Spring Creek Plaza

[jerrywall]

Out of curiosity, why did you oppose 18 on Fink? It without a doubt would have raised home values in the area so what financial impact would you have had?

You state that "without a doubt" but there's no proof of that, and considering the value of those lots, converting a single unit zoned lot to multi unit, putting dumpsters on park land, and having parking spots for the park taken up by residents and visitors at this new dense residences, it certainly wouldn't have raised the quality of life for the existing residents, and it doesn't make those lots more appealing. I grew up playing in that park and that creek and field, and so did my kids. I hope my grandkids will someday. We don't need to try to wedge in more development right there. There's plenty of other space available for infill all over town.

I don't really want to redebate this development though, since it's dead. My larger point is that it's fine for folks to fight for their own interests. These developers certainly are, contrary to the image they try to present.

[Plutonic Panda]

You state that "without a doubt" but there's no proof of that, and considering the value of those lots, converting a single unit zoned lot to multi unit, putting dumpsters on park land, and having parking spots for the park taken up by residents and visitors at this new dense residences, it certainly wouldn't have raised the quality of life for the existing residents, and it doesn't make those lots more appealing. I grew up playing in that park and that creek and field, and so did my kids. I hope my grandkids will someday. We don't need to try to wedge in more development right there. There's plenty of other space available for infill all over town.

I don't really want to redebate this development though, since it's dead. My larger point is that it's fine for folks to fight for their own interests. These developers certainly are, contrary to the image they try to present.

Oh i certainly agree with your last part if a city wants to vote to cost itself opportunities then by all means it should be able to. I just asked about your opposition to 18 on Fink because I didn’t remember you opposing it.

I suppose the proof or support of my statement lies with any similar project of it being built elsewhere around the country/world seeing values of nearby properties going up. You stated you were opposed to the development due to financial reasons which given that statement seems you have information about the project and how it would negatively impact you and I’d be interested to see that.

[Plutonic Panda]

Good news for the NIMBYs and bigots, no more proposals for new development here. The Hafer Park expansion passed, as expected.

I was also under the the impression that there was a citizens ballot lead initiative to stop the proposed apartments in SW Edmond. I haven’t heard anything about it though.

Hopefully the existing park will get a renovation as part of this. It really needs it.

[Hollywood]

Good news for the NIMBYs and bigots, no more proposals for new development here. The Hafer Park expansion passed, as expected.

I was also under the the impression that there was a citizens ballot lead initiative to stop the proposed apartments in SW Edmond. I haven’t heard anything about it though.

Hopefully the existing park will get a renovation as part of this. It really needs it.

With the amount of “No New Tax” signs I’d seen posted I’d held out hope common sense would prevail but of course its dead. Welcome to the NIMBY crowds newest tactic moving forward…. don’t like a development proposal, find a way for us all to pay for the land to prevent it.

[Plutonic Panda]

With the amount of “No New Tax” signs I’d seen posted I’d held out hope common sense would prevail but of course its dead. Welcome to the NIMBY crowds newest tactic moving forward…. don’t like a development proposal, find a way for us all to pay for the land to prevent it.

I just wonder how many times this new card will be pulled before people figure it out. I understand why most people voted for it and I suspect many didn’t have context of the situation.

[MagzOK]

Good news for the NIMBYs and bigots, no more proposals for new development here. The Hafer Park expansion passed, as expected.

I was also under the the impression that there was a citizens ballot lead initiative to stop the proposed apartments in SW Edmond. I haven’t heard anything about it though.

Hopefully the existing park will get a renovation as part of this. It really needs it.

Why are you calling these folks bigots? These residents just wanted to save an extremely heavily wooded area as part of a park for generations to come. I don't see any problem with that whatsoever. Edmond is huge and has lots of places already cleared off where developments can be built without having to clear off a mini "forest" that's there. An overwhelming percentage of residents did not want it developed, so I'm not sure why these are bad people. I think it's great the citizens have recognized a way to get done what they want in their community and they did so successfully.

[Plutonic Panda]

Why are you calling these folks bigots? These residents just wanted to save an extremely heavily wooded area as part of a park for generations to come. I don't see any problem with that whatsoever. Edmond is huge and has lots of places already cleared off where developments can be built without having to clear off a mini "forest" that's there. An overwhelming percentage of residents did not want it developed, so I'm not sure why these are bad people. I think it's great the citizens have recognized a way to get done what they want in their community and they did so successfully.

Hafer is already a big park that is in need of repair anyways. The only reason this proposal happened was to block development, that is the driving force behind this question. Not because we have some passionate citizens who to see more parks in the city. It’s people who want to live in their own little bubble in a white suburban middle class community and that’s the way it needs to stay. Edmond is changing for the better slowly but you still get nonsense like this because Edmondnites are afraid of apartments.

[MagzOK]

Hafer is already a big park that is in need of repair anyways. The only reason this proposal happened was to block development, that is the driving force behind this question. Not because we have some passionate citizens who to see more parks in the city. It’s people who want to live in their own little bubble in a white suburban middle class community and that’s the way it needs to stay. Edmond is changing for the better slowly but you still get nonsense like this because Edmondnites are afraid of apartments.

That's quite an assumption! You know, I'm fine with allowing folks to get a say in what they want built around them. Okay, I'm not going to go any further since you're making it a race issue. Take care.

[Plutonic Panda]

That's quite an assumption! You know, I'm fine with allowing folks to get a say in what they want built around them. Okay, I'm not going to go any further since you're making it a race issue. Take care.

They did get a say originally. They didn’t like the fact they didn’t get their way, so they spread misinformation, and then took the question to the voters bypassing the people the city elected to represent them and relied on low voter turnouts in a city that is historically anti development to stop what might have been the nicest shopping center in the state.

Every development that is proposed has to go through a formal process that allows for citizens to make their voice heard. No one here is saying the citizens shouldn’t be able to have a say in what goes next to them. Even before this they had one of the biggest municipal parks in the city and maybe even the entire state next to them. Again this isn’t about parks or simply wanting to have a voice. It’s just straight up NIMBYism.

Anyways the battle is won on their part. Good for them. There will always be someone like Midtowner at every single corner of the city who will argue this development shouldn’t be built because it’ll hurt my property values and I’d rather see a park here instead. Hopefully that crap won’t happen again but Edmond is only voting against its best interests. That become proven once national developers start proposing real high end developments around the metro and pass up Edmond given its reputation as an anti development city.

[Midtowner]

Good news for the NIMBYs and bigots, no more proposals for new development here. The Hafer Park expansion passed, as expected.

I was also under the the impression that there was a citizens ballot lead initiative to stop the proposed apartments in SW Edmond. I haven’t heard anything about it though.

Hopefully the existing park will get a renovation as part of this. It really needs it.

I don't get a vote in this election as I'm about 2 doors down from Edmond, but this will substantially affect my quality of life. Those of you in the development business, best to tone down the entitledness and haughtiness on this subject. If you feed an us v. them narrative, there are a lot more of them than there are of you, so that's not in your long term best interests. Build things people can get excited about. Show some respect for the communities you work in.

This proposal was seen by most in Edmond as a big 'f you' to the local community--and it shouldn't be as the developer agreed to sell this land back to the city and could have just as easily done something worse. Hire a PR person next time. Or if you did, hire a different PR person next time.

For those who voted in favor, thank you. This vote also demonstrates that there may be a strong desire in Edmond for MAPS style improvements. If the City was to put something together, while I don't get to vote in your elections, I'd have a desire to help the campaign in any way I could.

[jerrywall]

For those who voted in favor, thank you. This vote also demonstrates that there may be a strong desire in Edmond for MAPS style improvements. If the City was to put something together, while I don't get to vote in your elections, I'd have a desire to help the campaign in any way I could.

^^ This. They've got some cool projects in consideration such as the wayfinding project they're in the early stages of, but most of their focused development/investment has been in the narrow downtown area (at least of the projects I've seen and heard about). I'd love to see some more deliberate community development projects and would support some short term (or even longer term) sales tax increments to fund them. And I think we have that advantage of pointing to our neighbors to the south and their success with the MAPS improvements as an example.

[WheelerD Guy]

I don't get a vote in this election as I'm about 2 doors down from Edmond, but this will substantially affect my quality of life. Those of you in the development business, best to tone down the entitledness and haughtiness on this subject. If you feed an us v. them narrative, there are a lot more of them than there are of you, so that's not in your long term best interests. Build things people can get excited about. Show some respect for the communities you work in.

This proposal was seen by most in Edmond as a big 'f you' to the local community--and it shouldn't be as the developer agreed to sell this land back to the city and could have just as easily done something worse. Hire a PR person next time. Or if you did, hire a different PR person next time.

For those who voted in favor, thank you. This vote also demonstrates that there may be a strong desire in Edmond for MAPS style improvements. If the City was to put something together, while I don't get to vote in your elections, I'd have a desire to help the campaign in any way I could.

Not necessarily. There's plenty of entitlement and haughtiness
In folks who think they're entitled to disturb the zoning
Of land that belongs to a third-party
Especially after the third-party has secured capital
And lawfully changed the historical zoning at the Council

[Midtowner]

Not necessarily. There's plenty of entitlement and haughtiness
In folks who think they're entitled to disturb the zoning
Of land that belongs to a third-party
Especially after the third-party has secured capital
And lawfully changed the historical zoning at the Council

Folks are absolutely entitled to disturb the zoning of land which belongs to a third party even when that party has secured capital and lawfully changed the historical zoning at the Council. It is completely their right to circulate a referendum and submit the issue to a vote of the people.

I'm sure the developer turned a profit on the land.

[WheelerD Guy]

Folks are absolutely entitled to disturb the zoning of land which belongs to a third party even when that party has secured capital and lawfully changed the historical zoning at the Council. It is completely their right to circulate a referendum and submit the issue to a vote of the people.

I'm sure the developer turned a profit on the land.

I wasn't saying the law prohibits referendums
Only that you have to be a bit entitled and privileged
To deem your own judgment to be superior
To that of the City Council

[WheelerD Guy]

Good grief. This is the sort of move
That will drive would-be developers
To OKC or Yukon to earn their returns

[jerrywall]

This was the right decision. There's a lot of emotion tied of in Hafer park, and developments near it are always going to be contentious. If the land isn't going to be developed, it should be added to the cities park system.

And this is a decent deal. For a small one year tax, and just $5 million, Edmond is adding 22 acres to their "central" park. For comparison, lower scissortail park is about 30 acres. This will bring the park to about 140 acres, or twice the size of scissortail park. It's an impressive piece of greenery smack in the middle of the city. While I think the proposed development would have enhanced the park, I'm hoping that this investment/expansion will lead to the city putting more investments into Hafer. They've been primarily focused on Mitch park in recent years, and I think Hafer is so much nicer.

Especially considering this passed with over 80% voting yes. That's a clear sign to the council.

[Midtowner]

This was the right decision. There's a lot of emotion tied of in Hafer park, and developments near it are always going to be contentious. If the land isn't going to be developed, it should be added to the cities park system.

Maybe in a year's time, we can see another referendum centered around a sales tax to redevelop Hafar Park. I'd like to see Edmond have some kind of a "grand lawn" larger than Shannon Miller (formerly Liberty) Park. There's not a great venue for mid to large size public gatherings and events and with no housing backing directly up to it, this new potential park land, assuming parking and access can be figured out, could be a great addition to the city.

[Plutonic Panda]

Especially considering this passed with over 80% voting yes. That's a clear sign to the council.

I wonder how many of those people who in favor for this even knew about what was proposed there or the background behind this question. But it’s a given if you place funding for parks or schools on an Edmond question it’ll get voted in the majority of the time so it’s no surprise here.

[Richard at Remax]

$180,000+/acre for land they don't know what they are going to do with it or have funding for. 0 chance this stays temporary.

[Richard at Remax]

$180,000+/acre for land they don't know what they are going to do with it or have funding for. 0 chance this stays temporary.

[jerrywall]

I'm sure we're missing out on all those potential UNPs...

[jerrywall]

^^ Exactly.

I'm also curious what all those non strip mall, world class, high end developments that are happening all around the metro and skipping Edmond are... because outside of the various districts, I can't seem to think of any besides Chisholm Creek, which is still a bunch of parking next to Top Golf with a lot of potential. Developers will go where the traffic and customers are.

The type of retail developments I'm interested in are things like the Ice House district near downtown, the larger downtown vision, the stuff planned around Stephenson park, etc. Things like the developments at Covell and Sooner are like Chisholm Creek - potential and might be nice someday. And, as much as I was interested in the original Spring Creek plan, at the end of the day they didn't actually have a movie theater committed (at least that they shared), and how is that Chisholm Creek movie theater coming? And some unnamed grocery as well... (woop!), some retail, and some apartments. They didn't have a solid, serious plan. Just a lot of promises. It COULD have turned out nice, or, (and more likely given Covid) it would have been barely built, and now sitting with tons of empty space. So it's not like we missed out on some world class development. It was never going to be that.

[Richard at Remax]

^^ Exactly.

I'm also curious what all those non strip mall, world class, high end developments that are happening all around the metro and skipping Edmond are... because outside of the various districts, I can't seem to think of any besides Chisholm Creek, which is still a bunch of parking next to Top Golf with a lot of potential. Developers will go where the traffic and customers are.

The type of retail developments I'm interested in are things like the Ice House district near downtown, the larger downtown vision, the stuff planned around Stephenson park, etc. Things like the developments at Covell and Sooner are like Chisholm Creek - potential and might be nice someday. And, as much as I was interested in the original Spring Creek plan, at the end of the day they didn't actually have a movie theater committed (at least that they shared), and how is that Chisholm Creek movie theater coming? And some unnamed grocery as well... (woop!), some retail, and some apartments. They didn't have a solid, serious plan. Just a lot of promises. It COULD have turned out nice, or, (and more likely given Covid) it would have been barely built, and now sitting with tons of empty space. So it's not like we missed out on some world class development. It was never going to be that.

I think you are way underselling Chisholm Creek. It's not just top golf anymore. Go there almost any night of the week and any time on the weekends. It's a machine. It may not tickle everyone's design fancy, but there is no doubt they are bringing in the right types of businesses that consumers are looking for.

[jerrywall]

I think you are way underselling Chisholm Creek. It's not just top golf anymore. Go there almost any night of the week and any time on the weekends. It's a machine. It may not tickle everyone's design fancy, but there is no doubt they are bringing in the right types of businesses that consumers are looking for.

You're right, and I am being a little harsh. They do have some cool stuff, but it still, at least to me, doesn't seem to be coming close yet to it's potential, or the promise I saw in the early days. I live just about a mile from it, so I do get down there fairly regularly, but I'm still not super impressed. It's about as walkable as a typical strip mall, and so while it does have some great restaurants, and a few areas are pretty, and it works as a great venue for coffee and cars, I still don't feel like it's some impressive, first of it's kind in the state type development that some people hold it out to be.

And yeah, it's certainly successful as far as consumers are concerned. That being said, if someone can't make money along Memorial Road between Penn and Western, with the traffic counts there, something is wrong.

[WheelerD Guy]

^^ Exactly.

I'm also curious what all those non strip mall, world class, high end developments that are happening all around the metro and skipping Edmond are... because outside of the various districts, I can't seem to think of any besides Chisholm Creek, which is still a bunch of parking next to Top Golf with a lot of potential. Developers will go where the traffic and customers are.

The type of retail developments I'm interested in are things like the Ice House district near downtown, the larger downtown vision, the stuff planned around Stephenson park, etc. Things like the developments at Covell and Sooner are like Chisholm Creek - potential and might be nice someday. And, as much as I was interested in the original Spring Creek plan, at the end of the day they didn't actually have a movie theater committed (at least that they shared), and how is that Chisholm Creek movie theater coming? And some unnamed grocery as well... (woop!), some retail, and some apartments. They didn't have a solid, serious plan. Just a lot of promises. It COULD have turned out nice, or, (and more likely given Covid) it would have been barely built, and now sitting with tons of empty space. So it's not like we missed out on some world class development. It was never going to be that.

+1.

A few new-to-market concepts paired with surface parking
Does not a high-end development make