Important Homeowners Mtg.


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 ( 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 @ 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.
This entry was posted in Calendar, Important Notices. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Important Homeowners Mtg.

  1. Anon says:

    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 –

  2. Dr. Ted Douglas says:

    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 says:

    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 says:

    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 says:

    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 says:

    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 “” and the letters, if different, could be posted on this site.

  7. Paul says:

    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?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>