New turnpikes

[csh]

Anyone impacted by the proposed OTA turnpike expansions? The "pikeoffota" site lists 665 homes lost, which actually seems pretty reasonable given the scope of the project. It'd suck to move if you were really old or maybe had kids and had to change schools over it, but there's only so much you can do to avoid existing structures when routing it. I've heard "fix the roads we have", but you can only widen a road so much. A turnpike rep said that the project should've been executed 10 years ago, and I can't argue when I see the slowdowns on I-35 starting as early as 2:30pm. Thoughts?

 

[Pokes28]

I think there should be three lanes in each direction for new turnpike builds. Two lanes would be "normal" lanes and then a lane that is illegal for semi-trucks to use.

 

[Pancreek1]

The Creek Turnpike taking half the homes in our S. Tulsa neighborhood in the late 80's (at the ripe age of 30) was, at the time, a HUGELY positive financial windfall for me. We hired the right eminent domain lawyer who knew all the tricks and how to game the system and ended up getting way more than FMV. Made us mortgage free at 30.

 

[csh]

The Creek Turnpike taking half the homes in our S. Tulsa neighborhood in the late 80's (at the ripe age of 30) was, at the time, a HUGELY positive financial windfall for me. We hired the right eminent domain lawyer who knew all the tricks and how to game the system and ended up getting way more than FMV. Made us mortgage free at 30.

Just curious, do you remember any of the tactics the lawyer used? A while back I read a complaint that the proposed southeast stretch around Norman will "destroy the rose rocks." I'm not sure if that can be monetized though.

 

[Pancreek1]

I’ve slept since then, but as I remember there is a real trick about having the initial three evaluators be extremely low, as you only need to be need to be 10% difference, to force it to a trial. I don’t know how that helps in your situation

 

[csh]

I’ve slept since then, but as I remember there is a real trick about having the initial three evaluators be extremely low, as you only need to be need to be 10% difference, to force it to a trial. I don’t know how that helps in your situation

I'm not actually affected by it, just thought it was an interesting topic. I'm sure the majority will accept it as progress and move on, but there's a few "cold dead hands" that are the most vocal.

 

[osutater]

When are the going cashless between Enid and Tulsa? They built the overheads but construction has seemed to stop

 

[The Duke]

I think there should be three lanes in each direction for new turnpike builds. Two lanes would be "normal" lanes and then a lane that is illegal for semi-trucks to use.

We have those 3rd lanes all over Texas.

I see semi drivers break the law every 5 minutes and they logjam the entire highway.

 

[anon_lnhkpgkt86jc6]

The N-S leg, as I understand it, was plotted so that instead of going down an existing road and taking out the houses that are along the road, they went between two old section line roads, so that everyone living on the two section lines doesn't have their houses condemned, but has a turnpike being constructed behind their homes. And it's a rural area. They basically gutshot landowners by running the highway behind their homes instead of just taking the homes and cashing the homeowners out.

 

[csh]

The N-S leg, as I understand it, was plotted so that instead of going down an existing road and taking out the houses that are along the road, they went between two old section line roads, so that everyone living on the two section lines doesn't have their houses condemned, but has a turnpike being constructed behind their homes. And it's a rural area. They basically gutshot landowners by running the highway behind their homes instead of just taking the homes and cashing the homeowners out.

Are you referring to the proposed one that will start south of Norman and run northeast to the Kickapoo turnpike? In the scenario you mentioned it seems like it's lose-lose in that people will be mad when get they don't get what think they should in a buyout, and will be mad when it's built behind them. The latter seems like it would have less opposition, as least from a legal standpoint.

 

[anon_lnhkpgkt86jc6]

Are you referring to the proposed one that will start south of Norman and run northeast to the Kickapoo turnpike? In the scenario you mentioned it seems like it's lose-lose in that people will be mad when get they don't get what think they should in a buyout, and will be mad when it's built behind them. The latter seems like it would have less opposition, as least from a legal standpoint.

Yes.

If you have an acreage on that road, you'll save your house and have a new turnpike a couple hundred yards off your back porch if the state gets their way. Most people would prefer to cash out the fair market value of their house and have a new home where they want instead of selling off some land for a little $ and have their depreciated house next to a turnpike. The lawyers will claim the entire parcel is taken. As they should -- I hope those people get bought out in toto and not just a route behind their house. The sound alone would depreciate the property.