Tulsa Zoning: March 2006 Archives

Tulsa election roundup

| | Comments (5)

I'm too tired to write right now, but fortunately, I'm not the only one writing:

Re: Whirled's endorsement of Taylor -- Chris Medlock told LaFortune so over a year ago; LaFortune just remembered.

Steve Roemerman rebuts the Tulsa Whirled's endorsement of Jim Mautino's opponent.

Mad Okie found a Quigmans cartoon that cuts a little too close to home. And he's got an illustration of Tulsa's April 4 choices -- from the Emerald City to the Magic Empire.

Dan Paden considers his alternatives and figures he's "hosed" either way.

TulTellitarian thinks Bill Martinson was left to twist in the wind by his fellow Cockroach Caucasians and believes that his District 5 opponent Jon Kirby is the Good Ol' Boys new choice for the seat. Interesting theory. Kirby's campaign is being run in tandem with that of District 6 Democrat Dennis Troyer, who is without a doubt the GOB choice in that district.

Independent candidate Ben Faulk has responded to meeciteewurkor's questions about the treatment of citee wurkors city workers.

Our Tulsa World has a list of 1998 Susan Savage contributors that bears a striking resemblance to Kathy Taylor's 2006 contributor list.

TulsaNow has a thread that explains why we need neighborhood conservation district zoning in Tulsa -- a developer is replacing the old Claiborne's Sinclair Station at 35th & Peoria with a Starbucks and a Pei Wei Diner, and the new building will have the parking at the street, instead of matching the Brookside pattern of having the building come up to the sidewalk. Unfortunately, both District 9 council candidates oppose neighborhood conservation district zoning and design guidelines in the zoning code.

Posts on the Eminent Domain Watch blog tend to come in bursts, and there was another burst of posting earlier today, including this cheery item, from a January 25th AP story:

Regional bank BB&T will make no loans to developers who plan to build commercial projects on land taken from private citizens by the government through the power of eminent domain.

"The idea that a citizen's property can be taken by the government solely for private use is extremely misguided; in fact it's just plain wrong," John Allison, chairman and chief executive of the Winston-Salem-based bank, said Wednesday....

"While we're certainly optimistic about the pending legislation [limiting eminent domain for private development], this is something we could not wait any longer to address," said BB&T chief credit officer Ken Chalk. "We're a company where our values dictate our decision-making and operating standards. From that standpoint, this was a straightforward decision; it's simply the right thing to do."

Emphasis added. BB&T is the nation's ninth-largest bank, so this could have some impact.

Here's a link to BB&T's corporate press release on the matter, which has this quote from CEO John Allison:

One of the most basic rights of every citizen is to keep what they own. As an institution dedicated to helping our clients achieve economic success and financial security, we won’t help any entity or company that would undermine that mission and threaten the hard-earned American dream of property ownership.

Meanwhile in Tulsa, at today's KRMG/Kiwanis Club mayoral debate, Kathy Taylor said, "We cannot take private property if it is not for a clear public use.... We do not use eminent domain to take private property to enrich private developers." Bill LaFortune talked about the Kelo decision in terms of homes being taken for shopping and said that that was wrong. He then pointed to the Council's one-year moratorium on eminent domain for private development.

It would have been more informative to have heard their comments about specific scenarios: Would you approve condemning the Towerview apartment building so that the entire block could be made available to a hotel developer? Would you approve condemning Metro Diner so that the University of Tulsa, a private college, can have a grand entrance on 11th Street?

There are a number of zoning code changes on the agenda for next Wednesday's Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission meeting.

That link will take you to a PDF with all the proposed amendments. Most of it looks pretty reasonable so far. What's missing, what I'd like to see, is a rationale document, describing the reason for each change. As you read it, feel free to post a comment with your reactions, concerns, and questions. There's also a forum topic about the proposed zoning code amendments at the TulsaNow forum.

UPDATE: You'll find comments from Homeowners for Fair Zoning here.

About this Archive

This page is a archive of entries in the Tulsa Zoning category from March 2006.

Tulsa Zoning: February 2006 is the previous archive.

Tulsa Zoning: April 2006 is the next archive.

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?]