Vision2 - money for parks

[RecycleMichael]

I thought I would start conversations specific to projects proposed in the vision2 funding package. I hope to stay focused on the individual project rather than the timing/politics of the whole package, but I know you guys and soon we will call each other names and speak of how much we like local beer.

The first project I bring up is park money. Parks are important to me. I named my son after a park and I think that a good neighborhood park can help lower crime, keep our families fit, and become a center for community discussion and involvement.

The County has included $7 million for parks and recreational facilities. I think the county has done a great job with LaFortune Park and Chandler Park over the years and I willingly support continued improvement dollars for them.

The City of Tulsa has put on their list $15 million in park money with improvements to Lacy Park and mentioned building a large regional recreational center and money for improvements to the Turkey Mountain urban wilderness area. I also support these projects.

The city spends lots of money on their signature parks. There is a big staff to maintain Woodward Park, Centennial Park, etc. Those parks have beautiful gardens and water features. TulsaParks also spends lots of money to maintain a performing arts center and Henthorne Park, art programs at WaterWorks, and nature programs at Oxley. Sports programs are featured at Whiteside and private dollars have build wonderful playgrounds at Whiteside and Helmerich Park.

What do all these parks have in common? Chandler and Waterworks are on the Westside and all the others are in affluent parts of town. Where is the need for parks probably the greatest? In north Tulsa.

Lacy is a great park already. It is always packed. It has a great pool, a nice gym, and a center always busy with sports camps and dance classes. It serves as the center of life for families for a large population. It could be much more. There are over 13 acres to develop, the outdoor basketball courts suck and their playground pales in fun to the ones at the above mentioned parks. A large regional park would be incredible to the nearby residents.

Turkey Mountain has unbelievable views of the downtown and the river, but is mostly undersized parking lots and poorly maintained trails. Making that a signature park would be a great use of my dollars. I am not a mountain biker or a trail runner, but those who are deserve a place as nice as the park at 21st and Peoria.

I like these projects. I want to fund them.

[Conan71]

I like Marshall's beer.  There it's been invoked.

Is O'Brien Park still open up near Turley? I played flag football there in my younger years and I thought there was a rec center there as well as at Springdale.  All of which I'm certain could probably use attention.  I agree with you that parks increase the livability value of a city and are good for a community as a whole.

However, I almost feel like parks being tossed into a package like this is only a lever to get people to vote for a package which has millions more tagged for things they really don't care for or won't personally experience as an improvement (i.e. all the AA and deal closing $$).  This strikes me as about the same tactic they tried to employ on the river tax when "they" figured out north Tulsa wasn't going to come out and vote for it.  They promised $5mm in park funding for North Tulsa but only if the massive tax grab passed. 

As far as Turkey Mountain, I've got to disagree with your assessment.  The parking lot seems more than ample any time I'm up there with plenty of parking available unless it's on a race day up there.  The off-road trails are un-groomed but actually do get attention from the mountain biking community where/when needed and around racing events.  The rockiness of the trails is considered a good thing by most mountain bikers (I personally don't care for rock gardens though).  The asphalt trails which run through it are pristine.

I'd love to see more park funding via other funding vehicles rather than only using it as a ploy to get people to vote for a bunch of other things they don't view as being something they want or need.

[carltonplace]

Agreed, leave the trails at Turkey Mountain alone: their wildness is their allure.

[RecycleMichael]

However, I almost feel like parks being tossed into a package like this is only a lever to get people to vote for a package which has millions more tagged for things they really don't care for or won't personally experience as an improvement...

I'd love to see more park funding via other funding vehicles rather than only using it as a ploy to get people to vote for a bunch of other things they don't view as being something they want or need.

I agree. Every bond package throws in things like parks to get votes. It has always been this way and will always be. I don't support many things that my taxes pay for, but I want to live in a better community and have to be willing to pay a little more for that.

I have relatives in south Tulsa who are still mad about Tulsa spending to build the BOK arena. They don't go downtown and resent having to pay for others to go to concerts and basketball games. I try to explain how those arenas bring in tourists and boost community pride, but they don't listen.

[carltonplace]

I hear you RM but I can't get on board with this turdkey of a plan. I'd much rather see the list the TN put together than what is in this plan (or even cherry pick from PlaniTulsa)  and I'm willing to wait until the next one comes along and has much better public input process.

[DTowner]

I like parks.  If they include free ice cream and pony rides at the parks, I will vote for V2.

I have already read enough discussion on here on whether or not Turkey Mountain needs what is being proposed to see why this process is ill conceived and rushed.  Parks are good and we need to spend more on them.  However, is this "plan" the best way to do that for the next 17 years?  The extended tax $ won't get collected for 4+ years.  Let's step back and try to gather input and ideas and then analyze and prioritize those ideas into a cohesive plan that has a chance in hell of actually passing.

[nathanm]

What bothers me about the park thing is the rec center. We're already tearing down existing rec centers for lack of money to maintain and staff them. Why should we build another unless we have a dedicated source to pay for those ongoing costs? It's a complete waste. If the city was funding parks out of general revenue at a reasonable level, I would feel quite differently about it. It is undeniable that folks who live in North Tulsa get much worse service from the city, and I think that definitely should change. I just don't think the way to go about that is to build a new building that will get little to no maintenance and be open very few days of the year and end up an eyesore needing to be torn down inside of a decade.

The way to do that is to stop treating north Tulsa like our red headed stepchild every time the possibility of spending money comes up. We seem to be all about making grand gestures in that direction, but we can't seem to create the sustained effort we do for other parts of the city. I guess the occasional grand gesture might make some folks feel better, but I seriously doubt those folks are the residents of north Tulsa who see every day what they're not getting, which makes the sudden concern all the more maddening.

[Conan71]

I like parks.  If they include free ice cream and pony rides at the parks, I will vote for V2.

I have already read enough discussion on here on whether or not Turkey Mountain needs what is being proposed to see why this process is ill conceived and rushed.  Parks are good and we need to spend more on them.  However, is this "plan" the best way to do that for the next 17 years?  The extended tax $ won't get collected for 4+ years.  Let's step back and try to gather input and ideas and then analyze and prioritize those ideas into a cohesive plan that has a chance in hell of actually passing.

I'm curious if the "they" are worried about another economic downturn and that's the big rush to get this shoved through.  That was one of the rumored reasons for the smash and grab nature of the river tax in late '07.

RM- I'm all for parks funding, I simply don't want to have to pay $750 million or so for $40 million in park improvements (or whatever the actual figures are).  Sorry I've not examined this much closer prior to speaking.  The nature of it is so up in the air and rapidly revolving there's no way in hell I'd vote for it at this point.

[Teatownclown]

I go along with Conan and Nate. Besides, how can they propose these capital expenditures without also showing where funding comes from to continually run and maintain the improvements?

There seems to be a panic on to save AA and the airport. I really dislike it when the threat of chaos ensuing becomes the motivating factor.

[DTowner]

I'm curious if the "they" are worried about another economic downturn and that's the big rush to get this shoved through.  That was one of the rumored reasons for the smash and grab nature of the river tax in late '07.

Interesting point on trying to beat a downturn.  While Tulsa fared better economically than many parts of the country, layoffs announced this week at AA and the looming purchase of Dollar Thrifty do not exactly inspire confidence in the local economy.  However, I'm not sure how that plays out in this election.  Rushing out a vote on what can be easily targeted as "corporate welfare" and "giving a blank check to local governments" is not a winning message - even if you're a good pr person.

[Conan71]

Interesting point on trying to beat a downturn.  While Tulsa fared better economically than many parts of the country, layoffs announced this week at AA and the looming purchase of Dollar Thrifty do not exactly inspire confidence in the local economy.  However, I'm not sure how that plays out in this election.  Rushing out a vote on what can be easily targeted as "corporate welfare" and "giving a blank check to local governments" is not a winning message - even if you're a good pr person.

And it may well be nothing more than the idea that since it's a presidential election they will get the highest turnout possible.