Wal-Mart says no to downtown Tulsa, East Village

| | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Wal-Mart has notified the developers of a proposed east downtown mixed-use development that they won't be building a store in downtown Tulsa. The change in plans is part of a nationwide decision to slow down the construction of new Wal-Mart Supercenters.

Tulsa is one of many cities across the nation hit by Wal-Mart's move to reduce the number of new supercenters it constructs nationwide, said Angela Stoner, Wal-Mart's senior manager of public affairs.

"This is no reflection on the confidence Wal-Mart has in our friends in the development team of the East Village, the mayor, the City Council, neighbors or others involved in this project," Stoner said Thursday.

"This is the execution of a national growth strategy plan -- a corporate decision," she said.

The plan is specific only to new supercenters, she said, and none is planned for Tulsa.

Although Wal-Mart had announced its reduction plan in June, it had also approved the construction of the proposed supercenter for the East Village, which resulted in the developers announcing the project in August.

The proposed development would have been on property between Frankfort and U. S. 75, 4th and 6th, on land now owned by Nordam and Bill White. Here is a small PDF of the proposed East Village developmentshowing the site plan, a description of the development, and the expected increments in property value and sales tax revenues, for the purpose of evaluating the establishment of a Tax Increment Financing district to assist with the development.

More comments from me later. Feel free to post your two bits about what had been proposed and what ought to happen now.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Wal-Mart says no to downtown Tulsa, East Village.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.batesline.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3237


Don Author Profile Page said:

Why do I get the feeling that "Wal-Mart's move to reduce the number of new supercenters it constructs" is just an excuse for the real reason. Although I admit not having any real strong feelings as to what the real reason is.

XonOFF said:

I'm with Don, there's another reason. Perhaps that the project announcement had fulfilled it's purpose, without the expected results.
I wanted to also point out what I consider a huge difference between a TIF for west bank development and a TIF for this project. This project already has most, if not all infrastructure in place, so is closer to a true handout to corporate interests, rather than real infrastructure need as in the west bank.
Sorta like the One Tech TIF. Which brings up another question as to what's become of that TIF? I suspect the cost/loss there was not figured into the City Hall economics.

Paul Tay said:

Sounds to me like City Hall, Mrs. Mommy, et al got the same sort of plantation treatment North Tulsa got from Albertson's. If ya can't take it, DON'T dish it.

Floyd said:

At this point there's no question in my mind that the Drillers will push for a stadium at that site. Chuck Lamson is ready to move. The river plan is long gone; the Jenks site is shaky, and he knows that downtown ballparks are the most successful. Before, the problem was where--the Hartford Building site was not ideal. But the East Village site makes sense. It is up to our city leaders to coordinate usage of this land that makes the most sense for the city, and that usage is a new minor league ballpark surrounded by mixed use development.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Michael Bates published on November 9, 2007 7:15 AM.

Survey USA of Oklahomans on immigration enforcement was the previous entry in this blog.

Huckabee and the 1999 Arkansas fuel tax hike is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Subscribe to feed Subscribe to this blog's feed:
[What is this?]