
06-21-2010, 12:22 AM
What about Mayor Mick's statement?

Somehow missed it along the way, does anyone have a link?

Spartan
06-21-2010, 01:25 AM
A downtown with sandridge is much better than one without it, plain and simple. I LMAO @ the quote by friddle saying it would be an unfortunate decision for them to make. Does she not realize she is part of the reason why?

Either way, it would be humorous to sandridge leave downtown, and then we not only have the proposed buildings to be demolished still sitting there empty, but we have a big tower vacant as well. I am sure that the opposition would sure look good to the public after that happened.

I get tired of correcting the something for nothing crowd. I need to just make a form reply that goes something like this:
__________________________________________________ ______________________________


Dear ____________[insert poster name]
Hey, moron! You're getting this form reply because you're a member of what I like to call the something for nothing crowd. Here are a list of facts you likely overlooked in your remark, prompting this auto response.

1. The buildings wouldn't sit empty, that's not part of the process, and nobody but you has suggested they sit empty. The radical idea on our part is..if SR doesn't want to restore the buildings they don't have to, they can entertain some of the offers they've denied from highly credible redevelopers that have been clamoring to rehab these exact buildings.

2. SandRidge is a bully. We have ordinances and laws directing downtown development that everyone else has to comply with. What makes SandRidge special? Even Devon has to comply, and trust me, the majority of downtown building projects pass with flying colors. Being a responsible corporate citizen, let alone mature adults, means that you follow the rules.

3. SandRidge has already let out all of the tower renovation, which is mostly finished at the moment. They would not leave that block when they've already finished what is obviously the most important part of the redevelopment. And if they did, awesome--we've got a completely renovated vacant tower downtown ready for some new company.

4. SandRidge would never leave this building in this economy because it would kill them. Let's say they go back to the NW Expressway or move to Tulsa or Houston and SandRidge Tower (or I should say Kerr McGee Tower) sits empty for years. Well, it's still owned by SandRidge. That's the great thing about being owner-occupied. Not only are they heavily invested in that tower, but it's their holding until they can find another seller. It would never even hit the vacancy roles even if SandRidge moved everything out, same reasoning that the India Temple is not currently on the vacancy roles.

I know that these "facts" may be disturbing and frustrating to you, but I also realize that you don't care, and will continue to insist that we're evil and you are right despite that your something for nothing cohorts can't provide a shred of factual evidence to support your bantering. I also realize you will probably go ahead and register another account after this account has been proven wrong and continue posting as if I had not corrected you already. I await your next attempt..

Sincerely,
The guy who's been all over this since last December or November.

Spartan
06-21-2010, 01:29 AM
Somehow missed it along the way, does anyone have a link?

SandRidge Energy Threatens to Leave OKC - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=12675094)

Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett did comment Friday saying, "I fully support SandRidge and their long-term commitment to create jobs in Oklahoma City."

Larry OKC
06-21-2010, 01:52 AM
Thanks Spartan...that quote was rather "politician" sounding wasn't it...could be interpreted so many ways...who doesn't support SandRidge and a long term commitment to create jobs? One can still support that concept and be against the destruction of the 2 buildings in question. They are not mutually exclusive IMO

Spartan
06-21-2010, 01:57 AM
Thanks Spartan...that quote was rather "politician" sounding wasn't it...could be interpreted so many ways...who doesn't support SandRidge and a long term commitment to create jobs? One can still support that concept and be against the destruction of the 2 buildings in question. They are not mutually exclusive IMO

But the remark was a response when his office was called to comment on SandRidge. I find it highly interesting that Mayor Mick didn't just say that he will support whatever comes out of the public process, or here's a radical idea...suggest that important ordinances be enforced. It's also interesting that his comment has nothing to do with SandRidge Commons but everything to do with SandRidge good/bad -- legitimizing their attempt to redefine the parameters of the debate as an indictment of everything "they do for OKC."

HOT ROD
06-21-2010, 02:25 AM
I think I can guess at the two solicited supporters. ...

Kerry
06-21-2010, 06:12 AM
I get tired of correcting the something for nothing crowd. I need to just make a form reply that goes something like this:
__________________________________________________ ______________________________


Dear ____________[insert poster name]
Hey, moron! You're getting this form reply because you're a member of what I like to call the something for nothing crowd. Here are a list of facts you likely overlooked in your remark, prompting this auto response.

1. The buildings wouldn't sit empty, that's not part of the process, and nobody but you has suggested they sit empty. The radical idea on our part is..if SR doesn't want to restore the buildings they don't have to, they can entertain some of the offers they've denied from highly credible redevelopers that have been clamoring to rehab these exact buildings.

2. SandRidge is a bully. We have ordinances and laws directing downtown development that everyone else has to comply with. What makes SandRidge special? Even Devon has to comply, and trust me, the majority of downtown building projects pass with flying colors. Being a responsible corporate citizen, let alone mature adults, means that you follow the rules.

3. SandRidge has already let out all of the tower renovation, which is mostly finished at the moment. They would not leave that block when they've already finished what is obviously the most important part of the redevelopment. And if they did, awesome--we've got a completely renovated vacant tower downtown ready for some new company.

4. SandRidge would never leave this building in this economy because it would kill them. Let's say they go back to the NW Expressway or move to Tulsa or Houston and SandRidge Tower (or I should say Kerr McGee Tower) sits empty for years. Well, it's still owned by SandRidge. That's the great thing about being owner-occupied. Not only are they heavily invested in that tower, but it's their holding until they can find another seller. It would never even hit the vacancy roles even if SandRidge moved everything out, same reasoning that the India Temple is not currently on the vacancy roles.

I know that these "facts" may be disturbing and frustrating to you, but I also realize that you don't care, and will continue to insist that we're evil and you are right despite that your something for nothing cohorts can't provide a shred of factual evidence to support your bantering. I also realize you will probably go ahead and register another account after this account has been proven wrong and continue posting as if I had not corrected you already. I await your next attempt..

Sincerely,
The guy who's been all over this since last December or November.

Spatan - that is an awesome form letter. I get so tired of these people that don't know squat about the situation and don't even try to educate themselves on the subject. If anyone is following the "Sandridge press-release" it is the people defending and supporting "Sandridge Commons".

soonerfan_in_okc
06-21-2010, 12:03 PM
I get tired of correcting the something for nothing crowd. I need to just make a form reply that goes something like this:
__________________________________________________ ______________________________


Dear ____________[insert poster name]
Hey, moron! You're getting this form reply because you're a member of what I like to call the something for nothing crowd. Here are a list of facts you likely overlooked in your remark, prompting this auto response.

1. The buildings wouldn't sit empty, that's not part of the process, and nobody but you has suggested they sit empty. The radical idea on our part is..if SR doesn't want to restore the buildings they don't have to, they can entertain some of the offers they've denied from highly credible redevelopers that have been clamoring to rehab these exact buildings.

2. SandRidge is a bully. We have ordinances and laws directing downtown development that everyone else has to comply with. What makes SandRidge special? Even Devon has to comply, and trust me, the majority of downtown building projects pass with flying colors. Being a responsible corporate citizen, let alone mature adults, means that you follow the rules.

3. SandRidge has already let out all of the tower renovation, which is mostly finished at the moment. They would not leave that block when they've already finished what is obviously the most important part of the redevelopment. And if they did, awesome--we've got a completely renovated vacant tower downtown ready for some new company.

4. SandRidge would never leave this building in this economy because it would kill them. Let's say they go back to the NW Expressway or move to Tulsa or Houston and SandRidge Tower (or I should say Kerr McGee Tower) sits empty for years. Well, it's still owned by SandRidge. That's the great thing about being owner-occupied. Not only are they heavily invested in that tower, but it's their holding until they can find another seller. It would never even hit the vacancy roles even if SandRidge moved everything out, same reasoning that the India Temple is not currently on the vacancy roles.

I know that these "facts" may be disturbing and frustrating to you, but I also realize that you don't care, and will continue to insist that we're evil and you are right despite that your something for nothing cohorts can't provide a shred of factual evidence to support your bantering. I also realize you will probably go ahead and register another account after this account has been proven wrong and continue posting as if I had not corrected you already. I await your next attempt..

Sincerely,
The guy who's been all over this since last December or November.

1. I am not suggesting they sit empty. They already do, so where you got that idea baffles me. I know that there may be developers interested, but the fact of the matter is that until they would do anything, they would continue to sit unoccupied. Nobody can predict for how long. It could be a year, it could be 10. But for you to act like they would all the sudden be bought and remodeled by developers is ignorant. However i must ask why you care so much about these buildings? You have wonderful structures like Taft stadium sitting in ruin, with just as much upside, but i never see you or anyone else barking for it to be saved. Seems hypocritical to me.

2. LMAO @ you calling a company a "bully". did you get made fun of in high school and now want to take it out on those who made it in life?

3. You make it sound like it is easy to find a company to come and occupy that building if sandridge were to leave. This is OKC, not dallas or houston. Energy companies do not see us as the top market, and with our wonderful corporate inviting tax system, i doubt they will for a while. So then that leaves us with the chance it would be occupied by someone who is already in the state. Who the hell would that be?

4. And I think you underestimate the ability of sandridge to think logically in this one. I guarantee you, that if properly thought out and executed, sandridge could move out of downtown and find another place. How long would it take? who knows. Obviously we are not talking in months but instead years.

and spartan, come on now. I don't think you are evil, I simply think you need to get over it and realize you can't always get what you want. And if you think I would ever hide and create a new SN because of you think you proved me wrong, you must not realize that this is an internet message board and even IF you were right, I wouldn't do such a thing. I like to be able to take ownership in my complete humiliation of you in the thread regarding OU's law school.

soonerguru
06-21-2010, 12:49 PM
I get tired of correcting the something for nothing crowd. I need to just make a form reply that goes something like this:
__________________________________________________ ______________________________


Dear ____________[insert poster name]
Hey, moron! You're getting this form reply because you're a member of what I like to call the something for nothing crowd. Here are a list of facts you likely overlooked in your remark, prompting this auto response.

1. The buildings wouldn't sit empty, that's not part of the process, and nobody but you has suggested they sit empty. The radical idea on our part is..if SR doesn't want to restore the buildings they don't have to, they can entertain some of the offers they've denied from highly credible redevelopers that have been clamoring to rehab these exact buildings.

2. SandRidge is a bully. We have ordinances and laws directing downtown development that everyone else has to comply with. What makes SandRidge special? Even Devon has to comply, and trust me, the majority of downtown building projects pass with flying colors. Being a responsible corporate citizen, let alone mature adults, means that you follow the rules.

3. SandRidge has already let out all of the tower renovation, which is mostly finished at the moment. They would not leave that block when they've already finished what is obviously the most important part of the redevelopment. And if they did, awesome--we've got a completely renovated vacant tower downtown ready for some new company.

4. SandRidge would never leave this building in this economy because it would kill them. Let's say they go back to the NW Expressway or move to Tulsa or Houston and SandRidge Tower (or I should say Kerr McGee Tower) sits empty for years. Well, it's still owned by SandRidge. That's the great thing about being owner-occupied. Not only are they heavily invested in that tower, but it's their holding until they can find another seller. It would never even hit the vacancy roles even if SandRidge moved everything out, same reasoning that the India Temple is not currently on the vacancy roles.

I know that these "facts" may be disturbing and frustrating to you, but I also realize that you don't care, and will continue to insist that we're evil and you are right despite that your something for nothing cohorts can't provide a shred of factual evidence to support your bantering. I also realize you will probably go ahead and register another account after this account has been proven wrong and continue posting as if I had not corrected you already. I await your next attempt..

Sincerely,
The guy who's been all over this since last December or November.

LOL! This is the awesome.

Spartan
06-21-2010, 12:51 PM
1. I am not suggesting they sit empty. They already do, so where you got that idea baffles me. I know that there may be developers interested, but the fact of the matter is that until they would do anything, they would continue to sit unoccupied. Nobody can predict for how long. It could be a year, it could be 10. But for you to act like they would all the sudden be bought and remodeled by developers is ignorant. However i must ask why you care so much about these buildings? You have wonderful structures like Taft stadium sitting in ruin, with just as much upside, but i never see you or anyone else barking for it to be saved. Seems hypocritical to me.

2. LMAO @ you calling a company a "bully". did you get made fun of in high school and now want to take it out on those who made it in life?

3. You make it sound like it is easy to find a company to come and occupy that building if sandridge were to leave. This is OKC, not dallas or houston. Energy companies do not see us as the top market, and with our wonderful corporate inviting tax system, i doubt they will for a while. So then that leaves us with the chance it would be occupied by someone who is already in the state. Who the hell would that be?

4. And I think you underestimate the ability of sandridge to think logically in this one. I guarantee you, that if properly thought out and executed, sandridge could move out of downtown and find another place. How long would it take? who knows. Obviously we are not talking in months but instead years.

and spartan, come on now. I don't think you are evil, I simply think you need to get over it and realize you can't always get what you want. And if you think I would ever hide and create a new SN because of you think you proved me wrong, you must not realize that this is an internet message board and even IF you were right, I wouldn't do such a thing. I like to be able to take ownership in my complete humiliation of you in the thread regarding OU's law school.



You did suggest the block would sit empty. You seem to be desperately hoping for that. Now you're backtracking, by saying they would sit empty...until the rehab project is finished. These bldgs are a strategic preservation effort. Saving Taft does not pump new life into downtown. There are companies that do exist in other sectors of the economy than energy. This may be a shock to you. Our lack of an educated population and available office space has been more of a deterrent than our tax system. Corporate relocations, they happen. Of course SandRidge could leave. They would have to tell their block to someone else, though, and the timeline would be longer than simply letting us rehab those bldgs already.

And last time I checked, this isn't a thread about crappy OU law. Get over it. You are a troll, as evident in your two separate paragraphs that are nothing more than personal attacks. The rest that vaguely qualifies as on topic is still laced with minor personal attacks. If internet message boards do this to you...you might try giving it up, seriously.

Kerry
06-21-2010, 01:55 PM
Soonerfan-in-okc - if those buildings are sitting empty it is because their owner wants them that way. Empty building are not in the best interest of downtown and the only thing worse them letting them sit empty is tearing them down. So right off the bat we can say that Sandridge doesn't have the best interest of downtown at heart. They even said so in the proposal that this entire project is only to improve the site lines for the main tower.

Devon has five companies interested in their soon to be former headquarters building, two of which are out of state companies that would relocated to OKC. I am sure Sandridge could find a buy for their buildings, hell, they have buyers seeking to buy portion of the property now.

Alas, Sandridge isn't going anywhere. They just moved here from Amarillo a few years ago because Tom Ward wanted to be closer to home (imagine that - an energy company moving from Texas to Oklahoma). It was an off-handed comment made by lawyer during a heated debate. I guarantee you Sandridge wasn't planning to announce a corporate relocation during a little Board of Adjustment meeting over some park benches and grassy space.

Spartan
06-21-2010, 02:57 PM
Yeah, I'm also pretty hopeful that SandRidge isn't nearly as bad as Frank Hill has made them look. It should be a no-brainer, but the only communication we have with them is THROUGH Frank Hill, so there is no way to tell.

soonerfan_in_okc
06-21-2010, 03:24 PM
You did suggest the block would sit empty. You seem to be desperately hoping for that. Now you're backtracking, by saying they would sit empty...until the rehab project is finished. These bldgs are a strategic preservation effort. Saving Taft does not pump new life into downtown. There are companies that do exist in other sectors of the economy than energy. This may be a shock to you. Our lack of an educated population and available office space has been more of a deterrent than our tax system. Corporate relocations, they happen. Of course SandRidge could leave. They would have to tell their block to someone else, though, and the timeline would be longer than simply letting us rehab those bldgs already.

And last time I checked, this isn't a thread about crappy OU law. Get over it. You are a troll, as evident in your two separate paragraphs that are nothing more than personal attacks. The rest that vaguely qualifies as on topic is still laced with minor personal attacks. If internet message boards do this to you...you might try giving it up, seriously.

So sense taft is not downtown, you don't think it is a top priority? That seems pretty egotistical.

and the thread about "crappy" ou law and where you assume OCU has a better law school. Then you get owned.

http://www.okctalk.com/college-high-school-sports/21065-quit-beggin-ostate-sports-fans.html

DirtLaw
06-21-2010, 03:43 PM
spartan I read some of the posts about your thoughts on the different law schools and you are flat wrong and completely uninformed. As a third generation graduate from OCU law school I have no problem admitting that OU is the better ranked law school, and is more know nationally as they are a second tier school (at least they were when I was going through the application process) and last I checked OCU was forth tier. OCU offers things that OU does not (i.e. a night program which is why I went there) and vice versa. Everyone picks there school for different reasons, I went to work with my fathers firm after law school so I knew that I was not going to have to worry about battling for a job so graduating from the more prestigious school did not matter.

You seem to blast people for being uninformed and uneducated about things regularly, so maybe you should take your advice and really look at things before you pass them off as knowledge.

Rover
06-21-2010, 04:06 PM
You are right. OU Law is rated #71 in the country (basically tier 2) with OCU in the 4th tier (not specifically ranked). Doesn't mean OCU doesn't produce some good or great lawyers.

DirtLaw
06-21-2010, 04:09 PM
You are right. OU Law is rated #71 in the country (basically tier 2) with OCU in the 4th tier (not specifically ranked). Doesn't mean OCU doesn't produce some good or great lawyers.

I totally agree, and all that ranking stuff really does not matter at all unless you are wanting a certain type of job that will only look at OU students. Like I said, I am a 3rd generation OCU law grad and liked OCU and what it had to offer.

Larry OKC
06-21-2010, 04:59 PM
3. You make it sound like it is easy to find a company to come and occupy that building if sandridge were to leave. This is OKC, not dallas or houston. Energy companies do not see us as the top market, and with our wonderful corporate inviting tax system, i doubt they will for a while. So then that leaves us with the chance it would be occupied by someone who is already in the state. Who the hell would that be?

Given the fact that Devon has 5(?) interested parties wanting to buy their building (at least one from out of state, which is Devon's pref), that may not be so hard to do.

Larry OKC
06-21-2010, 05:12 PM
1. ...You have wonderful structures like Taft stadium sitting in ruin, with just as much upside, but i never see you or anyone else barking for it to be saved. Seems hypocritical to me.

Am curious, just what "upside" potential does a stadium have? Could it be converted into residential or what are you suggesting?

Supposedly, funds for renovation/repairs to Taft have been covered in the 2007 School Bond issue. The Mayor even mentioned it when he was going thru his MAPS 3 survey checklist.

City of Oklahoma City | 2010 State of the City (http://www.okc.gov/council/mayor/state_of_city/2010/index.html)


Number ten, football! A new NFL stadium. Well, that would be cool. And I guess we could build one, but there wouldn’t be a team to play in it. But, seriously, about football and soccer in general, I will note that MAPS for Kids constructed a new football stadium at Douglass High School and the 2007 school bond issue has some money to improve Taft and Speegle stadia. How about half a check mark?

The amount and what level of improvements, I am not sure.

BigD Misey
06-21-2010, 05:28 PM
Given the fact that Devon has 5(?) interested parties wanting to buy their building (at least one from out of state, which is Devon's pref), that may not be so hard to do.

Doubt it, especially not with a divided town when it comes to proposals (such as the new convention ceneter and park) and the with problems Sandridge is having with implementing their vision with their properties.

Me thinks they go to Tulsa or Dallas if they want near this market immediately, or they just wait untill things happen to their satisfaction which could take years at this rate.

soonerguru
06-21-2010, 06:10 PM
Doubt it, especially not with a divided town when it comes to proposals (such as the new convention ceneter and park) and the with problems Sandridge is having with implementing their vision with their properties.

You really exaggerate the "division." If you want real division, check out a Tulsa city council meeting.

I can't comment on Dallas politics.

betts
06-21-2010, 06:26 PM
Doubt it, especially not with a divided town when it comes to proposals (such as the new convention ceneter and park) and the with problems Sandridge is having with implementing their vision with their properties.

Me thinks they go to Tulsa or Dallas if they want near this market immediately, or they just wait untill things happen to their satisfaction which could take years at this rate.

Seriously??? Over a plaza? Tom Ward lives in OKC. He might move his offices to the burbs, but even that seems like a ridiculous overreaction to me. Childish even. I realize that grown men are perfectly capable of acting like children, this forum occasionally being a perfect example, but it would be disappointing to see that happen.

progressiveboy
06-21-2010, 06:27 PM
Doubt it, especially not with a divided town when it comes to proposals (such as the new convention ceneter and park) and the with problems Sandridge is having with implementing their vision with their properties.

Me thinks they go to Tulsa or Dallas if they want near this market immediately, or they just wait untill things happen to their satisfaction which could take years at this rate. Big D I just do not see them moving to Dallas since it "really" has a "divided" city leadership and constant bickering and complaining. I know, I live in Big D as much as I like it, it is a city that has large deficits, crumbling infrastructure needs and a divided city council. Dallas has lost a lot of it's "luster". Tulsa is another fine example of poor divided city leadership. I think that this will work out for OKC just fine and there will be a compromise on both sides!

kevinpate
06-21-2010, 06:55 PM
Sandridge isn't going anywhere, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.

OCU does not have a more well regarded College of Law than OU does.

There is no reason to rally for Taft when Taft is already part of the city improvement plan.

People who do not desire yet another new grassy park in the CBD are not crazy, nor are they evil.

People who do desire yet another grassy park in the CBD are ALSO not crazy or evil.

Existing ordinances ought to be enforced, irrespective of whether the company has been in the CBD 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years, 2 decades, or longer.

If an existing ordinance causes issues for a plan, the time to seek a change is before pushing the plan, not as an accommodation to a plan

If a building can come down within an existing ordinance, the time to seek a change is before a big red target is painted on a building, not after the fact.

The above being said, best wishes to both major positions in meeting somewhere in the middle, if there is a middle ground under the existing ordinances.

:tiphat:

Kerry
06-21-2010, 07:18 PM
Doubt it, especially not with a divided town when it comes to proposals (such as the new convention ceneter and park) and the with problems Sandridge is having with implementing their vision with their properties.

Me thinks they go to Tulsa or Dallas if they want near this market immediately, or they just wait untill things happen to their satisfaction which could take years at this rate.

You doubt what?

Devon Energy has 5 potential buyers for Oklahoma City headquarters | North America > United States from AllBusiness.com (http://www.allbusiness.com/real-estate/commercial-residential-property-commercial/14646868-1.html)


Devon Energy has 5 potential buyers for Oklahoma City headquarters
By Richard Mize The Oklahoman, Oklahoma City
Publication: Daily Oklahoman
Date: Thursday, June 17 2010

Jun. 17-- Devon Energy Corp. has five potential buyers for its headquarters, which accounts for almost one-third of the 950,000 square feet of space it will leave vacant when it moves into its new tower in 2012.

Commercial property broker Mark Beffort said two of the prospects would be the best possible kind of new owner-occupier for Devon's building at 20 N Broadway: companies from outside Oklahoma. An out-of-state company would bring in out-of-state jobs, said Beffort, principal of Grubb & Ellis-Levy Beffort and a downtown property owner.

...

Nichols probably wouldn't authorize a sale of the headquarters to a company already here because it would be a wash for employment for the city, Beffort told members of the Realtors Commercial Alliance, an arm of the Oklahoma City Metro Association of Realtors, Wednesday on their 10th annual tour of commercial real estate.

bluedogok
06-22-2010, 10:08 AM
Big D I just do not see them moving to Dallas since it "really" has a "divided" city leadership and constant bickering and complaining. I know, I live in Big D as much as I like it, it is a city that has large deficits, crumbling infrastructure needs and a divided city council. Dallas has lost a lot of it's "luster". Tulsa is another fine example of poor divided city leadership. I think that this will work out for OKC just fine and there will be a compromise on both sides!
Exactly, Dallas had the nicke "The city of many mayors" back when I lived there. For any council member or mayor to get something done in one ward (I think they're termed place there) you have to promise to do something else in every other ward. It is the definition of dysfunctional city and the burbs grew at tremendous rates for a long time, they took advantage of it.

EBAH
06-22-2010, 06:09 PM
Sandridge isn't going anywhere, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.

OCU does not have a more well regarded College of Law than OU does.

There is no reason to rally for Taft when Taft is already part of the city improvement plan.

People who do not desire yet another new grassy park in the CBD are not crazy, nor are they evil.

People who do desire yet another grassy park in the CBD are ALSO not crazy or evil.

Existing ordinances ought to be enforced, irrespective of whether the company has been in the CBD 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years, 2 decades, or longer.

If an existing ordinance causes issues for a plan, the time to seek a change is before pushing the plan, not as an accommodation to a plan

If a building can come down within an existing ordinance, the time to seek a change is before a big red target is painted on a building, not after the fact.

The above being said, best wishes to both major positions in meeting somewhere in the middle, if there is a middle ground under the existing ordinances.

hahaha, my feelings exactly...

OKCPetro83
06-22-2010, 07:38 PM
I can't believe this is even a debate. Sandridge is going to make downtown nicer with their investment. No angel investor is going to come in a scoop up these buildings and renovate for a long time. Let's move on and move forward.