Edge @ Midtown

[Spartan]

It would just sit for speculation.

[Kerry]

It would just sit for speculation.

It has just been sitting vacant for 40 year anyhow. That is 40 years of taxes the city missed out on.

[HOT ROD]

This is why I would favor an auction of all OCURA land to the highest bidders. Get these land back in the hands of the private sector and start collecting taxes on it.

there is a huge risk with this strategy, Kerry - as we have seen a few times in and around Bricktown. Need I say what that risk is?

'investor buys property but then sits on it, hoping for a big flip'.

I would rather URA control land and award based on solid projects. The key is - we need SOLID projects and this requires ethics from the URA board. There should be bi-annual appointments or something like that, where new fresh feet can get in.

[Spartan]

I would just rather OCURA demonstrate more prowess toward urban development.

[Kerry]

I would just rather OCURA demonstrate more prowess toward urban development.

Why would they? They are the ultimate speculators. They have everything on their side; all the time in the world, no need to make a profit to stay in business, and no taxes to pay. We need to end their monopoly. Sell off everything and lets get this city under construction.

[betts]

I might say we need people who are making decisions for the right reasons on the OCURA board, but I don't agree that we need to sell off everything and get the city under construction. Again, I'd far rather we have slow construction that is done right and is aesthetically pleasing than that we allow any developer to slap anything up in an attempt to make a quick profit and perhaps sell before the flaws show up. The collapse in real estate was an unanticipated event by many and we shouldn't allow what has happened in the last two years cause us to make snap decisions that this sort of thing should or shouldn't have been approved or built. Hindsight is 20-20, and some of the projects that weren't approved might not have been so popular once they were constructed. Or, some of the projects that were built, in a different economic climate, may have been wildly successful and we'd be applauding OCURA decisions. Even if there were different people on the OCURA board, some of their decisions would end up being unpopular, all of us specializing in armchair quarterbacking around here.

[Kerry]

I might say we need people who are making decisions for the right reasons on the OCURA board, but I don't agree that we need to sell off everything and get the city under construction. Again, I'd far rather we have slow construction that is done right and is aesthetically pleasing than that we allow any developer to slap anything up in an attempt to make a quick profit and perhaps sell before the flaws show up.

You write this sentince AND support OCURA? That is a contradiction in terms. Where is the incentive for OCURA to do those things? However, if you want slow construction then mission accomplished. Land has been sitting vacant for 40 years or more.

[Steve]

Kerry, it's not that simple....

[Kerry]

Kerry, it's not that simple....

I know, there are egos involved and politics to play. How else can someone explain 40 or 50 years of vacant land surrounding the urban core of OKC?

[Steve]

Tell me which piece of land has been vacant for 40 years, under control of Urban Renewal for that long, and I'll give you the details, which in some cases favor Urban Renewal, in other cases do not. I'd also advise there isn't as much land out there that fits this description as you might think.

[betts]

You write this sentince AND support OCURA? That is a contradiction in terms. Where is the incentive for OCURA to do those things? However, if you want slow construction then mission accomplished. Land has been sitting vacant for 40 years or more.

I didn't say I supported OCURA, but rather, that no matter who was making the decisions, mistakes would almost assuredly be made and people would be unhappy. As far as vacant land goes, much of the area in question wasn't considered prime, or even subprime, real estate until a few years ago. Now that the land is valued, I don't want to see us slap just anything up so we can say we don't have vacant land. In a perfect world, to me, a group like OCURA would look for the best possible option for every piece of land and leave land fallow if a project didn't look like it would be quality construction that would stand the test of time.

[Steve]

Alright .... still waiting for specific cases of Urban Renewal sitting on land for decades.
Since no one is offering up an example, I'll throw one out: the surface parking lot between 420 W Main and City Hall. The parking lot is for mayor, council,city managers, city attorney, and visitors to the planning, public works and water departments.
Any guesses as to why it has never been offered up for development? Is Urban Renewal to blame on this, or is it City Hall? Or are we to believe there is no interest in this site?

[Kerry]

I'll tell you what Steve, if you can get me a list of OCURA owned land, and when they acquired it, I'll be happy to look and see how long they have been speculating on land at the expense of Oklahoma City tax payers. What Betts just posted in the exact 100% defnition of what everyone is afraid would happen if the land was help by private citizens, but it is OCURA that is doing it - all tax free.

How about this piece of land: The vacant lot bounded by EK Gaylord, NW3rd, NW4th, and the railroad? How long has OCURA been sitting on this piece of land? LOL - that might not actually be OCURA land anyhow.

[Kerry]

OK - I found that OKCURA currently owns 704 parcels of land. I'll bet no one had any idea it was that many.

[Steve]

I'll tell you what Steve, if you can get me a list of OCURA owned land, and when they acquired it, I'll be happy to look and see how long they have been speculating on land at the expense of Oklahoma City tax payers. What Betts just posted in the exact 100% defnition of what everyone is afraid would happen if the land was help by private citizens, but it is OCURA that is doing it - all tax free.

How about this piece of land: The vacant lot bounded by EK Gaylord, NW3rd, NW4th, and the railroad? How long has OCURA been sitting on this piece of land? LOL - that might not actually be OCURA land anyhow.

So you're asking me to provide evidence for the claim you've made? That's a genius way of making an argument. I don't have the time to do that, unfortunately, though I am fairly familiar with the general areas of the URA holdings. Many of the parcels you are seeing in the assessor records are in the JFK neighborhood - small home lots - and many of them are up for sale. And people have been buying. I've written about JFK before and I'll probably write about it again.
As for the lot at E.K. Gaylord and NW 3, that is actually a mangled up, zig-zagged parcel where part of it is owned by URA, the other part is owned by OPUBCO. The chamber currently has the redevelopment contract for the site for construction of a new headquarters.
URA has had ownership of some of that land since the 1970s.

[betts]

And those of us who live nearby are perfectly happy with it lying fallow, as it's the closest thing to a piece of parkland we've got and is used by many local downtown events.

[Kerry]

And those of us who live nearby are perfectly happy with it lying fallow, as it's the closest thing to a piece of parkland we've got and is used by many local downtown events.

Don't worry - Sandridge has you covered.

Steve, I did see where a lot of the holding were residential tracts. Has OCURA been acquiring more land or did they get a bunch of it 50 years ago and it has taken this long to get down to 700 parcels? If they have been acquring more land, how do they pay for it and what is the process for acquiring it (are they out bidding private citizens)?

[Rover]

Why would they? They are the ultimate speculators. They have everything on their side; all the time in the world, no need to make a profit to stay in business, and no taxes to pay. We need to end their monopoly. Sell off everything and lets get this city under construction.

Seems pretty naive that this would result in development or in the right kind of development. On one hand we have everybody upset because SandRidge wanted to do what they wanted with their property, but are willing to eliminate any control over critically placed areas. This board is bi-polar.

[Kerry]

Seems pretty naive that this would result in development or in the right kind of development. On one hand we have everybody upset because SandRidge wanted to do what they wanted with their property, but are willing to eliminate any control over critically placed areas. This board is bi-polar.

I guess the difference is between government control and the power of public persuasion. Alas, Sandridge gets to make their plaza and guess who approved it - the City. So much for "right kind of development".

[Rover]

Where does this stand?

[Spartan]

Wiggin was in over his head. OCURA came to their senses amazingly and pulled the plug on it, voted to rebid the site entirely (and that was a close call). They're going to take bids either at the Dec meeting or Jan, I forget which. Both Wiggin and Tanenbaum are expected to submit proposals, it may get interesting if others get involved in the RFP as well.

It is going to be apartments whoever builds it. Tanenbaum says he could break ground tomorrow practically. Wiggin says he would need another year of planning.

[soonerguru]

Wiggin was in over his head. OCURA came to their senses amazingly and pulled the plug on it, voted to rebid the site entirely (and that was a close call). They're going to take bids either at the Dec meeting or Jan, I forget which. Both Wiggin and Tanenbaum are expected to submit proposals, it may get interesting if others get involved in the RFP as well.

It is going to be apartments whoever builds it. Tanenbaum says he could break ground tomorrow practically. Wiggin says he would need another year of planning.

In that case, Go Tenenbaum!

[Spartan]

Yeah no kidding. Wiggin has a good track record, but he needs to just walk away from the Mercy hospital site. I get it that he's invested about $200,000 in plans that he's going to lose, but at least he's not going to be taken to the cleaners like his plan for Overholser Green would have done to him.

[Rover]

Is the consensus feeling that Tanenbaum will build a reasonably quality project? We need affordable high density for-rent housing, but not something that degrades badly in a decade. I would rather have an empty lot than blight. I am fearful of having a cheap suburban apartment development that isolates Heritage Hills/Mesta from being downtown.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that is what he would build but his new construction is apartments and tilt-up concrete offices and warehouses.

[Spartan]

I don't think Tanenbaum would build that though. He was involved in the Classen, Montgomery, Park Harvey, all great downtown projects. I will reserve my judgment until I actually see the plans, but I am skeptical of Wiggin's argument that Tanenbaum's expedited project schedule will result in a crappier project. Contrary to what Wiggin says, just because a project takes less than 5 years to get off doesn't make it crap...

I definitely agree with you that the site has to be a good development. It's a potentially excellent location for a good mixed-use residential project.