Hopefully this doesn't come to fruition.

https://kfor.com/2019/07/02/city-council-changes-rules-on-designating-historic-sites/

So, Money talks, History walks. Shame.

This is what happens when unelected boards try to end run the city council. They get smacked down. And lose power

This is what happens when unelected boards try to end run the city council. They get smacked down. And lose power

Sounds like you're in favor of Stonecipher's crappy proposal?

Reminder that Stonecipher first went around Cooper in his own Ward on a First Christian measure.

And then co-authored this latest measure against the strong opposition of 3 other council members.


It's why for the life of me I can't understand why anyone considers him moderate.

Just watch the video from yesterday's meeting and listen to his comments along with Greenwell.

“It’s none of our business. It’s private property,” Ward 5 Councilman David Greenwell said, echoing the request to remove the historic preservation commission and planning commission from designating a building or district for historic preservation – if more than half of the property owners are against it.

Gah, I despise this view so much. If property ownership was the be all, end all, we wouldn't have the concept of zoning baked so hard into our land use policies. The real question is at what point the public interest outweighs the ownership interest, and being able to designate important structures as historic is already a good balance in my view.

^

It's a ridiculous argument.

Every piece of private property is already subject to literally hundreds of laws, ordinances, codes, etc.

Reminder that Stonecipher first went around Cooper in his own Ward on a First Christian measure.

And then co-authored this latest measure against the strong opposition of 3 other council members.


It's why for the life of me I can't understand why anyone considers him moderate.

Just watch the video from yesterday's meeting and listen to his comments along with Greenwell.

I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO glad I moved out of Stonecipher's ward and into Cooper's, Stonecipher is a complete ass.

I truly don't understand the point of this. The HPC has the ability to initiate the process until the council makes a decision. They get the final say either way, all the HPC could do was put protections in place until decisions were made. Yes, the First Christian Church has a (hopefully) happy ending, but clearly they don't all work out that way. With Stonecipher talking over Cooper and debating with citizens it just felt like a rude, rushed attempt to force through this amendment.

^

There is no real point, as council always has the final say.

It's just a power play.

I truly don't understand the point of this.
There isn't one. Stonecipher is being vindictive and a pouty b*tch.

There isn't one. Stonecipher is being vindictive and a pouty b*tch.

The alarming thing to me is that he's getting enough support! I'm not familiar with the process for this - is there any chance this gets stopped, or is it pretty much happening at this point?

The alarming thing to me is that he's getting enough support! I'm not familiar with the process for this - is there any chance this gets stopped, or is it pretty much happening at this point?

It looks like they have 5 votes, which is all that is needed to ultimately pass.

It looks like they have 5 votes, which is all that is needed to ultimately pass.

Darn, the way that article was written it didn't quite sound like a done deal. Gave me false hope!

It looks like they have 5 votes, which is all that is needed to ultimately pass.
Who's against? Cooper, Hamon, Holt, and Nice? Will McAtee go along with this?

Who's against? Cooper, Hamon, Holt, and Nice? Will McAtee go along with this?

McAtee voted in support from Holt's chair yesterday. I haven't heard Holt's position on it.

McAtee voted in support from Holt's chair yesterday. I haven't heard Holt's position on it.

Won't matter if the 5 vote the same way.

McAtee voted in support from Holt's chair yesterday. I haven't heard Holt's position on it.
Didn't know that. Thanks for sharing.

Won't matter if the 5 vote the same way.

True, but I'm still curious where he would have stood.

True, but I'm still curious where he would have stood.

Tweet at him and ask, heard he's pretty responsive. I'm not on Twitter, so I can't.

Holt will still have to vote when the matter comes back to the council for final approval.

Just don't think it will matter because the matter seems decided by the oher 8 voters.

Gah, I despise this view so much. If property ownership was the be all, end all, we wouldn't have the concept of zoning baked so hard into our land use policies. The real question is at what point the public interest outweighs the ownership interest, and being able to designate important structures as historic is already a good balance in my view.
It seems as if zoning laws are under attack in many places, and for many reasons. I believe Oregon passed a law essentially neutralizing single family home zoning. This is an urbanism based attack. Here is an attack on preservationists. Either way, the effort is to render ineffective current zoning and other restrictions by authorities. This is a tricky thread to start pulling.

It seems as if zoning laws are under attack in many places, and for many reasons. I believe Oregon passed a law essentially neutralizing single family home zoning. This is an urbanism based attack. Here is an attack on preservationists. Either way, the effort is to render ineffective current zoning and other restrictions by authorities. This is a tricky thread to start pulling.

this actually just puts power to designate a property HP historic in which the owners disagrees only in the hands those that are elected .. .

this actually just puts power to designate a property HP historic in which the owners disagrees only in the hands those that are elected .. .

That is already the case.

All this would do would not allow the Planning Commission or HP Commission to commence a study.

That is already the case.

All this would do would not allow the Planning Commission or HP Commission to commence a study.

which is pretty reasonable considering them commencing a study puts a 6 month hold on any action .... in this case the council/staff was in negotition with the property owners and the HP commission did an end run of the council ..

which is pretty reasonable considering them commencing a study puts a 6 month hold on any action .... in this case the council/staff was in negotition with the property owners and the HP commission did an end run of the council ..

Without this hold, what's to stop a property owner from demolishing once they find out the study has started?

Without this hold, what's to stop a property owner from demolishing once they find out the study has started?

basicly the city council would still have the power to start the study and thus the 6 month window ... and i would rather have elected officials hold this power then an appointed board ..

in this case the council/staff was in negotition with the property owners and the HP commission did an end run of the council ..

Stonecipher and others were trying to work a deal, not the council. And all the while Stonecipher is also a member of Crossings Church, which is a conflict of interest.

He also authored a resolution without even talking to Cooper, which was relatively unprecedented considering it was in his ward and he was also working with First Christian.


So, some pretty suspect behavior on the part of an elected official, as if that status somehow makes you superior.

basicly the city council would still have the power to start the study and thus the 6 month window ... and i would rather have elected officials hold this power then an appointed board ..

Man, your answers are incredibly hard to decipher, they're so vague and this one doesn't really answer the question. So if a study is commenced, can the property owner demolish a building? Or do they have to wait 6 months or ........? I don't know the current process works, sorry, or how this new one will, but wondering if either have any teeth - are there any actual, real consequences if a property owner demolishes a building that's under HP status or in the midst of a study or "on hold pending a study" or ....?

Stonecipher and others were trying to work a deal, not the council. And all the while Stonecipher is also a member of Crossings Church, which is a conflict of interest.

He also authored a resolution without even talking to Cooper, which was relatively unprecedented considering it was in his ward and he was also working with First Christian.


So, some pretty suspect behavior on the part of an elected official, as if that status somehow makes you superior.

i agree about the conflict of interest ...

as for the interference in another ward ... councilmen cooper's predecessor did that all to oftern while on the horseshoe

Man, your answers are incredibly hard to decipher, they're so vague and this one doesn't really answer the question. So if a study is commenced, can the property owner demolish a building? Or do they have to wait 6 months or ........? I don't know the current process works, sorry, or how this new one will, but wondering if either have any teeth - are there any actual, real consequences if a property owner demolishes a building that's under HP status or in the midst of a study or "on hold pending a study" or ....?

if the study is started they can not demo for 6 months .. (if this passes on final vote only the council could start the process )


i have no idea what recourse the city would have if some one demoed with out permission ( i guess the city would have to take the issue to court)

i agree about the conflict of interest ...

as for the interference in another ward ... councilmen cooper's predecessor did that all to oftern while on the horseshoe

Nope.

I was told this sort of thing had never happened before.

this actually just puts power to designate a property HP historic in which the owners disagrees only in the hands those that are elected .. .
Oh good... I was afraid it would be in the hands of knowledgeable advocates of historic preservation. Now we can rely on the unbiased, incorruptible and unconflicted elected more interested in staying in power than advocating for the right thing. Can sleep better now.

Oh good... I was afraid it would be in the hands of knowledgeable advocates of historic preservation. Now we can rely on the unbiased, incorruptible and unconflicted elected more interested in staying in power than advocating for the right thing. Can sleep better now.

I don't have anything productive to add, I just wanted to applaud this response. :Smiley051

Oh good... I was afraid it would be in the hands of knowledgeable advocates of historic preservation. Now we can rely on the unbiased, incorruptible and unconflicted elected more interested in staying in power than advocating for the right thing. Can sleep better now.
:congrats: took the words out of my mouth

Proposal to limit commissions power

https://oklahoman.com/article/5640867/proposal-would-limit-commissions-authority-in-historic-preservation-in-oklahoma-city

Proposal to limit commissions power

https://oklahoman.com/article/5640867/proposal-would-limit-commissions-authority-in-historic-preservation-in-oklahoma-city

they brought this upon themselves

this advaced by a 6-3 vote yesterday

Good thing we're doing this in reaction to a First Christian Church purchase deal that has *checks notes* already fallen apart due to issues that have nothing to do with either the presence or absence of a historic preservation listing.

Update regarding the proposed historic protections:


Greenwell Ordinance

The controversial ordinance proposed by Wards 5 and 8 Councilmen David Greenwell and Mark Stonecipher has been workshopped and refocused repeatedly since it was first introduced months ago.

It has been before the Council and the Planning Commission twice. On its most recent review, the Planning Commission failed to vote to recommend the ordinance and it was returned to Council as “without recommendation.”

Since returning to the Council for review, the ordinance has been rewritten to clarify the language several times.

Last week Mayor Holt, who has some experience in drafting legislation, inserted himself into the process.

- https://freepressokc.com/its-urban-vs-suburban-okc-council-members-on-controversial-ordinance/

Good thing we're doing this in reaction to a First Christian Church purchase deal that has *checks notes* already fallen apart due to issues that have nothing to do with either the presence or absence of a historic preservation listing.

Good point.

This is getting torn down in Fort Smith :(

https://talkbusiness.net/2022/05/iconic-st-scholastica-building-in-fort-smith-to-be-demolished/?fbclid=IwAR1vNLvdOCgqLYhtk7vXXLv-KD0r2UZRUa1GMXbV_fNwrCw2h8inmNs6nDg

That’s depressing and a **** decision.

Though not as cool architecturally, a similar type building from the 1960s was knocked down in Broken Arrow a few years ago.

https://bahspulse.com/convent-to-be-demolished/#