Master Plan Images

Newest versions of master plan, posted on Benham site November 30, 2005. Click on images below to view larger. For original versions of these graphics please visit the Benham OSU master plan site: http://osu.benham.com/Planning%20Progress/Forms/AllItems.aspx

2005-11-30 Proposed Plan Area
Outline of Proposed
Athletic District
2005-11-30 Proposed Plan Area 1-5 year development
1-5 Year Proposed
Athletic District
2005-11-30 Proposed Plan Area 1-5 year development
20 Year Proposed
Athletic District
This entry was posted in Misc. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Master Plan Images

  1. David Demezas says:

    Has anyone tried to obtain a loan to purchase a house in the Washington Heights (between W. Eskridge and W. Graham) / Knapp Street area west of Washington? Or do you know of anyone who has tried to obtain a loan? Were they successful or was the bank hesitant? A person attending the Tuesday Meeting at the Library mentioned to me that she was aware of a family who was interested in buying a house on Knapp and their loan was denied because, to paraphrase “the bank was hesitant to make loans for purchases in this area because of the uncertainty of the situation with the OSU expansion.”

    I spoke to another resident on W. Knapp about her upcoming retirement. She said she was going to hold off because “my house is tanked” meaning that she doesn’t feel she will be able to sell it promptly. She mentioned that there has been a house on the market on this same street for many months when before the Master Plans were released, houses were selling within the month. Admittingly, there may be other reasons this house has not sold quickly. But this does raise a concern to residents in this area who had plans to move and need to sell there house.

  2. I find Benham’s list of stakeholders on this website very interesting. Working in Human Resources for the last 20 years or so, it appears to me that Benham’s list of stakeholders is lacking participation from a key group, the homeowners impacted. The typical definition of stakeholders consists of key individuals and groups that are a part of or will become a part of any initiative from start to finish. Typical pitfalls in engaging key stakeholders include lack of political sensitivity, assuming that everyone will automatically be supportive, underestimating the resistance, not considering the impact of the change from the viewpoint of those affected, change planned in isolation. It appears to me that a group of key stakeholders has been ignored during the inception and now in the execution of this project. Why would the University who gained it’s initial momentum to become a university from these stakeholders basically ignore them in this process? Don’t our taxes support this institution, doesn’t their support come from these stakeholders they are impacting?

  3. doug emde says:

    I find it interesting that a bank would redline a neighborhood. That is one of the 3 big no no’s when it come to fair housing laws. Knap is nowhere near the expansion area. Even if the loan were within the targeted area, the bank would have their appraisal and they would loan up to 95% of the FMV, so they would get their money back. Something fishy is going on and if one bank won’t loan the money go to another.

  4. Doug Emde says:

    I find it interesting that up until now all of the press releases referred to the Bond purchase as being 20% of the land being sought. Finally, someone within the foundation realized that the 20% number will not work with a budgeted 30 million dollars for purchase. Has anyone else noticed that now the University is quoting the Bond purchase as being 40% of the market value of the targeted area. {Moderator’s note: I believe the foundation has said that the Bond property represents 20% of the overall plan from campus thru Eskridge but 40% of property from campus to South of McElroy..the immediate plan.}

    Now what is really disturbing is the foundation giving the Adlers 62,000 for a their house that was appraised by the Payne County assessor at $91000. {Moderator’s note: You are right. The “bonus” paid in the amount of $300.00 for each year they lived in their home and an additional amount for moving expenses are NOT counted as “sale” price and therefore not considered as a part of the “fair market” value.} The assessor is bound by law to appraise all properties within the county at fair market value and the foundation ignored this and took their appraiser’s opinion of market value. I have seen one appraisal by a company out of all places Jenks. Now what experience a Jenks appraiser has valuing property in a university town I do not know. I do know this, the appraiser missed two comparable sales within 5 blocks of the subject which would have given a higher indication of value. These kind of significant errors occur when you hire appraisers not familiar with Stillwater and that are not members of the Stillwater Multiple Listing service.

  5. Tamara Colbert Maschino says:

    This really makes our family hesitant to have any appraisals done, apparently all the talk about being fair to residents and listening to their needs is just that “all talk”. The changing figures on the Bond percentage is disturbing, how will that impact our properties.

    I find the $300 amount of bonus per year insulting and unbeliveable paltry for longtime residents . When we first heard of the bonus per year, our family wondered if this was a smoke and mirrors approach that would be taken from the homes appraisal. This is not the time for OSU to make errors on comparable sales, this is the time for them to be generous with these retirees. We have talked with families living south of McElroy who do not know what they will do, where they will live , or how they will make this work out. Some of the seniors were unclear on what was happening to them, I am afraid they will be pushed into decisions that are unfair to them.

  6. Marion Agnew says:

    With the new announcement of $165 million from T Boone Pickens, OSU should be able to pay each homeowner $100,000 minimum, plus some kind of “signing bonus.”

    WILL OSU do anything remotely resembling that? No.

  7. Pam Poe says:

    165 Million!! Imagine that announcement a week before the Regents are to meet and perhaps approve the Master Plan … it’s all but approved now. I guess everyone in the 5 to 20 year plan better be preparted to sell quicker than we thought! Unbelievable!!!

  8. Marion Agnew says:

    If the Regents approve this plan, they’re committing OSU to decades of scrambling to support a risky plan with an unquantifiable and uncertain payoff.

    Holder and Regents Chair Burns Hargis were both clear that the $165 million pays only for facilities — it doesn’t include any ongoing maintenance, like keeping the lights and air conditioning on and the grass cut. The $35 million of OSU’s current athletic budget can’t support this. Both of them emphasized that the alumni and other people in the OSU Family will have to step up whatever they’ve been giving. Presumably ticket prices will go up. Presumably faculty salaries and student financial support won’t catch up to the national average.

    It’s very tempting to give up and say “it’s a done deal.” But it’s still a bad deal. And it’s still important to continue to point that out to the Regents, the elected officials, and the Governor.

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>