Spring Creek Plaza

[Plutonic Panda]

Yup. This directly affects me. You are just an asshole with an opinion.

Go cry about it bitch.

FYI, prices on a property always fluctuate but in almost every case go up. You’re saying I’m talking out of my ass and have no data to back my statements up but where is your data to back up your property values will decline because of apartments being built?

[Plutonic Panda]

That has nothing to do with rates in NE Edmond. Try again.

So where do I find the exact information of how many minorities live in multi family units in Edmond, OK? I’ll wait. . .

[Midtowner]

So where do I find the exact information of how many minorities live in multi family units in Edmond, OK? I’ll wait. . .

Generally speaking, if you are making a claim, the burden of proof is on you.

[Plutonic Panda]

Generally speaking, if you are making a claim, the burden of proof is on you.

What you’re asking me to provide isn’t reasonable.

[Midtowner]

where is your data to back up your property values will decline because of apartments being built?

So you admit that you are talking out of your ass. That's a good start. There are a lot of studies suggesting that home prices actually benefit from the construction of nearby apartments, but I've read those studies and they don't seem to take into account the fact that property prices naturally appreciate. A study which does take that into effect, and takes into effect a numbe of other factors concluded that home prices are negatively impacted by the construction of multifamily projects nearby. It's just common sense, but it's also qualitavely true:

The results of the quantitative analysis performed on the data indicated that both
the first and second hypotheses are supported. The selling price of single-family
dwellings increased with increasing distance, but only after performing factor analysis
and regression analysis utilizing factor scores. Regression using factor scores was
utilized because severe multicollinearity existed in both the full and reduced attribute
multiple regression models. However, the second hypothesis where selling price of
single-family dwellings decrease with increasing numbers of apartment complexes was
supported by all of the multivariate analyses including the full and reduced attribute
multiple regression model, the Varimax rotated factor analysis scores, and regression
utilizing factor scores.

https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/c...xt=studentwork

Here's another study supporting that not only do proximate parks increase values, proximate multifamily developments decrease values, a double whammy for nearby neighborhoods:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...6604620400016X

There are certainly studies to the contrary, and I've read a few of them. One of them only looked at the top-20 most expensive real estate markets in the country, so I didn't think that would resemble Edmond, OK. Others simply looked at home values over time, which tend to increase. They didn't look at whether that increase was impacted negatively by the construction of nearby multifamily dwellings. Also, some of these 'studies' are on the websites of multifamily housing developers.

[Plutonic Panda]

Nice moving the goalposts but home prices fluctuate as you said and go nowhere but up in long run so what’s your issue again? The fact you are upset more youth could fill the schools in Edmond? Maybe I’ve misunderstood your take…

[Midtowner]

Nice moving the goalposts but home prices fluctuate as you said and go nowhere but up in long run so what’s your issue again? The fact you are upset more youth could fill the schools in Edmond? Maybe I’ve misunderstood your take…

You asked for data and I provided. You didn't read the articles which would both suggest that even though prices may go up, they are going to be negatively impacted by development like this--and if the land is used to expand Hafer Park, then it will have a positive impact on values.

And sure, I want my kid's class sizes to remain relatively small. There are presently ~800 kids in the school which is a few hundred yards from the proposed development, so yes, there would be that additional impact. I would also love to have a nice city park rather across the street from my neighborhood rather than multifamily housing.

But yeah, all of the above, I don't want it for a variety of reasons. The developer is going to look after his investment, I'm going to look after mine. Sometimes, there is a conflict, and I'll definitely turn out to vote against this.

[jerrywall]

The developer is going to look after his investment, I'm going to look after mine. Sometimes, there is a conflict, and I'll definitely turn out to vote against this.

DING DING DING DING. That right there. I support this development, but I have absolutely no problem with one group of land owners trying to protect their interests against another land owner (especially a developer). That's how it works. I opposed 18 on Park (or whatever it was called) for largely personal and financial reasons. I had no doubt about it's affect in the middle of the most valuable land in Edmond.

On the flip side, I think good multi unit developments, in the right place, such as around Stephenson Park, will help the local valuations there.

[onthestrip]

I would hate to own a house that would lose value just because an apartment got built in the vicinity. That seems like a precarious investment.

I see that some studies were posted about home values and apartments nearby, which appear to be mostly inconclusive. An apartment complex within a stones throw of your house, perhaps some effect there. But an apartment complex in a hole surrounded by arterial roads, trees and a creek and no single family homes within a couple hudred yards is most likely going to have zero effect on home values.

I would accept this argument if it was consistently applied but you have blow back against any and every apartment complex, even one that is the in the far corner of Edmond along I35 with only a handful of homes around. Even hotels along 35 in a commercial and retail area are no good. If you have a home a couple hundred yards from an interstate, its mind boggling you dont think hotels or apartments will look to build there.

One thing that would have helped nearby home values would be a first class retail center with luxory apartments, but that was sent packing too. Just imagine the sales tax and ad valorem tax that would have brought in. Plenty to improve existing parks and hire new teachers.

[Plutonic Panda]

You asked for data and I provided. You didn't read the articles which would both suggest that even though prices may go up, they are going to be negatively impacted by development like this--and if the land is used to expand Hafer Park, then it will have a positive impact on values.

And sure, I want my kid's class sizes to remain relatively small. There are presently ~800 kids in the school which is a few hundred yards from the proposed development, so yes, there would be that additional impact. I would also love to have a nice city park rather across the street from my neighborhood rather than multifamily housing.

But yeah, all of the above, I don't want it for a variety of reasons. The developer is going to look after his investment, I'm going to look after mine. Sometimes, there is a conflict, and I'll definitely turn out to vote against this.

You keep jumping around, ignoring data I’m providing by asking more specific data in hopes it doesn’t exist so you can justify your elitist opinion, and then repeating yourself. Good news for you is given Edmonds racist past and NIMBY voting behaviors these developments are likely to be voted down anyways so enjoy. The word between you and me on this subject is yours.

PS, before you comment about Edmond being a racist community yes I’m aware the mayor is black. So save for that.

[Plutonic Panda]

DING DING DING DING. That right there. I support this development, but I have absolutely no problem with one group of land owners trying to protect their interests against another land owner (especially a developer). That's how it works. I opposed 18 on Park (or whatever it was called) for largely personal and financial reasons. I had no doubt about it's affect in the middle of the most valuable land in Edmond.

On the flip side, I think good multi unit developments, in the right place, such as around Stephenson Park, will help the local valuations there.

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?

[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.

[Midtowner]

You keep jumping around, ignoring data I’m providing by asking more specific data in hopes it doesn’t exist so you can justify your elitist opinion, and then repeating yourself. Good news for you is given Edmonds racist past and NIMBY voting behaviors these developments are likely to be voted down anyways so enjoy. The word between you and me on this subject is yours.

PS, before you comment about Edmond being a racist community yes I’m aware the mayor is black. So save for that.

You haven't provided any data. You just make wildly speculative claims that being against multifamily housing is somehow racist.

I'm glad the developer made this compromise with the city. I do agree that less dense project with some upscale retail probably would have been something I could get behind, but this ain't that. This current proposal is (aside from industrial) about the worst imaginable use of this property for single-family homeowners in the area.

I'm not sure what having a black mayor proves re Edmond being a racist community. There is certainly racism in Edmond. I grew up there. Can confirm. I have no idea how prevalant it is. I think it would be more fair to say that Edmond is elitist. That said, I do not necessarily think elitist has any kind of negative connotation in this context. Caring about how your own community grows and what amenities and attractions exist nearby and what amenities and attractions are going in should concern any homeowner.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.