Comments on: Bricktown for Sale

By: Jason Blankenship

Jason Blankenship — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:28:52 +0000

In reference to David G.’s point about taxing/punishing – generally speaking – I agree with you in full. BUT you can’t incentivize someone who has no intent to build.

When land-owners won’t budge off their high asking prices, with no intent to build themselves, progress freezes – and the rest of the area suffers as a result.

There are plenty of vacant lots around us, but no construction. Our construction helped raise the value of surrounding properties and we would like to see further investment besides our own in the area.

By: Jason Blankenship

Jason Blankenship — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:51:37 +0000

As a downtown land-owner who actually did build on our property, I think we need to do SOMETHING to encourage further development. Many of the land-owners around us appear to be holding out for big bucks, which have been driven sky-high within the last 3 years or so. Many are viewing only the investment potential – which there’s nothing wrong with. HOWEVER, the investment potential can not be realized without some improvement to the property – i.e., construction. (not just ANY construction, like storage units or parking spaces, but that issue can be mitigated.)

I think this is a worthy discussion – do we tax land-owners appropriately, who do nothing but sit on their properties, or do we reward those who build? Don’t know what the best solution is, maybe a combination of both.

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:03:26 +0000

Makes one appreciate developers like Hogan, who actually do something with the development property they acquire.

By: David Gilbert

David Gilbert — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:27:32 +0000

Why punish anyone with higher tax… What about a tax credit for money spent developing a site?

By: Keith

Keith — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 17:04:06 +0000

Times have changed. The values being paid at the peak were highly inflated, leaving investors who bought at or near that point high and dry. The Brewers, on the other hand, bought pretty early and can probably afford not to shoot for the moon. Likewise for Bob Meinders, but who would want to develop the outer edge of Bricktown when the core isn’t even thriving? French Hickman thinks the value might go up this spring? You’re an educated guy, French. Look at the economic data in this country right now and tell me that someone is going to step in and put cash down for 0 return commercial RE, no matter where. This spring, commercial real estate will be much worse and your holdings will be worth even less, NBA or not.

Sounds like Cotton has a good chance of going BK, particularly if much of his holdings were/are tied up in energy in recent weeks.

By: Blair

Blair — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 04:16:02 +0000

I am really interested in land value taxation (LVT), though I think it would be really tough to pull off in OKC. I mentioned this as one topic I was interested in studying for my thesis a couple weeks back here:

http://imaginativeamerica.com/2008/11/thesis-time/

Someone pointed me to urbantools.org (http://www.urbantools.org/), which has a lot more information on the topic and its successful use in the U.S.

By: Brent

Brent — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:45:27 +0000

On the surface it sounds like a fine idea–taxing empty properties at a higher rate to encourage deveopment–however, we need to be careful in such an approach. Although I would like to see some of our Bricktown property owners view their properties with a greater sense of community and look to the greater good of OKC, there is a fine line there as I would hesitate to tell private property owners what they can do with their own property. Tax policy can be used with almost the same effect as outright condemnation proceedings, which most of us are very wary of. I think with the right public pressure (blogs like this and other stories about Bricktown), we can accomplish almost the same effect, as painfully slow as it may be. Besides, from everything we have been reading lately, it sounds like the “Bricktown Bubble” in real estate is about to pop anyway and these owners will have to come back to earth and look for reasonable prices before bankruptcy courts do it for them. Even if it is painful in the short run, the free market usually takes care of these issues.

By: Shane

Shane — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:15:43 +0000

Many cities have tried concepts such as taxing based on the value of the land rather than the value of a structure on it, usually to discourage demolition of old buildings to install cheaper parking lots. This is something that would really work to bridle Bricktown- if these property owners really feel their land is worth as much as they’re asking, they shouldn’t mind paying property taxes accordingly, right? It would also more accurately tax parking lot operations, I think.

It’s an idea that would probably work well in small special areas like the BID, but probably wouldn’t be great for wider swaths of the city.

By: Kris Bryant

Kris Bryant — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:30:01 +0000

Sounds like a good policy to adopt for all of OKC’s downtown districts. Property-flipping fits the mold of the fast-cash mentality of today’s entrepreneurs. We need people to buy property who actually care about the community’s redevelopment, and not just their own pocketbooks.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:24:45 +0000

So basically punish property owners for allowing their properties to sit empty? I could go for that.