Received by email

February 7th, 2006 at 12:37 pm (Other Articles)

CHARLOTTE, N.C. - Regional bank BB&T Corp., one of the nation’s largest
financial institutions, 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 company said Wednesday.

“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, the bank’s chairman and chief executive, said in a statement.

In an interview, BB&T chief credit officer Ken Chalk said the bank expects
to lose only a tiny amount of business, but believes it was obligated to
take a stance on the issue. “It’s not even a fraction of a percent,” he said. “The dollar amount is insignificant.”

But he added: “We do business with a large number of consumers and small businesses in our footprint. We are hearing from clients that this is an important philosophical issue.” Chalk said he knows of no other large U.S. bank with a similar policy.

BB&T, which is headquartered in Winston-Salem, ranks among the nation’s top 10 banks by assets.

In June, a divided Supreme Court ruled that cities may raze people’s homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development. The 5-4 decision gave local governments the power to seize private property in the name of increased tax revenue.

The ruling upheld a decision by the City of New London, Conn., to seize
seven property owners’ land so developers could build a hotel and high-end condominiums to keep pharmaceutical giant Pfizer expanding in the state.

Scott Bullock, a senior attorney with the Arlington, Va.-based Institute of
Justice, who represented homeowners in the New London case,
applauded the bank’s decision.

“Eminent domain abuse is wrong and unconstitutional,” Bullock said in a
statement. “BB&T has stepped up and recognized its corporate
responsibility to not be a part of this shameful abuse of individual rights.”

The policy also will protect the assets of banks such as BB&T by not tying
up their money in projects that may draw political opposition, said Columbia University law professor Thomas Merrill, a specialist on eminent domain.

Merrill added that he did not believe there were many cases similar to the
one that developed in New London.

“No one knows how many of these projects are out there because the data is flimsy,” he said. “But my hunch, from what data we do have, is that the
number is relatively small and concentrated in large congested cities like
New York, Boston or Baltimore.”

In its statement, BB&T said 38 states have recently passed or are
considering laws to ban the use of eminent domain for private development. Similar legislation is pending before the U.S. Congress.

“While we’re certainly optimistic about the pending legislation, this is
something we could not wait any longer to address,” Chalk said in a
statement. “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.”

BB&T, with $109 billion in assets, operates more than 1,400 branches in 11 states and Washington, D.C.

3 Comments

  1. Vera Long said,

    February 11, 2006 at 12:23 am

    Stillwater, Oklahoma. February 10, 2006.
    A big thank you for making the right decision, and hopefully others will follow.
    OSU Foundation, in a desire to obtain 100 acres of residentual property in the city of Stillwater, sent letters to over 400 homes, threating to use Eminent Domain if the residents did not sell to OSU within 6 months of the letters.
    This heartless regime refuses to change their plans, but hopefully the public will change it for them
    When the residents tried to speak up, they were “shut up” by OSU officials. T. Boone Pickens decided the $30 Million was not enough to buy them out, he gave an additional $165 Million to speed the progress of the
    Athletic Village……..We need all the help we can get, here in Stillwater. .

  2. Tamara Colbert Maschino said,

    February 21, 2006 at 12:10 am

    Ohio community tests eminent domain
    By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY Mon Feb 20, 9:04 PM ET

    “The developer wants my property for the same reason I do: It’s in a good location”
    Shortcut to: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2631&ncid=2631&e=2&u=/usatoday/20060221/ts_usatoday/ohiocommunitytestseminentdomain

  3. Tamara Colbert Maschino said,

    February 21, 2006 at 10:00 am

    Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:23 AM
    Subject: States Curbing Right to Seize Private Homes

    States Curbing Right to Seize Private Homes
    By JOHN M. BRODER
    Published: February 21, 2006

    Shortcut to: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/national/21domain.html?hp&ex=1140498000&en=8e0bbbd8c507afab&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Post a Comment

From Chronicle of Higher Educ.

January 11th, 2006 at 9:23 pm (Other Articles)

Received from Hugh Agnew
Subject: Inside Higher Ed :: A Boon(e) for Oklahoma State

It is in the higher-ed papers with more of the “other side” than you get
in the AP report or general OK media coverage. This is a new online
journal run by a former editor of the premier hard-copy higher ed
newspaper, the Chronicle of Higher Education. I find their stuff pretty
interesting.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/01/11/boone

Post a Comment

From Lee Agnew

December 19th, 2005 at 9:48 am (Other Articles)

Frosty Troy, editor of the Oklahoma Observer and weekly commentator on KOSU, spoke at the OKC Unitarian Church this morning. During the Q&A following his talk, I identified myself, and asked if he’d say a few words about Boone Pickens
and the OSU land acquisition, for those who might not be familiar with the issue.

What he said would have been familiar music to many of our ears: Pickens’, Dr. Schmidly, the illogic of OSU’s decision to expand north, etc. More to the point, he told me afterwards that the Oklahoma Observer would be publishing material concerning the expansion, including Marion Agnew’s demographic study, in the January 10 issue.

If readers of this web site are not already familiar with the Oklahoma Observer, I encourage them to make their acquaintance. I know of no on-line version of the journal, but the hard copy can be procured by subscription at $30.00 per year:

> The Oklahoma Observer
> PO Box 53371
> Oklahoma City OK 73152-3371
> Email: ftroy@keytech.com

Post a Comment

KOSU broadcast

December 14th, 2005 at 12:28 pm (Other Articles)

This is a link to one part of a three part OPR feature about the expansion plan.

http://www.kosu.org/newsfeature.html

The link may only work today. If anyone knows of archive links for OPR, please post that information as a comment to this topic.

4 Comments

  1. Lynda Halley said,

    December 14, 2005 at 1:53 pm

    After hearing only the last part of this feature on the KOSU.org today via radio, I wanted to hear it again. However, it turns out to be a 3-part feature and while I heard Part 2, it was Part 1 that was available online. Now, as of 1pm (12-14-05), Part 2 is the ‘active’ broadcast at this link.

    So, I sent a message to Rachel L. Hubbard, responsible for the feature and listed as KOSU’s State Capitol Correspondent, and she responded very quickly that she would “request the series be posted as a special report where all three parts will be available.”

    Thank you, Rachel!

  2. Tamara Colbert Maschino said,

    December 14, 2005 at 3:05 pm

    I listened to the broadcast today and am looking forward to hearing all of it. Regent Hargis seemed out of touch with Stillwater residents, he could not understand why we are not supporting a project of this “Unprecedented Magnitude”. I am puzzled why he still does not understand why after hearing our concerns at the meeting in Langston. How can we possibly support a project that we have not had true input into and one that provides at best a murky and uncertain future with financial and emotional losses at losing our homes?

  3. Leonard G. Herron III said,

    December 14, 2005 at 5:14 pm

    Regent Hargis’s comment on OKC MAPS and comparing it to the OSU Master Plan shows him to be totally out of touch with OKC also. OKC MAPS was very carefully planned, lots of very well publicized meetings, City Council votes, publicly held elections, public hearings etc. over years. It also to my knowledge, didn’t take anybodies home, business, or investment property; it even left the privately held pay parking areas in Brick Town. OKC took the time to do things right and the results are self evident. Their planning department should be commended for their work. To compare this OSU Master Plan in its current form to the OKC MAPS is to insult everyone that worked on OKC MAPS. If OSU and Stillwater can manage to back things up and do the same, do things right, the results can be equally or more rewarding for OSU and Stillwater. In my opinion for OSU to continue on as they have been will be to waste millions and create a mess that will take many more millions to correct.

    Leonard G. Herron III

  4. Lee Agnew said,

    December 17, 2005 at 4:03 pm

    Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 12:25 PM
    To: ‘rachel@kosu.org’
    Subject: Master Plan Series Feedback

    Dear Ms. Hubbard,

    First, I want to thank you and Craig Beeby for archiving this series on your web site. I do not always have an opportunity to listen to KOSU “live,” and I appreciate the chance to follow your coverage of this issue.

    I’m afraid I must fault your feature, however, in the following areas: You have provided an appearance of “balance,” in presenting both “pro” and “con” viewpoints, but the “pro” side is provided by the “reasonable” and “reassuring” comments of (male) officials like Schmidly and Hargis, and the (male) owner of rental property; while the “con” side is expressed in the emotional reaction of (female) homeowners and residents.

    The tone of some of your commentary, also, is patronizing towards homeowners and opponents of the expansion. You mention “rumors” that homeowners would have to vacate their homes by June 2006: That date was in some of the initial media coverage of the land acquisition, and was in some of the Cinnabar Corporation communications to homeowners. If that makes it a “rumor,” it was not without foundation.

    Where are the comments of OSU Faculty Council chair Bob Darcy? At the Regents’ meeting December 2, he entered a statement on behalf of OSU faculty, staff, students and graduate students, requesting that the Master Plan process be put on hold to allow for more meaningful input from the community. His comments are archived here: http://www.ocolly.com/rightthing.pdf. The Faculty Council earlier this week formally adopted a similarly worded resolution, without opposition or debate. Is that fact not worth mentioning?

    Last month my sister Marion provided nearly every news media outlet in the state a copy of a study she made of population trends in potential students, which, she believes, cast doubt on the long-term viability of an investment in athletic facilities on the scale of the proposed village. The study is archived here: http://www.okstateexpansion.com/Demographics_Dont_Support_OSU_Expansion_Plan.pdf. I am also mailing a hard copy of this study to your attention. She makes no claim to special “expertise,” but her figures, I feel, deserve at least an examination.

    In the interest of full disclosure, I will freely admit that my childhood home on Bellis Street, in the “3-5 year” acquisition area, has a certain interest to me, and as it is currently owned as rental property by my father, Dr. Ted Agnew, emeritus OSU faculty, my interest is not only sentimental. But apart from that, there is a certain “justice” aspect to this whole issue, and in its development of the athletic component of the Master Plan (which will benefit a relatively small elite at the expense of the larger community), OSU has failed to act in a just or equitable manner.

    Thank you for your thoughtful reporting, and for your attention. Best wishes for the Holiday Season to all current and former KOSU staff,

    Lee Agnew
    Norman OK

    Former Stillwater Resident
    C. E. Donart High School Graduate, 1968
    BA English, OSU, 1972
    KOSU Announcer 1971-1972, Fall 1975

Post a Comment

OSU canal plan concerns merchants

December 8th, 2005 at 2:15 am (Other Articles)

Washington Street would become a gateway to OSU off State Highway 51, according to Benham, the university master plan consultants. If businesses on the west side could move back half a block, the Edmon Low Library would be more visible, the consultants noted.

Excerpt from “OSU canal plan concerns merchants,” By Chad Previch and Tony Thornton, The Oklahoman

2 Comments

  1. Leonard G. Herron III said,

    December 8, 2005 at 11:35 am

    OSU is totally losing it! They need to start allover and include equal representation from the City of Stillwater and the citizens of Oklahoma in this planning process. Cost benefit analysis impacts needs to be calculated for all potential developments of all proposed off campus developments for Stillwater and Oklohoma. Alternative locations and designs should be considered. I am conserned that this new Master Plan will get less than half implemented, OSU will run out of funds leaving a total mess for the taxpayers of the State of Oklahoma.

  2. Lee Agnew said,

    December 8, 2005 at 11:02 pm

    It’s too bad that Bill’s Italian Restaurant is gone. It could have been the “hub” for our own “Little Italy”… the “Venice of the Plains.” I can see it now, the canal at sunset: T. Boone, reclining in a gondola while Schmidly feeds him grapes, with Bud Lacy standing in the stern wielding his gondolier’s pole and singing “O Sole Mio.”

    Boone State should have a field day with this one.

Post a Comment

The Oklahoman - Pickens’ Role in OSU Investments

December 6th, 2005 at 12:10 pm (Important Notices, Misc, Other Articles)

What many people don’t know is the increasing role Pickens is playing in the management of certain financial investments that help support the university.

So far, OSU golf has been the largest beneficiary. Holder said it would be ideal if other OSU athletic programs could take advantage of Pickens’ skills, but their financial needs for facilities and operations are so great that practically every donated dollar is spent as soon as it arrives.

The nonprofit group had two paid officers last year. Holder served as president and was paid $150,000. Mike McGraw served as secretary/treasurer and was paid $50,000. Holder was the men’s golf coach at the time and McGraw was the women’s coach.

McGraw was named men’s coach this year after Holder became athletic director. The salaries they received from OSU Cowboy Golf were in addition to their university salaries.

Normally having Pickens on the board would prevent the group from investing money with his funds, since it would create a conflict of interest. Pickens, however, agreed to waive all management fees. That not only made the investments possible, but boosted potential profits.

Excerpts from “Pickens’ investments earn OSU millions,” The Oklahoman, Sun December 4, 2005

2 Comments

  1. Lee Agnew said,

    December 6, 2005 at 5:53 pm

    I fail to see how Pickens’ waiving his “management fees” removes the conflict-of-interest aspect, if we’re talking about investing in companies Pickens has an interest in. I understand very little of finance at this rarefied level!

    I’m also wondering if we’re seeing an indication of the Daily Oklahoman’s editorial inclincations on this issue. I mean, hey… a high-rolling Texas oil guy, big contributor to many of the Oklahoman’s favorite conservative advocacy groups: what’s for them not to like?

  2. Dr. Ted Douglas said,

    December 6, 2005 at 9:46 pm

    Look into BP Capital further and you’ll find that they were a major contributer to the Swift Boat campaign against Kerry. Now I was a Bush supporter myself, but this puts Oklahoma State as providing funds to a campaign. Also, they probably should look into any contributions made to Tom Delay. By investing University funds with such a company you support causes that maybe a University shouldn’t be supporting.

Post a Comment

Demographics Don’t Support OSU Expansion

November 29th, 2005 at 12:17 am (Newspapers/Media/Regents, Other Articles)

Dear Editor:

If they build it, who will come?

The planned expansion at Oklahoma State University does not take into account population forecasts. The attached analysis of population statistics through 2030 (”Demographics Don’t Support OSU Expansion Plan“) shows that

  • during the next 20 years, there will be significantly fewer people aged 18-24 in Oklahoma
  • maintaining even the current level of enrollment will be difficult for OSU
  • fewer students will be around to use any type of building, particularly athletic facilities
  • investing in land and bricks-and-mortar structures now is ill-advised.

OSU’s “plan” addresses the wrong future.

You don’t need to take my word for it. University of Toronto professor Dr. David Foot has a Ph.D. from Harvard and has been forecasting trends with demographic data for more than a decade. More about his book Boom, Bust, and Echo is available at his site, www.footwork.com. You can contact him at (416) 484-9973, fax: (416) 484-8720.

OSU may reassure the City of Stillwater about lost tax revenue and wait for the homeowners’ emotional response to subside, but the facts don’t change — and they don’t support the expansion plan.

Look at my report and talk to some experts. There’s a news story here.

Marion Agnew

9 Comments

  1. Lee Agnew said,

    November 30, 2005 at 12:33 pm

    Very impressive analysis, and it looks like some good data. And no, I’m not biased, not one bit. ;D

    I got the OK to take off work Friday to go to the Regents’ meeting. I’ll bring some extra copies.

  2. Fred Thornton said,

    December 3, 2005 at 12:06 am

    Excellent. On Target. (your favorite compliment here).

    A powerful defense against the lie this land grab is actually for “the public good.”

    Thank You for the effort this took.

  3. Mixer! said,

    December 16, 2005 at 1:50 pm

    ::: If they build it, who will come? :::

    Just a hunch, but I’m guessing more international students will take up any remaining spaces that aren’t filled by the domestic student population.

  4. Marion Agnew said,

    December 16, 2005 at 3:25 pm

    It’s a good hunch — but security investigating international students is tighter. The countries with the largest population increases aren’t perceived as being particularly friendly to the U.S.

    Why would an international student select OSU? Because of its football program? Not likely. Not even because of a new “multimodal transportation facility,” a nice alumni building, or a fancy Foundation building. The allure is probably going to be engineering, business, hotel and restaurant administration, or the ag school.

    Not only that, with the US population declining all over, every school is going to be competing for internatonal students. If a student could get into one of Top 100 schools (ranked by US News and World Report) — and they WILL also be recruiting internationally — why would a student come to OSU instead?

    Enrollment statistics show the past. Economic forecasts for the region or even the City of Stillwater may show a population influx — but dig deeper, and you’ll find that the incoming population isn’t in the 18-24 age range.

    OSU is planning for the wrong future.

  5. Cathy said,

    December 16, 2005 at 8:13 pm

    That might be. It seems unlikely that a large percentage of international students will participate in intercollegiate athletics. Then again, only a small percentage of domestic students participate in intercollegiate athletics.

    I read in the Master Plan doc on the Benham website, that the maximum enrollment anticipated at the Stillwater campus is 25,000. According to OSU enrollment trend statistics, that is not that much more than the highest enrollment to date; 21,449 (1984), 21,604 (2004).

    I find it interesting that in the last 20 years, the difference between highest enrollment, 21,604 (2004) and lowest, 17,784(1994) is 3,820 students, whereas the difference between the maximum projected and highest to date is 3,396. Based on that data I would guess that OSU could absorb an additional 3,500 students without a 100-acre expansion.

  6. Timothy Q. Dilbeck said,

    January 18, 2006 at 12:12 pm

    You have missed the facts on many points. Your assumption that there will not be a sufficient student age population is false. Even though Oklahoma and the nation will experience a small decline in the future, take a quick look at the region. Missouri, New Mexico, and especially Texas will each see growth that far outnumbers tha minute decline in Oklahoma. Texas’ student age population, OSU’s biggest out of state student population, will grow almost a quarter million in the next five years alone, and will continue rapid growth beyond that! Texas alone will supply a very sufficient number to continue growth at our university.
    Texas high schoolers are also most noted for one thing, athletics. Let’s take a wild guess at what sport comes head and shoulders above the rest. FOOTBALL! That’s right, the best resource in the world for student athletes, especially football, is just across the Red River and about to experience a huge boom in high school population. I can’t wait to take part bright future of OSU athletics, not the gloomy vacant village you so boldy predict.
    Another assumption you make is the fierce competition there will be among international students because of security reasons. I highly doubt security concerns will keep numbers down when there are more people born in East Asia every day than I will see in a lifetime. You say these students will most likely go for one of the top 100 universities, instead of OSU. Well, I say to you that OSU will soon be one of those universities. There is also one thing that gives us an advantage in recruiting, cost of living. Oklahoma is one of the cheaper places to live in America, especially when it comes to communites that have a major university. More than once OSU has been named a college best buy. That means more education for your buck, something I would consider to be a top priority for an international student coming from a developing nation.
    Perhaps what upsets me the most is how you portray OSU’s future allocation of monetary funds. The money that will be spent on athletics pales in comparison to what will be spent on academic and student facilities, even though almost all of athletic expansions will be funded with private dollars.
    Your assumption that we will not make full use of these new facilities is wrong. We possess a major comparative advantage in recruiting international students, the tax revenue the community loses due expansion has been replaced many times over by new properties built here in just the last year, and the almost half of a billion dollars of investment in academics and non-athletic student facilities shows nothing but promise in the future of this institution.

  7. Marion Agnew said,

    January 18, 2006 at 10:31 pm

    It’s good to see your interest in demographics. You raise some interesting points. But here are a few reminders.

    Keep in mind that “school-aged population,” which you say means an increase in 250,000 students, is different from the population that’s in the 18-to-24 range, which is the target population for higher education – and is much much smaller.

    Also keep in mind that the demographic analysis in the posted report doesn’t take into account the increase in enrollment at OSU-Tulsa – which is broadening its range of courses and degrees and hopes to enroll 20,000 by 2020. It is another potentially serious drain on OSU enrollment.

    Of the five states, including Colorado, that surround Oklahoma, all except Texas lose people in that 18-to-24 demographic after 2010. Texas does see some population increases. But the gains are modest until 2015. It’s obvious that the OSU Administration shares your enthusiasm for Texas students; they’re supporting a recruiting office in Dallas.

    And here are a few things to keep in mind about Texas students. As much as they love football, they also love Texas. Why would they leave their state, which has many schools with fine football traditions, to pay out-of-state tuition? Why would their parents pay it? Texas, too, is working hard to increase its percentage of population enrolled in higher education. They’ll push to retain their own residents and recruit new students. In fact, Oklahoma students could well be lured south of the Red River.

    The U.S. won’t relax its security for international students from countries where the population is growing – China, Indonesia, and Pakistan aren’t exactly on the list of “U.S. Best Friends.” It would be a mistake to characterize international students as impoverished and looking only for a “good deal.” They generally have enough money to study abroad and want a real education, not a football team. In any case, undergraduate international student enrollment has declined at OSU in the last three years.

    You obviously believe deeply in OSU’s promise, and that’s great. If the force of your loyalty and hope were enough to make dreams reality, OSU would be in the top 10 in any university poll. However, university ranking systems are based on standards such as SAT scores, research funding, selectivity, and faculty-student ratio – not a university’s athletic success.

    Speaking of loyalty, here’s a final reminder. Loyal as you are to OSU, you aren’t alone. Probably every person forced to give up a home for the athletics village has also worn orange and sung the Alma Mater at a football game. They’ve been OSU friends and neighbors for years.

    So here’s a question for you. What would you say if OSU came to you and said their athletic success depended on you giving up your family’s hopes for the future? What if OSU wanted to locate their athletics village on your family ranch, and they’d pay you as little as they could get away with, and if you didn’t like it, they’d just take it? Loyal as you are to OSU, would you hand it over without respectfully asking OSU if they were sure they had their facts straight?

  8. Timothy Q. Dilbeck said,

    May 3, 2007 at 12:25 am

    My family lost five houses we owned located on N. Ramsey due to the athletic expansion. I can hardly say that OSU has stripped our family’s hope for the future. Your assumption that OSU is exploiting us with low property appraisals is false. They were very fair. Not quite the deal the Mcklovskys were offered, but fair none the less. We are going to take our just compensation and reinvest in some of the many properties that offer promising returns in the area. Hundreds of millions of dollars in commercial investment put into stillwater are betting on the fact that you are wrong about stagnant growth in the area. I tend to believe the people that put their money where their mouth is. My family was greatly affected by this university’s decision to expand, and we support that decision.

  9. Tamara Colbert Maschino said,

    December 5, 2007 at 12:40 pm

    It took nearly two years to get everything settled for our family, we searched a long time for another home for mom and packed 57 years of family life and then waited a full year to get her old home of 57 years moved to a new location. That took another four months to finalize from foundation to new windows and sheetrock repair and on and on. It also cost our family well over 100k above what OSU paid to get a decent home at Stillwater real estate prices for mom and keep her old house from being destroyed. Her old house was in great shape and far too nice to let go. It is being rented now but will take a long time before the total financial costs are recouped. We were blessed to be able to have the ability to do so but 100 k is alot of money, the families we know have also had to put out alot of cash out of pocket in this forced move.

    Mom is doing well now, she is back to singing and enjoying her life but will never feel as secure as before. Our concern with this whole process was the callous way people were handled along with the uneven compensations. Other universities have handled this type of expansion with far more grace and generosity, helping residents to move and find homes, this was not the case with OSU. Perhaps lessons will be learned from this whole ordeal and future expansions (yes, we believe they are coming) will be handled with more care.

Post a Comment

changing numbers

November 26th, 2005 at 7:10 pm (Newspapers/Media/Regents, Other Articles)

Sorry folks, I am having a hard time keeping up with the changing numbers of properties, parcels, homes, etc. quoted by OSU. At the Nov. 10 meeting, it was stated as 410+ properties. At the Nov. 17th meeting, Gary Clark told me it was 330 parcels. Schmidly stated 200 homes. I’m confused.

Perhaps Bob Barnes is the only person with correct information. He actually went to the courthouse. How about that, Bob?

Post a Comment