Comments on: Questions I Wanted to Ask SandRidge Energy

By: ka

ka — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:15:12 +0000

hehe! all in jest Steve. I was expecting a severe lashing from other posters, similar to comments from the Sandridge story you posted. Thanks for the clarification though!

By: slackmeyer

slackmeyer — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:49:05 +0000

It’s interesting to me that everyone seems to think I’ve expressed an opinion on whether some, all or some of these buildings should be torn down.
I ask questions. I poke and prod. Sometimes that’s not appreciated by one side or another. That doesn’t mean I’m against them.
All I’ve ever advocated in this whole discussion is that serious deliberation take place and that all the questions be asked. And it appears as if that’s happening now – it certainly wasn’t happening back in December when I began writing about this project. And Ka, there is no censoring occurring on this blog (other than a hold put on comments by those who have a history of using stolen identities or engaging in personal attacks). This site does have an aggressive spam filter and your comment was caught in it. I released it as soon as I saw it.

By: ka

ka — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:21:48 +0000

Jeffrey, let me tell you, it’s useless to try and reason with some of these folks. On the ‘Sandridge threatens to leave downtown’ thread, sentences like ‘what do you know, you are in Texas’ and ‘I bet you didn’t know that the Indian building was the State capitol once!’(I can only imagine he was speaking of the temporary home for legislature after the ‘midnight move’ from Guthrie to Downtown, which ironically I learned in my OK history class at KERR Jr. High. That is the midnight move…I have no idea where the temporary home was, but I’m guessing by the reaction, that it was the India Temple bldg.). Oh, and my favorite ‘historicity isn’t a word’ as if their passion for these buildings overrules Webster’s and likewise discredits others opinion of what should happen.
Being that I spent half my life in OK, attended its schools and graduated in OK. and still have family in OKC, I could take offense to that, but I chalk it up to passion.
Obviously Steve is very passionate about the historical value of some of these buildings and is willing to voice that opinion. His in depth knowledge of the history of downtown is extensive and he wants an exhaustive attempt made to save the buildings.
But, you have to wonder how corporations that are thinking of coming to OKC are going to react to Sandridge selling of the properties and skipping town.
You know it’s interesting that a few months ago Steve brought out a concern about 900,000 sq ft of office space Devon was vacating to get into their new bldg. How would it affect the market? But, now apparently there are 5 out of state buyers interested.
So, we really have no idea what the market can handle. It truly is in flux. The more negativity, however, out of state companies face, the less momentum for downtown. And I think this Sandridge deal is going to weigh heavily upon the minds of those interested corporations.
If I had to guess right now, putting Sandridge between a rock and a hard place, and trying to force them to keep buildings that are hard to maintain and doesn’t fit in their vision is unfair. When it comes to our properties, we build or remodel the way we want. We do have to abide by city ordinance and code and if the building is deemed a historical site, we must accept that too! But, what if our home wasn’t a historical site. We buy it with intentions of tearing it down and building a new one. But, a third party tries to prevent it because it has some sort of connection to history. Either, the sale should be refunded or the person should be able to proceed.
But, from what I understand, these buildings were not recognized as historical and were not in a historic district. They should be able to do what they want, and OKC should take it as a lesson for protecting the NEXT building they feel is historic.
Between this instance and the opposition to so many of the core to shore elements, I’m thinking the OKC momentum will slow substantially. That’s unfortunate.
Fine Print: (this afforded opinion has not yet been approved by the ‘passionate historical society’ and will be deemed rhetoric and be discredited!)

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Mon, 24 May 2010 19:48:26 +0000

No, I’d rather avoid it by working with Sandridge, who is here now and has proven to be a good friend of OKC, than against Sandridge with obstructionism and name calling – which might in the future put the city in a position where they have no choice. There aren’t a lot of companies floating around that can fill a 20+ story tower.

By: Nick Roberts

Nick Roberts — Mon, 24 May 2010 18:55:54 +0000

Is this your fantasy dilemma, Jeffrey?

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Sun, 23 May 2010 21:28:04 +0000

Nick, can I call you elastic man for that reach you’re trying to make about occupancy? -Non issue.

Say Sandridge left for Houston and the block was dark for 6 years. Then another company came in and said they would buy the block and fill the tower with, oh, 700 white-collar jobs. Their only requirement was that the other buildings on the block – all of them – had to go. What would be the smart play by the city?

By: Nick Roberts

Nick Roberts — Sun, 23 May 2010 02:08:21 +0000

Lawyers lying before the BoA, stating that the buildings haven’t been occupied in 25 years. Their architect making erroneous claims about walkability that he can’t honestly believe. The DDRC approving the proposal going against city code and the planning staff recommendation. The possibility that everyone is going along with this because it reduces potential office space competition (i.e..Beffort, etc). The erroneous assertion by SandRidge’s lawyers that the buildings are structural insufficient–and their refusal to allow any impartial 3rd party to come in and back up that determination, not that it matters apparently. Their insistence to invoke “property owner’s rights” which we all know is a straw man.

And I also happen to disagree with them..

By: slackmeyer

slackmeyer — Sat, 22 May 2010 20:21:35 +0000

Nick, I understand why you’re upset. But I’m not sure it’s fair to suggest SandRidge is corrupt in this deal. They’ve got a preference on how they want to see their property developed and they happen to be at odds with some folks who believe such plans conflict with downtown design guidelines. The fact that SandRidge may or may not want to listen or consider other ideas does NOT make them corrupt. They believe in their plan. You don’t.
That’s called a disagreement.

By: Nick Roberts

Nick Roberts — Sat, 22 May 2010 04:32:32 +0000

Here’s a question I wanted to ask but won’t in public… how corrupt is SandRidge in this deal? Why are they refusing to work with anyone and in ANY way acknowledge that there are other people in OKC besides just THEM.

Good grief.. I am still upset about it.

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Fri, 21 May 2010 20:16:27 +0000

Steve, I think Joe might be tactfully suggesting that, although Preservation Oklahoma indeed granted an interview, perhaps the wrong questions were asked.