Tulsa Parks - potential source of revenue for the city?

[SXSW]

The city recently released a parks master plan and is seeking public input.  An excerpt from the TW article:

With most of the park facilities within the city's 100-year-old park system reaching the end of their life spans and the park budget's having been reduced significantly over the last decade, important decisions need to be made, officials told about 40 people attending Tuesday's unveiling.

"There is no better time to look at our land and facilities to determine the best use," Park and Recreation Department Director Lucy Dolman said. "Whether it is to repurpose a building or consider new amenities, we need to take a good look at organization and then plan for a sustainable, quality park system."

While it may be controversial I think the city needs to look where they can sell some of the park land in certain areas of the city.  Three areas that immediately come to mind are Zink Park, Swan Lake Park, and Maple Park all in midtown.  These are areas where land prices are at a premium and selling SOME land in each park would net the city a considerable amount of money as well as save in the long run with less maintenance and upkeep.  

For Zink Park the city could sell several parcels for new homes along the north end of the park along 33rd Street, where only an empty field would be lost.  At Swan Lake the parcel at the west end of the lake next to St. Louis could be sold and subdivided into two very expensive lots with lake views.  And at Maple Park the city could sell its land at the east end of the park where Detroit dead ends, which could then be extended and new homes built; the same for Madison where land is at a premium because of the desirable neighborhood and skyline views.  In each case have the city mandate that the new development be in line with the historic neighborhoods around it.  There would be other cases throughout the city where this could occur but these are the ones I'm most familiar with.  

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20100331_11_A10_Fiveco287218&archive=yes

[waterboy]

I would leave the city should our parks start being sold off piecemeal. Very bad idea. Can you imagine NY selling off chunks of Central Park because of its great location and views? How about the Grand Canyon? We aren't that bad off yet.

[SXSW]

I'm not saying this is what needs to happen but it's something that should be looked at, along with other city properties that could be repurposed.  The money made by selling some of this land could go towards upkeep and improvements at the parks.  I hate seeing some of these parks with weeds and overgrown grass.  There needs to be a revenue stream dedicated just for parks and new trail construction.  Keep in mind Tulsa has a LOT of park land, more than any city our size.

[godboko71]

I like the idea of selling off underutilized sections of parts to buy new land for new green space in other parts of the city. I would not like the idea of the money going towards anything else though. But it isn't a bad idea for a way to make the parks we have better and get the land for new or future green space.

One thing I know for sure, our parks are underutilized by our citizens, and I think part of that is people don't know they can rent community centers for events, promoters don't know they can rent space and unitize for outdoor shows and the like. We also may need to look at out fee's maybe they are to high and limiting our spaces use. Maybe a 20-30% drop in rates would net a 50-60% increase in usage. Then again maybe proper promotion along would net a large increase in facility usage.

I was walking in New Block park up the trial into the neighborhood the other day and I was thinking how cool it would be to see some concerts on the hill right next to the trail. They could not be huge events maybe just 200ish people on that hill. But if the fees are low enough it could be a neat place for local bands to perform on weekends over the spring summer and fall. 

[Breadburner]

Selling off park land is terrible idea and extremely short sighted......

[nathanm]

Selling off park land is terrible idea and extremely short sighted......

I am in full agreement with this statement. Reducing services is one thing, but selling off the land itself is a horse of a different color.

[rwarn17588]

Keep in mind Tulsa has a LOT of park land, more than any city our size.

No, it doesn't. The average for cities in our approximate population density is 9.6% percent of the land being dedicated to parks. Tulsa's is 6.3%.

Sure, it does better than a few other cities, including OKC. But to claim that Tulsa has more park land than any city our size is simply not true, as this report shows:

http://www.tpl.org/content_documents/citypark_facts/ccpe_TotalAcresPercentofLandArea_08.pdf

[RecycleMichael]

Selling off park land would be a very controversial measure. I would sure hate us to go there.

Maybe we could just sell the naming rights...

[waterboy]

Does it make sense that the city owns vacant land that has sat undeveloped for decades downtown and makes little effort to sell it, but we would consider selling off parts of the parks? This would be more than controversial, this would be quite foolish.

We would be forced to measure park usage around town and make decisions as to which ones are least used and thus suitable for sale. Once you open that door it will only swing open wider. Perhaps an entire park like Maple or Gunboat, or that precious little park on Gary between 11th and 15th would disappear entirely robbing neighborhoods of both character and pleasure. Worse yet, it would add little to the park departments long term funding.

There has to be a better way.

[Red Arrow]

There have been many posts on TNF saying that parks are like the community back yard for high(er) density housing that make urban life acceptable.  Once it's gone, you will most likely never get it back.  I say keep the parks.  Maybe sell some parking lot land downtown.

Even Bixby (you know, suburbia) has a few parks.  Most back yards aren't big enough for a neighborhood ball game, community picnic, etc.

Fees should not be so high as to discourage park use.  Want to consider making the River Parks Trails "toll roads"?  I hope not.

[Breadburner]

Revenue is recuring....Selling of parks is a one time hit.....Not worth it.....

[YoungTulsan]

Many if not most of our parks are in flood plains.  They serve as beautification of the city, and recreation for people, but when the big 10" rain downpour hits, they fill up with water.

[buckeye]

Better a park floods than somebody's house.

I would leave the city should our parks start being sold off piecemeal. Very bad idea.

For once, you and I agree on something, Waterboy. 

[dbacks fan]

Once it's gone, you will most likely never get it back. 

My sentiments exactly. Very bad idea.

[waterboy]

Better a park floods than somebody's house.
For once, you and I agree on something, Waterboy. 

Its a foundation we can work upon.