OkStateExpansion.com

Board of Regents Mtg.

March 3rd, 2006 at 10:00 am (Calendar)

5 Comments

1. sue agnew said,

   March 3, 2006 at 3:22 pm

   I haven’t had time to fully digest the (expected but still bad) news and write an erudite comment, but I think it’s very important to say “thank you” to everyone who has worked so hard. Ann especially, for all the work of running this site. Also, (I am not at all biased) I am extremely proud of my sister Marion, my brother Lee, and my dad for being willing to do legwork, do follow-up, and keep a public profile.

   At least we all understand that our opposition to this plan is based on more than our “greed” — it is bad for Stillwater, turning it into a “mill town” rather than a community with its own identity, and it is bad for OSU, now “proud and immoral.” It is a sorry day in the history of Stillwater and Oklahoma State, but the expected conclusion to this ill-conceived, badly executed, and poorly PR’d process by Oklahoma State.

2. Marion Agnew said,

   March 3, 2006 at 3:37 pm

   The press release on the OSU site indicates that the Regents approved the five-year plan: http://osu.okstate.edu/news/master%20plan%20approval_shutt.htm

   During the coming weeks and months, people who live and own property in the affected neighborhoods will suffer a huge loss. Community and university leaders may urge these people to “move ahead” and “get beyond this disagreement” to return to business. Some may have the gall to insist that these changes will bring nothing but good times and prosperity to Stillwater.

   However, when you’re the one losing your home or property to a bully, you have the right to grieve, in whatever form that takes. Now more than ever, residents and property owners need community support.

   People who have opposed this expansion have shown nothing but intelligence and class throughout these months, and we can be proud of ourselves and each other.

   Let’s continue that tradition and give residents and property owners — us, our friends, our neighbors — the space and support to grieve this loss. Let’s continue to be members of a caring community. We may not be able to change the bully, but we don’t have to let the bully change us.

3. Mixer said,

   March 4, 2006 at 10:06 pm

   So what’s the next move? Lawsuits, or selling out?

4. Marion Agnew said,

   March 5, 2006 at 3:42 pm

   Well, I wouldn’t call it “selling out” — “selling” is more accurate. Some people may need to sell, and others may choose not to sell. Each property owner has different circumstances and will make different decisions.

   For the time being, Ann Williams seems to be in the best position to help connect people who are investigating alternatives.

5. Tamara Colbert Maschino said,

   March 25, 2006 at 3:59 pm

   I thought that OSU promised they would not use eminent domain, this is another promise that has been broken and set aside just like the so called 20 year plan. We are heartbroken by what has happened in our neighborhood and what it has done to our mother.

Post a Comment

Town Hall Mtg. w/ OSU

February 21st, 2006 at 5:00 pm (Calendar)

1 Comment

1. Judy White said,

   February 22, 2006 at 1:55 pm

   Keep records. I got some free legal advice: keep meticulous records when communicating with anyone connected to the acquisition of your property. Keep all mail, keep phone logs, or record your conversations, and write up a summary of your communications. These will help you remember details and can be submitted as evidence in court. Date and time stamp everything.

Post a Comment

Staff Forum

February 13th, 2006 at 4:00 pm (Calendar)

Post a Comment

City and County Forum w/ OSU

February 9th, 2006 at 5:00 pm (Calendar)

Post a Comment

Student Forum w/ OSU

February 6th, 2006 at 7:00 pm (Calendar)

Post a Comment

Stillwater Residents Forum w/ OSU

February 6th, 2006 at 4:00 pm (Calendar)

9 Comments

1. Tamara Colbert Maschino said,

   February 4, 2006 at 9:26 pm

   The Petition looks great, and we can help get signatures. The fact that a viable economic impact statement has not been produced on this project is a disgrace and the fact it has not been up to the people for a vote or even valid discussion on alternate locations is incredible. We feel the lowball , hurry up type offers is almost bordering on criminal, especially on the most vulnerable of society. We have heard two theories on the rush, one is to get the appraisals and offers in before property owners receive the new valuations in the mail and the second is to create a plateau or base of paid OSU acquistions of lower evaluations in the event of a court case. In either example, it clearly illustrates how low this University has sunk.

2. Dr. Ted Douglas said,

   February 5, 2006 at 8:12 pm

   If osu is truly doing this in an attempt to drive down prices, then maybe the homeowners should go ahead and begin a class action lawsuit concerning reverse condemnation and seek to recover the decreases in value that osu is causing.

3. Lee Agnew said,

   February 9, 2006 at 12:21 pm

   (I sent the following letter yesterday to the Daily Oklahoman and the Tulsa World. I heard back from the World; it may actually get into print. We’ll see. And the media need to keep hearing from the rest of us too.)

   “OSU Forum Coverage Incomplete”

   Opponents of the athletic facility expansion called for in OSU’s proposed Master Plan base their objections on emotional appeals and indulge in intemperate outbursts, motivated mainly by a desire to obtain more money for the property OSU wants to acquire, right?

   That is certainly the impression one would get, if one were to rely on media coverage of the February 6 Forum in Stillwater.

   Both major metro daily newspapers highlighted the confrontational aspects of the meeting, while more temperate exchanges were omitted.

   A local attorney asked several detailed questions about how OSU’s property appraisals compared to Payne County assessment figures. Other speakers asked for specific details about the decision-making process for locating athletic facilities; and what the Board of Regents did and did not imply when they approved renovation of the stadium and field house in 1997.

   When the consultants hired by OSU compared the “synergy” of the proposed Athletic Village to Oklahoma City’s Bricktown and MAPS projects, a speaker pointed out that MAPS had been voted on democratically by the people of Oklahoma City — a basic right that evidently is not going to be extended to the citizens of Stillwater.

   The stories were accurate, as far as they went, and no fault should be laid at the reporters’ feet. Confrontation and emotional outbursts create drama, and drama sells newspapers. But, as one who has studied journalism at OSU under Professor Harry Heath, I know that reporters can also do real investigation and analysis, and do not have to rely on repeating he-said/she-said arguments.

   The media can do better. Studies citing figures which call into question many of OSU’s assertions have been provided to all of the State’s major outlets. An examination of the information contained in those studies would be a good place to start.

   Sincerely,
   Lee Agnew

4. Dr. Ted Douglas said,

   February 9, 2006 at 4:01 pm

   Good letter Lee. Why not any comments about citizens having to stand outside the room and stand against the back wall while the entire athletic department took up 1/3 of the seating capacity? I mean, if Asst AD Dave Martin has to come to the city forum to get information, then the university has some unbelieveable communication problems. {Edit}

5. Elizabeth Doyel said,

   February 10, 2006 at 2:03 pm

   I feel that OSU brought in the athletic department honchos so that we would be muted by their celebrity. They were also there to make sure any mention of repealing the use tax was squashed. A friend of mine on campus said the deans and department heads had been “encouraged” to produce a good turnout at the community meeting. Forgive me Dr. Douglas but OSU doesn’t have any communication problem other than everyone is no longer buying their “company line”. Dr. Schmidly, athletics and the OSU Foundation have not changed their position. They treat this like a need to know operation, where the less they have to admit the better for them. At public meetings I have made Dr. Schmidly and other OSU/ Benham officials admit to numerous false/incomplete/vague statements. The most telling sign was that throughout the public meetings they have repeatedly referred to the area between McElroy and Eskridge/ Duck and Washington as “the athletic village” not “the area in the 20 year plan” or something similar. They don’t care about us. Like a bunch of 2 year olds they want what they want and they want it now. Unfortunately if we as a group do not start becoming less civil and hold them and our elected officials to the flame they are going to get it. I just hope that the city’s recent volley requesting compensation for the infrastructure in our neighborhood is their attempt to show OSU the real cost of their plan and not some carpetbagger attempt to fatten their coffers at our loss. I have been criticized for being hostile to OSU officials concerning this land grab. While it is true that you get more flies with honey then with vinegar, I have come to believe that the OSU flies want to strip our neighborhood clean like flies and maggots on a carcass. We need to start tossing some vinegar to drive them away before it is too late.

6. Trude Coonrad Naff said,

   February 10, 2006 at 11:53 pm

   My sister and I own two pieces of property in the area between Hall of Fame and McElroy. Since I’m not able to attend the majority of the meetings that take place, I depend on recaps from those who are able to attend.

   At the risk of showing my stupidity and/or ignorance, I’m almost as confused about the diversity of directions the property owners are taking as I am about the “communications” we are receiving from OSU and its representatives.

   Owners who have sold their properties to the OSUF are complaining they were paid much less than their properties were worth. So why did they sell? For those of us who haven’t accepted the rhetoric of the OSUF and the Board of Regeants, and still own our properties, what is the game plan? Are we united in this, or is it to each his own and hope for the best?

   Frankly, it’s my opinion that those of us who still have our property and integrity in tact need to decide what we want to do, how we want to accomplish it, when we want to act, and get on with the business at hand.

   As individuals, we can write letters, appeal to the sense of fairness of the powers-that-be, and tug at their emotions. But the reality is that at the end of the day, unfortunately, we will have accomplished what we have to date — nothing.

   In Sun Tzu’s, “The Art of War,” he simply states a simple and most essential element to prevail in a situation of conflict: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.” We know our enemy. Do we know ourselves?

7. Marion Agnew said,

   February 11, 2006 at 10:45 am

   Trude, I’m in the same boat. From 1200 miles away, it’s hard to know what most property owners think or what their plans are. It’s also hard to get a sense of the level of support from people whose homes aren’t threatened.

   Each property owner faces a different situation. Although some people might be able financially to hold out and force OSU to use eminent domain to take their property, others would be ruined by that action. Although I hope that some brave souls will be able to hold out, I can’t blame those who sell, though they have been selling too early.

   That’s why my efforts have been to stop the decision. If OSU changes the substance of the Master Plan before presenting it March 3, or if the Regents don’t approve the Master Plan as written, then homeowners aren’t put into the position of choosing more emotional and financial devastation or less. Meanwhile, OSU could still pursue its vision of greatness. It’s a win-win: I don’t understand why those in power don’t see that.

   Yes, changing the situation before the vote is a long shot. But from this distance, I don’t know what else to do.

8. Tamara Colbert Maschino said,

   February 13, 2006 at 4:00 pm

   You are right about homeowners not always being able to hold on financially. There is another issue, the extreme stress of this situation on the elderly and how long they can handle it without experiencing health issues and strain from the daily stress. Every day these homeowners have this on their minds , their very security has been threatened . They are fending for themselves the best they can. I cant believe the University has not helped with advocacy or help with issues. It is a disgrace.

9. David Demezas said,

   February 14, 2006 at 10:25 pm

   I am extremely bothered by a comment made by an OSU official at the Feb 9th meeting. The comment was that the OSU Foundation is buying up land between McElroy and Eskridge and donating it to OSU as a gift. Did anyone else hear it this way? This really bothers me that OSU is may be preceeding with the land grab without the apparent approval of the Regents using this “loophole”.

   Also, it is ludricous to think that OSU would be happy buying only the property adjacent to Washington and adjacent to Duck and leaving the homeowners in the middle alone as suggested by Dr. Schmidly. Dr. Schmidly suggested maybe to place the tennis courts on the property adjacent to Washington and the new and improved baseball field adjacent to Duck and leaving a core of homes sandwiched between these two venues. The tennis courts must find an alternative location and the current baseball field should be renovated where it is!

   *Moderator’s note: At that meeting, Schmidly was asked if the Board of Regents had approved buying of property North of McElroy either directly or indirectly and he said “yes”. Anyone want to find that in the Board of Regents’ minutes at the college library?

Post a Comment

Faculty Council Forum

February 2nd, 2006 at 4:00 pm (Calendar)

Post a Comment

Scheduled meetings with OSU

January 28th, 2006 at 3:54 pm (Calendar)

4 Comments

1. Marion Agnew said,

   January 29, 2006 at 1:20 pm

   If someone could go to these meetings and get just ONE point across, I would suggest this:

   To improve OSU’s chances of long-term success, move the athletics village. Move the athletics village, and the Master Plan represents exactly what OSU has been saying it is — an unprecedented growth opportunity. It will still require visionary leadership, work on many high-priority projects concurrently, and constant attention to the core needs of the students. It’s still a marathon challenge, but OSU could rise to it. HOWEVER, leave the athletics village where it is, and OSU shoots itself in the foot on the starting line.

   It’s that simple.

   I wish I could be there to be more active in person.

2. Joanne Hamilton said,

   January 29, 2006 at 1:48 pm

   Hi, Marion–
   I want to say how proud of you I am. This project is damaging to citizens of Stillwater, and is seriously damaging the reputation of OSU everywhere. Let’s hope the University soon realizes this and changes direction.
   Meg’s mom

3. Marion Agnew said,

   January 30, 2006 at 6:37 pm

   Hi, Meg’s Mom! Thank you for your kindness. I’m sure your support, and that of other residents, is appreciated during this challenging time.

   Everyone wants OSU to succeed, both athletically and academically — but OSU’s best chance of success depends on its ethical and responsible behavior now. Moving the athletics village is a chance for OSU to show some creative leadership. Moving the village sets up a win-win-win-win-win situation:
   * Homeowners can keep their property
   * The OSU administration can keep its friends
   * OSU alumni can keep holding their heads up proudly
   * Businesses can keep developing new real estate and new ventures
   * The OSU Family can keep teaching and learning, performing research, and reaching out to Oklahoma’s citizens

   The more that the people of Stillwater can point out this fact to OSU, the more likely it is that someone in the administration or on the Board of Regents will actually hear it.

4. Brian Kahn said,

   February 3, 2006 at 7:24 am

   I presented these comments during the Feb. 2 Faculty Forum at OSU.
   - Brian Kahn, Professor of Horticulture (OSU faculty member since 1982)

   I believe the trouble with the campus Master Plan began when it turned into a “campus and surrounding city” Master Plan. OSU was to get new physical facilities as a result of the recent bond issue, and it was logical to discuss where they should be sited. When I attended an on-campus charrette in 2005, that was the scope of the plan. Issues such as employee parking were discussed, but there was absolutely no mention of an athletic village requiring acquisition of 100 acres of private land.

   What has now been presented to us amounts to city planning without the consent of the city’s citizens. The scope of the current Master Plan extends beyond the OSU campus and its contiguous areas - even beyond the northern area being targeted for the athletic village. For example, what does a waterway in the middle of Washington Street have to do with campus planning? If these changes were being proposed by the city, citizens would have meaningful input, up to and including the remedy of an initiative petition and a vote of the people. When these changes are proposed by OSU, we are threatened with their enforcement under eminent domain. There were votes on the MAPS project and on Vision 2025; indeed, an earlier proposal called “It’s Tulsa’s Time” was defeated at the polls. One man did not tell those people, “It’s all going to happen and it’s going to happen pretty darn quick” whether they liked it or not. You should not be surprised when the citizens of Stillwater ask just how broad an influence OSU is trying to exert, or where it will end.

   There is a fundamental question that must be examined : Does OSU really need to consider physically expanding the Stillwater campus in the next 20 years in order to fulfill its academic mission? Demographics would suggest that it does not. The university is so desperate for new students and their tuition dollars that it has opened a recruiting office in Dallas, Texas. President Schmidly also seems to have forgotten his “one university, multiple campuses” philosophy. OSU-Tulsa has set a goal of 20,000 students by 2020. So, another location in the OSU system is planning to accommodate about 15,000 additional students in the next 15 years.

   Finally, there is the moral dimension. Quite simply, eviction in the name of athletics is immoral. No amount of administrative spin can alter this fact. By displacing private citizens for an ultimately trivial athletic village, OSU is not achieving greatness, it is only gaining notoriety.

   No, any reason that might remotely justify the legitimate use of eminent domain by OSU for expansion of the Stillwater campus is lacking. We as citizens are not willing to sacrifice local control of private property, public thoroughfares, and urban development to remedy an alleged lack of athletic competitiveness by our land-grant university. We, who are people of conscience, will not remain silent in the face of social and political injustice. The Master Plan must be rejected in its present form, and the mad rush to implementation must cease. Professor Radford may have the right idea - divide the question. Rethink the concept and location of the athletic village, and shift the focus of the Master Plan back where it belongs - to the campus itself, and to the pursuit and enhancement of academic excellence.

Post a Comment

Board of Regents Mtg. 1/27/06

January 27th, 2006 at 10:30 am (Calendar, Meetings Summaries)

Post a Comment

Off campus student meeting

January 23rd, 2006 at 6:00 pm (Calendar)

Post a Comment