Important Homeowners Mtg.

RE-SCHEDULED: NORTH WASHINGTON STREET HOMEOWNERS MEETING

Wed. Nov 30, at 8:45 pm at Hillcrest Baptist Church. The date of the neighborhood meeting to discuss presentation strategies for the regents meeting on Dec. 2, and to organize neighborhood committees. It has been changed from the 29th so we can also attend the meeting scheduled by the City in the Public Library on the 29th.

On Friday, December 2, 2005, the Board of Regents for the Oklahoma A&M Colleges will meet at 10:00 am at the Scholar’s Inn Clubhouse at Langston University. One of the topics on their agenda is disscussion (they vote in Jan.) of the proposed OSU Master Plan which includes the OSU acquisition of property from Hall of Fame to McElroy on both sides of Washingtoon St. and from McElroy to Eskirdge Ave. on the east side of Washington St. We need to be there! Buses will take us (see about buses on under “Importan Notices”

Those wanting to speak at the Dec. 2 meeting need only be present when the meeting begins at 10:00am. Written information submitted prior to the meeting is preferred. Information emailed to Dr.Wilson (doug.wilson@okstate.edu) will be forwarded to the regents. Points to consider when contacting the regents are listed below:

  1. We support the development of a master plan. We recognize that planning is vital for the success of any organization.
     
  2. We are very concerned by the scope, timing and implementation of the OSU master plan. Some concerns include the following: (see website @ www.okstateexpansion.com for further information.)
    1. Fair compensation in the acquisition of property - make replacement cost a
      factor in the fair compensation calculation
    2. Loss of tax revenue for the city and Stillwater Public Schools
    3. Student safety at Will Rogers School and the Stillwater High School
    4. Traffic flow and rezoning implications
    5. Development of a viable link between the city long-range plan the the OSU master plan (also include school board in the link)
  3. We request that approval of the OSU Master Plan be postponed until community concerns have been adequately addressed.

7 Comments

  1. Anon said,

    November 20, 2005 at 3:12 pm

    There are a few comments regarding the expansion plan and one family’s experience when OSU took their property in this topic at the Stillwater NewsPress Forum - http://community.cnhi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/25310472/m/51710639

  2. Dr. Ted Douglas said,

    November 30, 2005 at 2:11 pm

    A couple of points, don’t throw tomatoes on me, I’m just trying to let you know the facts so that you can determine your strategy. The eminent domain process is designed to allow for the most good of the government. For example if OU decided they wanted to expand their athletic complex through the process of eminent domain and they were going to use TAX money to do it, we in Stillwater wouldn’t want them to pay $300,000 for a $100,000 house, because it is our tax money going to enlarge a school we don’t like. The same is true of highways, we as taxpayers don’t want to get needled every time we need a widen road. The thing that makes this alot different is it’s not tax money, but an individual’s money donated to make the aquisition. BUT the law is written for the typical case not this special case.

    The “commissioners” appointed are typically 3 real estate licensees, not appraisers. They will come to your property, listen to your arguments, listen to OSU and then the 3 will go have a cup of coffee by themselves and settle on a number. Having been there, I know that they will usually favor the property owner’s side because they know how inconvenient it is and they will identify with the property owner. However, they are still driven by the law that says just compensation is equal to fair market value.

    Steps you need to take: When cinnibar’s appraiser arrives at your house, make note of the time they arrived. Follow them around and see what they pay attention to. If they miss something (door to the cellar, horizontal heat/air, etc.) make a written note, but don’t share that with them at this time. Note whether they crawl in the attic or in the crawl space. Note whether they got up on the roof or used binoculars to veiw the roof or if they even looked at the roof. Finally note what time they leave. All of these things will be important when you are negotiating because it will give you more leverage when they find out that their appraisers did a haphazard job.

    That’s it for now. Ask me questions if you want. I’ll be checking back later.

  3. Marion Agnew said,

    November 30, 2005 at 3:09 pm

    No tomatoes — thank you for information about how best to handle a difficult situation with good sense.

    I’m advocating an entirely different strategy for my father. Until the Regents approve the plan, there is no need at all for Cinnibar to come onto his property. It’s not even worth satisfying his curiosity.

    And I’m a little concerned that the Regents will take the number of homeowners who have talked with Cinnibar as a measure of the number who will comply without a fight.

    However, each homeowner is different, in different circumstances. Everyone makes decisions differently.

  4. Dr. Ted Douglas said,

    November 30, 2005 at 6:27 pm

    I was posting that for the benefit of those that mistakenly signed up. I’m following your strategy of not “inviting” appraisers onto my property.

    Maybe this should be a separate post but is there any way that the folks that got the letter using the words eminent domain and the June 1 date could post a copy of it? My letter did not say that and I thought it was one of those cases of mass hysteria and rumors. But I heard today from a city official that indeed they now know that 2 different letters went out. I would sure like to see the letter online!

  5. Paul said,

    November 30, 2005 at 7:51 pm

    I was one of the home owners last night who mistakenly said that their letter contained eminent domain. When in fact the map with the article that was published the same day as the letters were sent out was where the first mention of eminent domain came out. I am very sorry for inaccuratly conveying that it was in the certified letter, it was not.

    I also think that the only difference in the two letters that the city mentioned was the date that the meeting was supposed to take place. You were either told to go the 16th or 17th, this is only a guess. If someone knows something different then please post it.

  6. David Demezas said,

    December 1, 2005 at 10:20 am

    Paul said,
    “I was one of the home owners last night who mistakenly said that their letter contained eminent domain.”

    I am confused by his posting. First, did or didn’t the letter use the threat of eminent domain? Second, does Paul’s letter represent the letters sent to the residents N. of McElroy? Third, did the residents N of McElroy receive the same letter as the residents S of McElroy? Perhaps someone from N of McElroy and someone from S of McElroy could scan their letter and send it as an attachment to “oseweb@okstateexpansion.com” and the letters, if different, could be posted on this site.

  7. Paul said,

    December 1, 2005 at 9:29 pm

    No, the letter that I received did not have eminent domain in it. Neither did my neighbor or someone elses that also lives north of McElroy.
    Now would some one who lives south of McElroy confirm whether or not their letter did or did not contain eminent domain in it. I do not have a scanner or I would post my letter.
    The newspress that came out Nov. 5 was where eminent domain was first used, that Im aware of. That is also the same day that we received our letters. That is why I myself confused it as being in the letter when in fact it was in the Newspress the same day the letter arrived. There were several others at the meeting Tuesday night who said that their letter contained eminent domain also. Now can anyone confirm if their letter actually does contain eminent domain?

Post a Comment

Nov. 29 City Mtg.

Before I went to the City sponsored meeting, I attended the transportation meeting at City Hall @ 5p. The City is getting started on plans for new arteries, etc. in the City of Stillwater. C. H. Guernsey & Co. (OKC) have been hired as consultants. They have brought Wilbur Smith Associates into the planning. The planning is in the beginning stages. At this point, I will not give a run down regarding this entire meeting as it mainly was a presentation of CH Guernsey Co. on their considerations, meeting schedule, etc. (Then I had to leave to go to the City meeting.) My only comment would be that I hardly see how the City of Stillwater can do much planning until they KNOW what OSU is going to do. I’m in hopes that the taxpayers of Stillwater do not end up, once again, paying for streets and infrastructure of which OSU will later “acquire”. The City must also plan around the effects of OSU expansion. Remember, this is just in the stage of “begin to plan”.

City Meeting:
Wow, I hardly know where to start. There were so many good questions and the panel tried to answer them. The panel included: Attorneys, Lowell Barto and Mozelle Smith
Accountants, John Nelson and Mike Harden, Appraisers, Doug Emdee & Ted Smith and OSU president, Dr. Schmidly. Bud Lacy led the panel and discussion.

Bud stated that there is nothing the city commission has to offer in help to the citizens involved in the acquisition area. Property owners in that area are totally at the mercy of OSU athletic department. He stated he also had lots of questions OSU, only, can work with the owners and he hopes on a voluntary basis.

Question: Define Voluntary
Answer: none

Vice Mayor in attendance at the meeting said the only thing commissioners have ability to control is streets and infrastructure.

Bud said all streets belong to the public, closing the streets is up to the City.

Q: Can City do anything about replacement value?
A: Bud encouraged OSU to advocate proceedings on owner’s behalf

Q: Should we have an independent appraisal. Is it worthwhile
A: (Doug) As appraiser, they are bound by rules and laws. Cinnabar should have to follow these like anyone else. See what Cinnabar guidelines have been when get appraisal. Ask for a complete copy of appraisal. Although OSU is Cinnabar’s client and the appraisals are being done for them. Therefore, they are not obligated to give the owner a complete appraisal. If owner has appraisal done & pays for it, complete copy of appraisal would go to the owner.

Q:What is the cost of an appraisal?
A: (Doug) too many varibles to say. Probably $400-500 for appraisal on regular family dwelling.
(Ted) Commercial and more complicated appraisals probably would run between $2500-3000.

Q: If we wait and go through the eminent domain process will we get lower price?
A:(Lowell, I think) If go through eminent domain process, court will appoint a commissioner (appraisal commissioner) to appraise property and the court goes with that. If owner does not agree with that, owner can request a jury trial.

Q: Do people usually get more or less if they go to jury trial?
(Mozelle) Last trial on eminent domain she did, owner got more. However, that decision can be overturned. One could go to public records and see what OSU had awarded in previous purchases, BUT, since OSU is a public entity they don’t have to disclose that. One can usually tell price by documentary stamps on a deed. However, since OSU doesn’t have to pay taxes and is a public entity, there will be no documentary stamps, most likely. So, no way to find out.
(John) Look at comparable. Is comparable property sold under threat of eminent domain.

Q: Since Board of Regents mtg. has been moved to the Muskogee meeting, is some City commissioner going to be there to support us?
A: None really

Q: Only place to go so can discuss the Master Plan is to Lanston. Since discussion is allowed at Board of Regents meetings at END of meeting, voting would take place before discussion. Stated that Langston had been called and “unlike OSU” parking is available and FREE. We were told that if anyone did get a ticket, to take it to the police station and they would void it. Stressed that anyone who wanted to present concerns to Board of Regents MUST be at the Langston meeting, as well as the meeting in Muskogee.
A: (Schmidly) agreed best to go to Langston to present concerns
Q: Then will OSU provide buses to take us to Langston?
A: (Schmidly) Hmmmm, yes, right David? (? not sure name was David, think this was the transportation director)David: Sure. Schmidly: We’ll have 3 buses. It was decided we could meet at the OSU library annex (Old IGA) Main/Duck & Eskridge corner. We’ll leave @ 9:00 am Fri. Dec. 2.

Q: Can one public entity say “NO” to closing a street while another public entity says “YES”? One public entity against the other.
A: Bud. Absolutely we can stop the closing of a street. If the City says “No” to street closing, OSU could take it to court. That is what happened when Washington was closed due to the College library building. The case was taken all the way to the Supreme Court. Side comment from someone in the “audience”: However, they had already started the library building when the case went to court.

Q: I have had my 4 properties appraised today by Cinnabar. When will I get my appraisals?
A. (Think Doug) Oh, the appraisal would not go to you. It will go to the client, OSU. In turn, OSU can give you the appraisal if they so choose.
(Gary Clark) OSU will give the owner the complete appraisal when they make their offer.
He said the appraisal and offer should be given them within a few days of appraisal.
Q: May not have time to negotiate.
A: (Bud) You’ll have time to negotiate.

Q: Is eminent domain black & white? Can OSU comdem anything they want? There are many things OSU is planning to build, why is it important they not build somewhere else?
A: (Bud) Yes, OSU has lots of power to acquire land by condemnation, but one can take it to court to contest it. You would have to demonstate to the court that the land was not needed, that there were other alternatives. Is it really based on necessity. One has 30 days to file with the court to contest.

Q: Why is OSU doing this before it has been voted on by the Board of Regents?
A: (Schmidly) It has been approved. (indignation by audience). Well the plan has not been approved, but board of regents has approved the buying of property through voluntary negotiations.

Q: In eminent domain, entity has to own 80% before claiming eminet domain. When we get appraisal, will we have access to what property was used as comparable and the address of that property?
A: (I don’t recall any)….refer to above Q. regarding appraisals.

Q: Some elderly owners cannot be here. Studies show elderly die earlier when they are foced to leave their homes. Would OSU be facing federal prosecution it they do this?

Q: Bill Ridley (sp?) “almost a Dr.” dissertation on eminent domain. Studying how negotiators try to “work their deals”. Compared to World Trade Center negotions for property saying it was somewhat the same situation as ours. They were hesitant to exercise eminent domain. In the long run owners just want an equal deal. OSU needs to work a deal, put people in a better situation (living quarters) than they are now.

Q: Proposed a special vote by the citizens of the City on the acquisition of Hall of Fame.

Q: It is OSU’s right to exercise eminent domain, Board of Regents. Foundation cannot exercise eminent domain. It is NOT the Foundation’s money, but donors. Foundation can’t buy the land.
A: Once the donor gives money to the Foundation, it belongs to the foundation.

Q: (speaking for an out of state friend who owns property in the area) Is there a correlation between the appraisal and the assessed value?
A: (?) No

Q: Do we know what we are looking at in way of loss of revenue, streets, expense of new streets, to the schools?
A: (Bud) 85% of revnue comes from utility sales and taxes. OSU has said they will still get utilities from the City. It’s not a great loss.
(Mike Woods, Stw. school board) The school board doesn’t really know what the impact of this plan will be. They still have questions. However, he believes that OSU will cover any deficit to the schools. There are alternatives to the plan. Many things are planned and don’t come to be. As an example, architects design a lot of buildings that never get built.

Q: (dauther of homeowner N. of McElroy) Should we continue improvements to properties?
A: (one of the appraisers) Continue improvements to keep property maintained, anything to do with health and safety. Keep up the property in order to get a better price when OSU DOES purchase it. Don’t “over improve” for the neigborhood.

Q: (suggestion really): Encouraged everyone NOT to settle, if possible. Announced Homeowner’s mtg. Wed. Nov. 29, Hillcrest Baptist Church @ 8:45 pm.
A: N/A

Q: (owner of home West of Washington) What about our homes? We can’t sell, we can’t get loans.
A: none that I remember

Comment by Schmidly: We are trying to answer questions forthright. If we don’t know we will try to find out. Hall of Fame is closed due to construction zone. It will be closed 3-5 years while finishing North side of stadium and West end and underground parking. We don’t want to disrupt traffic more than we have to and are concerned with the safety of students.
(aside from someone in audience). When you started, you said it would be closed 1 season.
Schmidly. Completing the West end zone requires much longer & will take longer than the South & North sides of the stadium. We’ll work with the City on closing Hall of Fame.

Q: regarding land acquisition. What has happened? The plan is not what we heard before we got the letter from Benham (actually Cinnabar) offering to buy our property.
A: (Schmidly) We have scheduled 146 appraisals. 274 remain. More come in each day.

Q: OSU should at least wait until January so we could discuss issues.
A: (Schmidly) encouraged everyone to go to Langston meting to discuss if you want maximum imput. We will send a copy of tonight’s meeting to the Board of Regents in order that they can see the concerns. 40% south of McElroy and 20% overall to close by Jan. 4. These are the only things under contract right now. Let’s deal with some misperceptions: 1. That the plan only includes athletics. That is not the case. It includes a great deal for academics, students AND athletics. $420 million too be spent on the general university ($177 million on Athletics). This is all in the 20 year plan. Immediate construction is South of McElroy. We expect, believe we have funding to complete that area in the next 5 yrs. We have NO interest in properties West of Washington. Only in area south of McElroy in the near term. North of McElroy will not be needed in the next 3-5 yrs. OSU has had permission since 1977 to acquisition property North of Hall of Fame. In 2000, the decision to keep the stadium where it is, rather than build a new one West of town was made. To continue with planning, it couldn’t be done without land acquisition. 2. That OSU doesn’t care about the City. 3. That tax revenue loss would be $300,000.00. That is based on all property. It is really only $150,000.00. 4. That OSU has other properties and we don’t need this area. Yes, but not where we need it. 5. Intend to use eminent domain to acquire property. Our strongest desire is that this be done between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Some of the plan may not be constructed for 20 years. Have at least 3 yrs. to move. There is a tax advantage in being declared a part of eminent domain concerning capital gains. This plan will increase jobs, sales tax revenue. Our job is to keep up the reputation of OSU.

Q: (suggestion) Give property owners land and rebuild our neighborhood, put in streets, sewers and other infrastructure.
A: N/A

Q: (Board of Realtors president) stated that it is hard to find homes to fit into replacement value. What can be done about affordable housing?
A: (Schmidly) We are trying to see what’s available and what can be done about affordable housing. We are trying to get more information about that.

Q: (Mother of 4 children w/ 5 bedroom home) We didn’t know about the plan until
Nov. 5. It has been implied that scheduling an apprasial amounts to approval of the process. We schedule an appraisal because we were threatened. Cinnabar said that if we didn’t sell by Jun. 1, OSU would exercise eminent domain.
A: (Schmidly) We’d like to acquire property in 7-9 months. We have no money for construction North of McElroy, but are willing to buy from willing sellers. It will be up to 20 years before construction begins north of McElroy and west of Washington.

Q: (OSU student) Since the Athletic Village only services a small portion of the student body, many students need affordable housing. Most students will never use the Athletic Village. Finding affordable housing close to campus will be an impossibility. I now have been told that my lease runs out Jan. 1. I had to pay $800.00 per month to live in Bennet with 2 other people. I can’t afford that and still go to college. I can’t afford to live on campus. Three buildings, housing over 1000 students are being torn down.
A: (Schmidly) We are working on affordable housing.

Q: (comment) A 70 year old man in a wheelchair with a heart condition was led to believe that he had 6 months to pack up and find a place to go.
A: N/A

Comment: Gary Shutt contradicted himself twice in the Q&A notice that was in the Stillwater Newspress.

Comment: (think maybe Gary Clark) Donated money to acquire property could be used to purchase property in 20 year area to swap.

Comment: the Bonds were the representatives for property owners as stakeholders. They sold their 20% of the entire area to OSU.

Q: When were the 50 public forums held and how were they published to notify the public. How were stakeholders selected. Who were all the reps for the community, city, etc.
A: (Bud) will get information regarding when meetings were held, how published for the public and the minutes from those meetings from OSU. He will post them on the Stillwater website: Stillwater.org
(Benham rep) They weren’t really public meetings. Not required to be public. Not intended to have a citizen representation.

Comment: (statement) There are 45 homeowners in the affected area North of McElroy. I talked with Stillwater real estate people and there are only 30 homes on the market under $100,000.00 currently.

From Ann Williams. There were more comments, especially at the end of the meeting. I have summarized to the best of my ability in reading my notes & typing:-) Sorry if I left anyone out. I think I just “gave out” toward the end of the meeting.

1 Comment

  1. Marion Agnew said,

    November 30, 2005 at 5:57 pm

    Excellent report; thank you! It says: “Comment: the Bonds were the representatives for property owners as stakeholders [as part of the process to develop the Master Plan]. They sold their 20% of the entire area to OSU.”

    My question: Because they sold their homes before the public was TRULY involved in the process (i.e. before anybody other than hand-picked “stakeholders” knew the university was doing a master plan), did they profit illegally from inside knowledge? Did OSU profit illegally from coercion — by discussing their all-encompassing right to simply take property, did they cow the Bonds into selling, and at a reduced price? In short, did they set in motion an unethical and possibly illegal process?

    I don’t know the Bonds from a hole in the ground. But it’s my impression that this grab wouldn’t be happening if the Administration and Regents didn’t think homeowners would roll over for it. Buying land from “stakeholders” to demonstrate compliance wouldn’t be an action that meets the ethical standards that the Board of Regents supposedly receives special training in.

    Also, what was the Bonds’ experience — did they receive a reasonable price? Did they need a capital gains loss?

    The comment (toward the end) from the representative from Benham is also illustrative: developing the plan was not intended to be a public process. It’s an honest statement, at least. But it’s a direct contradiction of what Schmidly is trying to get people to believe — that it’s been a transparent process with extensive “stakeholder” interaction and lots of opportunity for involvement. Someone’s is not telling the truth.

    Also, my father was reading to me from a handout. It distinguished between proposed spending for “athletic” programs and for “non-athletic” programs. Let’s not confuse “non-athletic” programs with “academic” programs. Schmidly is lumping the “multimodal transportation facility” — what you and I might call a “parking garage and bus station” — with spending on academic programs.

    The parking garage is not part of this land grab, and neither is the new classroom building. OSU could build those and still back out of this athletics Boone-doggle gracefully.

Post a Comment

OSU posting on City website.

OSU is giving the City a list of the dates on which the “public forums”, regarding the Master Plan, were held. They are also suppose to state how the public was notified about each of these. They are to let the City also post minutes from each of those meetings.

Website for this information is: Stillwater.org

Post a Comment

Buses for Dec. 2 Bd. of Regents Mtg.

OSU is providing 3 buses to take us to the Dec. 2 Board of Regents meeting in Langston. That is THIS Friday. We are to meet at the OSU library annes. (The old shopping center, The old IGA for us oldtimers:-) That is at the corner of Eskridge & Main (across from Stillwater High School). We are leaving at 9:00. PLEASE BE THERE. We need you. The Master Plan will be discussed and our concerns presented. This may be the only time we can “present our case” before the Board of Regents VOTES approval or disapproval in Jan. There will be 3 buses. Each bus can take 35 individuals.
ALSO!!!
Homeowners meeting is still scheduled for 8:45pm WED. Nov. 30. We will organize for the regents meeting, write out our questions of concern, and discuss spokesmen. PLEASE try to be there. We need you!

Post a Comment

City meeting for citizens to ask questions

City meeting for citizens to ask questions. 6:00 pm @ Stillwater Public Library, Room 215. Informational meeting with lawyers to answer legal questions, tax people to answer tax questions, city commission, and a decision making figure from OSU to be on the panel.

1 Comment

  1. Marion Agnew said,

    November 28, 2005 at 2:34 pm

    Each homeowner (or resident of the affected area) who attends that meeting should bring a piece of paper (or posterboard) with a picture of your house and your address written on it in big print. Hold it in your lap at this meeting as you face the panel. If you speak to the panel, identify yourself by your address and show your home.

    The houses aren’t just “properties” — they’re homes. Decision-makers need to match people, real people, to the abstract concept of “properties.”

Post a Comment

Emergency Faculty Mtg. CANCELLED

Emergency Faculty Meeting scheduled for Tues. Nov. 29 @ 3p: CANCELLED (due to OSU Master Plan presentation being moved to Jan. 27th Board of Regents meeting)

.Friends:
I have called a Special Meeting of the Faculty Council for 3 p.m. Tuesday
November 29th in 250 Student Union. This is done under the provisions of
the Current Faculty Handbook Appendix B IV section B (page 70).

A majority of the Faculty Council have already told me they will attend.

The only matter on the agenda is the draft resolution attached to this
message. It is a recommendation that the Regents hold off on the Athletic
Village and certain other matters until their January 27, 2006 meeting, at
the earliest.

I have invited the President and anyone he chooses to bring with him. The
meeting is not closed and the public is invited.

The meeting will not extend past 3:30 p.m.

Draft Faculty Resolution

Title:   A Resolution Requesting Further Study of Certain Aspects of the Master Plan

The Faculty Council Recommends to President Schmidly that: The University recommend to the Regents approval of the Capital Bond Building projects but postpone certain other aspects of the Master Plan, including the Athletic Village, to the January 27, 2006 Board of Regents meeting, at the earliest.

Rationale:
1. There is no successful integration of the Master Plan with the Strategic Plan. It is essential that the two be harmonized.

2. There is deep concern among the Faculty over displacing a large number of residents, the impact this will have on many lives and the viability of an elementary school.

3. There remains a lack of concrete and authoritative information. Maps change daily. Faculty, Staff, Students and OSU Friends, the OSU Family, need to have information and the University needs time and patience to provide that information. Absent that, there is an increased mistrust among those who care the most about their University.

4. The financing of the project is far from clear. Many feel misled on recent Athletic projects where vague promises turned into excuses to borrow. OSU family members have no idea how the project will be maintained once constructed.

5. Some plans call for doubling the size of the core campus. This is so important as to merit extended discussion because it will forever chance campus dynamics.

6. Some plans call for low impact facilities, essentially empty fields, to be constructed in high impact areas, essentially densely inhabited neighborhoods, while extensive fields are now available.

7. Student food and shopping access will be shifted as facilities in the former Master Plan scheduled for Student Shopping are allocated to other purposes.

8. The University has a commitment to sustainability in its new construction. This entails design that minimizes energy use. A recent donor, William S. Spears, is noted for teaching how to minimize energy use. Sustainability is not addressed in the proposed new construction. It should be.

9. The OSU Student Body, through their SGA Senate, have petitioned the Regents to delay accepting the proposed Master Plan until it can achieve Student, Staff, Faculty and Community support.

10. Education’s construction needs are not adequately addressed. For example, the OSU Library has half the traffic, a million less books and nine thousand less subscriptions than the average Big 12 University, yet it cannot house the collection it has. The Library building, inadequate in the 1960s, has not been expanded since.

11. The Faculty shares the excitement of the Administration and Regents over plans for the future of our University. We feel that something so important and wonderful should be the source of widespread support and unity. It should not be something that sows fear and distrust, uniting us only against our leaders.

1 Comment

  1. Robert Moore said,

    November 26, 2005 at 4:06 am

    Any major plan should provide a solid basis for it’s construction and expansion. Several questions are unanswered such as: how will the improvements effect funding for more core needs of the campus? How will repairs and maintainence be funded in future years? Particularily if state appropriation funding is cut? Where will the donors be then? Why are we robbing valuable resources away from research and teaching and harming our home community of Stillwater. Have provisions been made to fund additional fire service needs, utilities, street relocations and other improvments. Sounds like a pipe dream of a few carried by the masses. Hail to King Schimidly and Prince Holder.

Post a Comment

Demographics Don’t Support OSU Expansion

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

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

Sent to Board of Regents

It is difficult for me to believe that the Board of Regents would possibly approve the proposed acquisition of homes and property from the OSU campus, North to Eskridge, in order to develop an underfunded Athletic Village. The citizens of Stillwater have great concerns regarding this acquisition for many reasons:

1. OSU already owns a tremendous amount of property in the City of Stillwater which would serve their purposes better, or at least, equally as well.

2. The closing of primary streets in the City. OSU will not directly state that Hall of Fame and McElroy will be closed, but they have certainly implied such. These are both streets the taxpayers have funded. OSU will simply “acquire” them, with no compensation to the City.

3. The method of the take over of approximately 410 properties, some are homes in which elderly people have resided for many years.

4. The fact that most people think of “fair” as meaning “equal”. Compensation offered to property owners being forced into “sales”, is not adequate to buy an equivalent home elsewhere in the City. Is that “fair”? A decision to sell, is not the property owner’s luxury..

5. A significant loss of tax revenue will negatively impact the City and the Schools. Stillwater taxpayers will be asked to “take up the slack” for loss of revenue due to OSU’s take over of the properties currently owned by Stillwater residents.

7. None of the above concerns is as great as the concern for the manner in which OSU has forged ahead with their plans, in total disregard and disrespect, not only for property owners, but for the citizens and the City of Stillwater as well.

OSU is proceeding as if the funding for the project is in place. In fact, according to Gary Clark, there is only limited funding, available for voluntary acquisitions of the said properties in the current master plan.
The university could use these funds to actually begin construction of the project if it would utilize land it already owns rather than destroying homes of Stillwater’s citizens.

OSU is also proceeding as if the Board of Regents has already approved the Master Plan. It is my understanding that approval or disapproval of the plan is not scheduled to take place until December, 2, 2005.

OSU has shown a great lack of sensitivity, and little desire to work with the City of Stillwater and its citizens. Much ill will toward the University has been created. In the past, there has been an honored and congenial partnership between the City of Stillwater and OSU. However, OSU is now adopting tactics of a corporate hostile take over. I experienced these same tactics when I lived in Bartlesville and Mr. Pickens attempted a take over of Phillips Petroleum Company. Surely these are not truly the tactics of our beloved Oklahoma State University. Is the tail wagging the dog?

I urge you NOT to approve the current proposed OSU Master Plan.

Ann Bernhardt Cramer Williams

4 Comments

  1. Leonard G. Herron III said,

    November 28, 2005 at 12:01 pm

    This mornings Enid News & Eagle, http://www.enidnews.com, had an arcticle on the OSU expansion plan. I sent the following letter to the editor. I hope they run it.

    Leonard G. Herron III
    3418 Mayberry
    Enid, OK 73703

    November 28, 2005
    Dear Editor:

    A gross injustice is taking place in Stillwater, Oklahoma. Oklahoma State University under the guise of a new Master Plan is planning on using their powers of eminent domain to take private property for a new athletic complex. I am a third generation graduate of OSU. My mother is 84 and father is 89 and also a veteran of World War II and is semi-bed fast. They live in their home which was built by my grandfather at 1110 N. Bellis, Stillwater. No one, not OSU, not the State of Oklahoma, not the City of Stillwater, not the US Government should have the right to take their home if there is any possible reasonable alternative. OSU has lots of land where they wouldn’t have to take anybodies home. The area my parents home is in is planned for tennis courts. OSU has tennis courts, they have a soccer complex, and they have a baseball stadium. This action is just flat wrong not needed and will probably result in higher fees to students. It will block traffic in Stillwater and cost the taxpayers of Stillwater and Oklahoma millions and other home owners their homes in constructing new traffic corridors.

    The stakeholders that were to represent the property owner’s form this area in the planning process stand to profit from this. They own the most property in this area, much of which is the most ill maintained. They are also miffed at the remainder of the neighborhood for objecting to further multi-family housing encroachment into this largely moderate income single family dwelling neighborhood. A grand jury investigation of this planning process needs to be convened. There are a lot of people in this area that are in a similar position to my parents.

    The treatment by OSU of the people of this neighborhood has been shameful. In both meetings that OSU has held on this plan for the people of this neighborhood and Stillwater they have been started by we are not here to answer questions but to present the plan or the process. In meeting number one next week is the meeting for questions. In meeting number two last week was the meeting for questions. They make sure you see the eminent domain gun and that you know that an “offer you can’t refuse” is coming.

    As I write this letter, I fear that it is already too late. I would ask all OSU graduates contact the regents and state their objections. Contact your legislators and ask them develop legislation that would block any university, school, unit of local government, etc. form doing this to anyone. It is not American or Oklahoman. I would ask that you withhold any donations to the OSU Foundation until this plan is either modified or scraped. You can find out more by going to http://www.okstateexpansion.com.

    Sincerely,

    Leonard G. Herron III, Class of 1975

  2. Russell said,

    November 30, 2005 at 1:58 pm

    So, was the letter published?

  3. Leonard G. Herron III said,

    December 5, 2005 at 9:42 am

    The letter was published today, December 5, 2005 in the Enid News & Eagle along with a nice editorial asking OSU to back up and restart the planning process. If interested check out enidnews.com.

  4. Ann Williams said,

    December 5, 2005 at 10:40 am

    Links to Enid News
    Leonard G. Herron III. Letter to Editor. Dec 5, 2005

    “Stillwater, OSU must work together on expansion.” The Enid News and Eagle. Dec 5, 2005.

Post a Comment

Response to OSU latest Press Release

January, 27, 2006. Originally scheduled for Dec. 2. Presentation of the OSU master plan has been postponed and will now be presented on Jan. 27.

Time has been scheduled at this meeting for a designated spokesman to present concerns of property owners to the Regents.

The Board will VOTE on approval on this date! - not just discuss (Jan. 27)

In the OSU Press release regarding postponing the Master Plan presentation to the board of regents, it seems Mr. Schmidly has just come up with a brilliant idea: that of making sure the community and university family understands “the plan”.

Why didn’t he consider this before he blindsided the City, homeowners and citizens, forcing them to react to revenue loss, streets closings, and the threat of eminent domain. Why has he waited until now to discuss “the plan” with the Stillwater City Manager, Mayor, County commissioner and superintendent of schools?

Mr. Schmidly states that there have been 50 public forums regarding “the plan”. I would like to know how the “public” was informed of these meetings so that they could have attended these forums.

Regarding Stakeholders: Were ALL stakeholders present at the majority of meetings to decide on “the plan”? Were ALL stakeholders aware of “the plan” in its present form? Or did many of them believe “the plan” only included properties south of McElroy, until they read the Stillwater Newspress on Nov. 5, 2005?

Locating the athletic village to the north OR to the west, would keep it directly connected to the current Athletic facilities. Building to the West, would require relocation of research fields. The University is hesitant to move these. However, the University has no reservations about destroying homes north of the campus.

How will the athletic village add more jobs to the economy of Stillwater; more coaches? trainers? maintenance workers? Or what? Do more facilities = more jobs?

If we have $500 million of anticipated construction for academics and athletic facilities over the next decade, it seems to me that the proposed athletic village will consume most of that.

It is interesting that we are finally being told that Mr. Schmidly DOES think about academics, and we are now hearing that there are some facilities related to academia being considered. I do not see any of these academic facilities on the proposed master plan.

I have heard the offer made to the Stillwater schools concerning tax loss. Apparently, OSU offers to compensate Stillwater Schools for three years loss. (Will this be taken from the $400,000.00 that the City of Stillwater gives OSU from our use tax annually?) What about Vo-Tech and other tax loss?

As to the statement that most of the residents in “the plan” area will relocate in Stillwater, think again. Most renters are OSU students who will eventually be forced into University housing. Those living in their homes are talking of possible moves to towns close to their children, many are talking about moving outside the city to smaller communities, and some are planning to move out of the state. Most do not feel they can afford to relocate in Stillwater with the offer they are receiving in “fair market” price; and do not want to incur the increase in taxes due to “the plan”.

Somehow, the term “VOLUNTARY” used so often by OSU, is insulting to the property owner. How is it voluntary when a property owner is intimidated into selling his property for an undervalued price; and if he does not agree to the so-called “fair market” price, he is forced to accept it because of eminent domain? In no way is it voluntary as far as the property owners are concerned.

And the amazing thing to me is that those representing OSU Foundation, and other OSU entities, can actually say with a straight face that they have been “so open” in all of this when so many citizens have perceived it as covert and deceptive.

Ann Williams

8 Comments

  1. Anonymous said,

    November 26, 2005 at 5:57 pm

    Aha, now I am beginning to see the picture. Apparently the OSU Athletic department think our football players are wimps. (I don’t think that at all). Why else does the Athletic dept. think the athletes need an indoor, climate controled practice field? Does that mean we will enclose the stadium (dig deep donors) and schedule games only with teams having controlled temperature facilities? I don’t think so.

    Perhaps one gets what one expects. Could we analyze just what it is that made our guys play really great football in the 1st 1/2 of the TX. game and the entire TX. Tech game, yet can’t keep that level of play going? Is that due to lack of facilities?

  2. Marion Agnew said,

    November 26, 2005 at 6:29 pm

    “Understanding the plan” is not the same as “thinking the plan is a good idea.”

    I understand the plan — and I still think it’s bad. The expansion plan represents extremely poor planning and has been poorly presented. I don’t misunderstand President Schmidly. I disagree with him.

    President Schmidly’s condescension about future education efforts and defensiveness about the process to date aren’t helpful. Extremely intelligent and reasonable people can, and do, legitimately think his plan is flawed and that pursuing it would be irresponsible. And we can, and we will, discuss our concerns with the Regents. And they can, and I hope they will, refuse to approve it.

    This situation isn’t just a failure to communicate (though it is most certainly that) — it’s a genuine disagreement. He shouldn’t trivialize that by dismissively labeling it a lack of understanding.

  3. Roy Blomstrom said,

    November 27, 2005 at 8:16 am

    That’s a camel, not a cowboy, with its head in the tent. Now the question is whether to accede to its snorting or take it firmly by the nose and lead it back outside.

    OSU has, so far, bungled its demographic study, threatened its neighbours with eviction, embarrassed its alumni and scared the small business community. Wonder what’s next on the Master Plan? Spend a little too much time in the sun, I guess, and you start to think that you’re hosting the next Olympics or that finding a twenty dollar bill means you can buy a fifteen hundred dollar suit, or that you’re a cowboy, even, and you have a right to the tent.

    What nonsense! How can a university with so much potential think so poorly and behave so badly?

  4. Mixer said,

    November 27, 2005 at 5:24 pm

    Here’s my $64 question: If the plan has yet to be presented to the Board of Regents for approval, then why is OSU already moving forward on it?

    Even though they won’t own up to it, Schmidly/Holder/Pickens want the OSU campus to encompass the (rough) footprint between Sixth, Western, Lakeview, and Main/N. Boomer Road. If you live within that area, or own rental property, they’ll be coming after you.

    LINK: http://osu.benham.com/DiagramsCharts/2025%20plan%20incl.%20surrounding%20districts%20-%20draft.jpg

  5. Craig Buchanan said,

    November 28, 2005 at 1:12 am

    In my case OSU had done everything up to filing papers at the court house before they officially took the plan to the regents. The lawyer kept telling me that the regents will do what ever OSU recommends, and he was right. The meeting where they agreed to take mine and my neighbors homes got less than 5 minutes of discussion, most of it joking around before the unanimous vote.

    OSU knows they will get the rubber stamp from the regents for anything they want. Furthermore, they know that since the courts all have large dealings with OSU they will get what ever they want from the judge. Our only chance is to change the minds of the regents and ask them to do their job of reviewing all the works of OSU. Only time will tell.

  6. Ellen Domnick said,

    November 28, 2005 at 11:27 pm

    in response to OSU comments in the Sunday News Press:
    My general impression is that this article represents classic”political-speak” .It did not answer the direct questions asked about the master plan, instead manipulated questions to serve a seemingly politically-motivated action. Nothing antagonises, or creates distrust from citizens, more than the inability to answer direct questions or more likely, the ability to avoid answering questions.

    Specifically, OSU does not answer satisfactorily the following questions:

    On what basis can it compare the success of MAPS in OKC and the Vision 2025 to any future success in Stillwater? Provide proof that success of these programs could be extrapolated.

    What facts support the statement that this plan would move OSU into the top 75 schools?

    To date, OSU has not publicly announced a specific plan regarding “facilities needs, utilities, trasffic patterns, parking, athletic, student housing, and landscaping.” Provide us with specifics. Concerns about possible closing of Hall of Fame and/or McElroy road are real and must be addressed.

    Who was on the OSU stakeholder team of 30 people? Their names should be made public. How were they selected? Are the minutes and dates of the stakeholder team meetings available to the public? Were quorums met at each of these meetings?

    Schmidley states that over 50 public meetings were held. This is debatable. Please provide the citizens with proof of the 50 public meeting announcements and the times, dates, and places of these claimed meetings.

    Is the OSU BOR going to vote on the master plan during the December 2 meeting, (although discussion has been tabled until the January meeting)? OSU did not state that the BORapproval vote itself was going to be postponed.

    As Marion Agnew said “I understand the plan, and I still think it’s a bad one.” Remember that few or no questions were allowed in a group format at the informational meetings held to date.

    The budget seems in question. OSU states that “we have limited dollars” to buy the property but Cimarron Property spokesman stated that OSU’s goal is to finish all appraisals by March 2006 and have all sales final by June 2006. If the “nearterm” plan is 2-5 years, why is OSU in this rush?

    Fair appraisals would not be current market value of a home. They would include
    1.adjustmentsfor purchase of a comparable home and property size in today’s dollars
    2. forgiveness of any capital gains taxes on sale of the property
    3. adjustment for loss of future rental income, or equivalent return on investment

    Is an indoor facility necessary in Stillwater, OK? What is the mean temperature for each month? How many OSU students would use the facility?

    Please give evidence that an athletic village will have a direct causal effect on recruiting of athletes, and competitive Big 12 teams. On what basis does OSU claim this?

    On what basis does OSU claim that “success in athletics generates benefits- national attention, increased donor support, a boost in pride and loyalty? Please explain exactly how the new facilities will support the local economy, create jobs, and increase the number of fans and supporters who come to Stillwater. I assume that the athletic village will be closed for non-student athlete and public use.

    Please explain the statement, “some private funds earmarked for this specific purpsoe are available for the initial land purchase, so there will be no impact on our athletic budget.” Please document this funding and how it is earmarked.

    The question of closing Hall of Fame road was not answered.

    On what basis can OSU state that owners living in the purchase area will “most likely locate elsewhere in Stillwater” and “the school district’s overall tax revenue will be minimized in the long run?”

    On what basis does OSU claim a “substantial economic impact over the next 10-15 years generated by more than $500 million in new construction?”

    There were a number of claims made by OSU; we must not believe these claims unless they are evidence-based claims. Please continue to write and ask questions.

  7. Marion Agnew said,

    November 29, 2005 at 10:48 am

    Ellen said:

    On what basis does OSU claim that “success in athletics generates benefits- national attention, increased donor support, a boost in pride and loyalty?”

    Also:

    OSU could invest the proposed gift in renovating the library and supporting undergraduate and graduate research experiences. Here’s another question for the Administration.

    Please compare and contrast the projected increase in “national attention, increased donor support, and boost in pride and loyalty” from the two proposed investments: in athletics and in academics. In your answer, please relate OSU’s goals to the experiences of other distinguished institutions of higher learning. Specifically, estimate the endowments, influence of alumni, and national attention given to Yale University (alma mater of both contenders for the U.S. presidency in 2004) and OU (losing participant in BCS championship bowls in 2003 and 2004).

    OSU deserves better. Why is OU the yardstick? Let OU be an athletics powerhouse. Let’s be Yale.

  8. Craig Buchanan said,

    November 30, 2005 at 11:21 am

    The claim that athletic events will increase the local tax revenue is a popular one. I have found research in the past that has discovered in fact when you count all the expenses (police, EMS, city workers, longer commutes, trash, etc) you actually end up with a net loss for the local community.

    I will try and find this research when I get caught up at work and post some of that information here and on my site so when you hear this you can point to credible research that refutes this.

Post a Comment

« Previous entries