Comments on: Bad Information on $30 Million Core to Shore Acquisition?

By: slackmeyer

slackmeyer — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:51:06 +0000

Yes Doug, I meant to call it an aquatics center. But what this all means is the same – the city council has not, as told to the MAPS 3 subcommittee, directed that this $30 million be spent on the OG&E substation no matter what. In fact, at least half the council says that was never their intent.

By: Doug Loudenback

Doug Loudenback — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 13:45:31 +0000

Steve, you said, "on Tuesday Councilman Pete White suggested at the council meeting (Cornett was out of town and not present) that the $30 million be spent on a wellness center for south Oklahoma City if the substation site is not chosen for the convention center." Actually, a new family aquatic center (like Earlywine) was being discussed and that's when Pete said that he thought that the unused part of the $30 million might be able to be used to fund it. Here's a YouTube video I did last night ... March 20, Sam Bowman & Pete White

By: Wylie H.

Wylie H. — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:18:03 +0000

Down here in Dallas, we have an electric substation happily coexisting in the middle of the expensive Turtle Creek/Uptown area, adjacent to Turtle Creek Park and the Katy Trail. We simply surrounded the thing with a high, decorative stone wall and landscaping, while simultaneously burying the cables that connect it to its distribution line.

That is a much lower cost alternative.

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:39:22 +0000

I say OG & E should pay the City $30 million since we the people allow them to operate as a utility in the corporate limits and suck profits out of the taxpayers pockets. Leave it where it is and slap some neon lights on it and call it good.

By: Ed

Ed — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:01:15 +0000

Why would you locate a park next to a substation?
Move the park or substation. Build condos next to the park which will bring more people out to use the park. You may get some of the costs back if some developers wanted that land to build next to the park.

By: Blair Humphreys

Blair Humphreys — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:51:42 +0000

I believe the City, not OG&E, initiated the negotiations to acquire the substation. At the time the site was being sought for the new convention center. The $30 million mol represents the cost to OG&E to rebuild the same substation infrastructure elsewhere. While the effective price of the land from the City's perspective would be a very ridiculous $400+ per square foot for the 1.7 acre site, OG&E does not appear to benefit significantly from the transaction. I have no doubt that the civic benefits of moving the substation in no way outweigh the cost, and there are plenty of lower-cost solutions to improve the substation's physical and visual presence on the park, as outlined in this OK Gazette commentary: MAPS 3.1. Even if the city council decides to spend the $30 million on something other than the convention center, the substation should remain, and the money should be used for projects that provide more civic benefit. Moving the substation is not an effective expenditure of these funds and not in the city's best interest.

By: slackmeyer

slackmeyer — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:41:27 +0000

Guys, another thing to keep in mind on the substation – I’ve seen NOTHING that indicates OG&E sought out this transaction. Instead, public documents show city staff, directed by the mayor, began negotiations with the utility about buying the property for a potential convention center site A FULL YEAR before voters approved MAPS 3. As with the current discussion, one question that arises is whether city staff is taking policy directions from the mayor that traditionally were to be made by the mayor and council.

By: Jill

Jill — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:38:09 +0000

While I agree that OG&E was undoubtedly looking for a premium price, so were the cotton gin owners. Both just found themselves holding a piece of property with considerably less value than they’d assumed yesterday. If the lumberyard ends up being the hub, that’s going to add value to the cotton gin property, but it’s always easiest to sell land at a premium to a city that needs said land.

By: Nick Roberts

Nick Roberts — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:58:48 +0000

Of course OG+E was looking for a premium price, which shouldn’t even have to be said.

The way I see this is more public pressure on the convention center issue. But they already funded nearly $200,000 for a pedestrian TUNNEL under Robinson at the same meeting yesterday.

Perhaps they need to un-fund that at the next meeting.

By: Jill

Jill — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 06:00:20 +0000

While I never liked the substation as a site for the convenion center, I also don’t like the appearance of the substation, especially right next to our new Central Park. I would like to see it moved. However, $30 million seems a bit pricey for the land, given what has been paid for the other land in the area. I would think the city might have some land for which they could trade with OG&E, and could simply pay the cost of relocating the equipment. It’s hard to believe the relocation costs would approach $30 million, although I’m not knowledgeable on the subject of moving substations, I must admit.