Tulsa Parks - potential source of revenue for the city?

[Bledsoe]

SX--the conversation you have started is useful.

First-some facts:  Two of the three parks you have mentioned cannot be sold. 

Maple is not owned by the City. It is owned by the State DOT and leased to the City for a nominal sum.  This land was originally acquired by the State DOT through eminent domain in the late 60s and early 70s as part of the connector for the proposed Riverside Expressway.  Similar land was acquired between 49th & 53rd and Riverside and for what is now part of Johnson Park at 61st and Riverside.  When the Riverside E-way got stopped (remember Betsy Horowitz) the land was leased to the City.

Zink Park was improved in the 70s and 80s with federal funds from the federal land and conservation service (there is a sign noting this partnership).  A condition of this grant was that the land always be used as a park.  No use change can be made without repaying the grant (with interest) and getting permission from the Feds.

Note:  As for Zink--it is also one of the most intensely used parks in the City.  It is really much too small.  This includes the land on the north end.  I learned all this when the Dog Park Task force evaluated Zink for a possible dog park.  I also know how intensely it is used because my step-son lives next to the park at Rockford and 32nd PL.

Swan Lake-I guess the the small open space a the west end could in theory be sold for development.  I would be against this.  The Swan Lake area has limited open space and to eliminate this open space would further degrade the lake to just a sidewalk.  I think you would have a neighborhood revolution.

Legally, selling park land generally is different than selling other types of city property--such as the old city hall.  This land is really not owned by the city it is just held in trust by the city for the people of Tulsa.

"There is a clear distinction, recognized by practically all authorities, between property purchased and held by municipal corporations for the use of the corporation as an entity, and that purchased and held by such corporation for the public use and benefit of its citizens. In other words, its title to and power of disposition of property acquired for strictly corporate uses and purposes are different from its title to and power of disposition of property acquired for and actually dedicated to the public use of its inhabitants. As to the former class the power of the corporation to dispose of it is unquestioned. The rule is different as to the latter class. It is only when the public use has been abandoned, or the property has become unsuitable or inadequate for the purpose to which it was dedicated, that a power of disposition is recognized in the corporation."

From:  STATE EX REL. REMY v. AGAR, 559 P.2d 1235, 1977 OK 6

Procedurally for the City to sell park land the City Council would have to  declare the land surplus and probably would have to go to District Court to have a  judge find that the land truly was surplus and selling the land was in the public interest.  Interested parties--such as the neighbors--could intervene in the case and make the case that it is still in the public interest to use the land for parks.  They could also appeal any adverse decision.  This is a standard and usually non-contested matter, as when TU acquired the public streets that were closed as part of its recent redevelopment.  But in this case I think a lot of folks would object to selling park land that is being used by the public.

All that being said--it is clear to me that the City of Tulsa probably has too much park land--at least too much land in relation to its ability to maintain what it has.  As part of the parks master plan--all parks all over the city were looked at.  Many are in a horrible state of disrepair--with many use functions closed.  Yet not a year goes by when there is not some new proposal from a neighborhood or group for the City to acquire more park land.  The SW Tulsa Chamber proposal for more park land in west Tulsa--the Land Legacy proposal to buy more park land downtown-the approved capitol expenditure of  $5 million for a sea lion exhibit at the zoo are just a few recent examples.  Everyone is willing to find funds to buy the land, but no one can identify a source of funds to operate and maintain the park once it is acquired and built.  (Look at the embarrassingly ill-maintained centennial park at 6th and Main as a prime example).

When existing parks cannot be maintained what are we doing buying more land and/or building more parks?  City parks depend on the general fund for operation and maintenance.  The park budget has been cut more than 100% over the last decade-from about $20 million to less than 10.  Cuts are continuing for 2011 with no ability to raise funds to operate and maintain what we have. 

Yet, the Tulsa metro area has three different park departments--the City, the County and Riverparks.  This does not make sense.  We should form a City-County Park department similar to the health department and library.  This would allow for an independent property tax base that could take advantage of economies of scale, eliminate waste and start managing and restoring our entire park system.  This would also save the City money.

Thoughts?

[Conan71]

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.

You nailed this one, especially the first paragraph.  Parks and greenspace are part of what makes a city liveable.  I don't have to stop and run my dog in a park to appreciate it.  I get to appreciate the visual asset of a break in commercial and residential units being replaced by grass, trees, and other landscaping every time I drive by.

This would reflect horrible judgement on the part of the city if they should ever seriously consider it.

[Conan71]

SX--the conversation you have started is useful.

First-some facts:  Two of the three parks you have mentioned cannot be sold. 

Maple is not owned by the City. It is owned by the State DOT and leased to the City for a nominal sum.  This land was originally acquired by the State DOT through eminent domain in the late 60s and early 70s as part of the connector for the proposed Riverside Expressway.  Similar land was acquired between 49th & 53rd and Riverside and for what is now part of Johnson Park at 61st and Riverside.  When the Riverside E-way got stopped (remember Betsy Horowitz) the land was leased to the City.

Zink Park was improved in the 70s and 80s with federal funds from the federal land and conservation service (there is a sign noting this partnership).  A condition of this grant was that the land always be used as a park.  No use change can be made without repaying the grant (with interest) and getting permission from the Feds.

Note:  As for Zink--it is also one of the most intensely used parks in the City.  It is really much too small.  This includes the land on the north end.  I learned all this when the Dog Park Task force evaluated Zink for a possible dog park.  I also know how intensely it is used because my step-son lives next to the park at Rockford and 32nd PL.

Swan Lake-I guess the the small open space a the west end could in theory be sold for development.  I would be against this.  The Swan Lake area has limited open space and to eliminate this open space would further degrade the lake to just a sidewalk.  I think you would have a neighborhood revolution.

Legally, selling park land generally is different than selling other types of city property--such as the old city hall.  This land is really not owned by the city it is just held in trust by the city for the people of Tulsa.

"There is a clear distinction, recognized by practically all authorities, between property purchased and held by municipal corporations for the use of the corporation as an entity, and that purchased and held by such corporation for the public use and benefit of its citizens. In other words, its title to and power of disposition of property acquired for strictly corporate uses and purposes are different from its title to and power of disposition of property acquired for and actually dedicated to the public use of its inhabitants. As to the former class the power of the corporation to dispose of it is unquestioned. The rule is different as to the latter class. It is only when the public use has been abandoned, or the property has become unsuitable or inadequate for the purpose to which it was dedicated, that a power of disposition is recognized in the corporation."

From:  STATE EX REL. REMY v. AGAR, 559 P.2d 1235, 1977 OK 6

Procedurally for the City to sell park land the City Council would have to  declare the land surplus and probably would have to go to District Court to have a  judge find that the land truly was surplus and selling the land was in the public interest.  Interested parties--such as the neighbors--could intervene in the case and make the case that it is still in the public interest to use the land for parks.  They could also appeal any adverse decision.  This is a standard and usually non-contested matter, as when TU acquired the public streets that were closed as part of its recent redevelopment.  But in this case I think a lot of folks would object to selling park land that is being used by the public.

All that being said--it is clear to me that the City of Tulsa probably has too much park land--at least too much land in relation to its ability to maintain what it has.  As part of the parks master plan--all parks all over the city were looked at.  Many are in a horrible state of disrepair--with many use functions closed.  Yet not a year goes by when there is not some new proposal from a neighborhood or group for the City to acquire more park land.  The SW Tulsa Chamber proposal for more park land in west Tulsa--the Land Legacy proposal to buy more park land downtown-the approved capitol expenditure of  $5 million for a sea lion exhibit at the zoo are just a few recent examples.  Everyone is willing to find funds to buy the land, but no one can identify a source of funds to operate and maintain the park once it is acquired and built.  (Look at the embarrassingly ill-maintained centennial park at 6th and Main as a prime example).

When existing parks cannot be maintained what are we doing buying more land and/or building more parks?  City parks depend on the general fund for operation and maintenance.  The park budget has been cut more than 100% over the last decade-from about $20 million to less than 10.  Cuts are continuing for 2011 with no ability to raise funds to operate and maintain what we have. 

Yet, the Tulsa metro area has three different park departments--the City, the County and Riverparks.  This does not make sense.  We should form a City-County Park department similar to the health department and library.  This would allow for an independent property tax base that could take advantage of economies of scale, eliminate waste and start managing and restoring our entire park system.  This would also save the City money.

Thoughts?

Bledsoe, thanks for the input.  I think this came up recently in discussion that the three park entities could and should be combined.  The problem we have is everyone wants to protect their own little fiefdom (sorry to use such a tired cliche`).  How do we get around that as citizens and over-ride that mentality to the point we can force the three to combine?

Were the houses which were leveled on the east side of Riverside between roughly 45th & 55th part of the old Riverside Expressway project?  I've often wondered why these plots were never adopted for use as park land instead of looking like, well, an abandoned neighborhood.

I think everyone here knows precisely what would happen if the land at the west end of Swan Lake or north end of Zink Park were parcelled for residential development- more Bumgarner Tuscan dreck.

[Bledsoe]

Were the houses which were leveled on the east side of Riverside between roughly 45th & 55th part of the old Riverside Expressway project?  I've often wondered why these plots were never adopted for use as park land instead of looking like, well, an abandoned neighborhood.

Yes.  I was hoping that the turn in Riverside at about 54th would be straightened and more park land acquired on the west side when all the I-44 project was being done.  But looks like no go.

[waterboy]

Bledsoe, I am glad to see your response. I have felt like Cassandra at the walls of Troy for the last few years. Three parks departments is wasteful and allows little kingdoms to flourish and then become unassailable by most of the public yet easily exploited by insiders.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the reason for an authority to be formed is to legally incur debt on a public asset? We needed that to start up the RPA, put in paths, ramps, the dam and Amphitheater, but it no longer is necessary. I'm not even sure it is in debt anymore. Once that authority becomes the playground for builders, developers and foundations, it is only busy with self perpetuation at our expense.

I agree, the parks need maintained on a continuuing basis more than being expanded or re-modeled. Perhaps rather than selling off parts, we could somehow effect long term leases.

[SXSW]

What about the idea of selling the naming rights for certain parks?  Corporations or wealthy citizens could donate to have the park named in their honor which could go in an endowment fund for general upkeep and maintenance. 

[custosnox]

Do we not have an adopt-a-park system in place?  It helps for highways and roads, and it could be a way to do something for the parks.

[Conan71]

What about the idea of selling the naming rights for certain parks?  Corporations or wealthy citizens could donate to have the park named in their honor which could go in an endowment fund for general upkeep and maintenance. 

I don't really have a problem with that and I believe that is how some parks have been named, like Zink Park, or Helmerich Park.  Looking at the list of park names under control of Tulsa P & R, it looks like a list of philanthropists and former leaders.  I would assume some of those were named for people who donated land to the city and perhaps some who donated money to build improvements on the parks.

QT Plaza at 41st & Riverside is a very good low-key example and doesn't look like a commercial sell-out to me.

Here's the city parks web site:

http://www.cityoftulsa.org/culture--recreation/tulsa-parks/parks.aspx

[Jennifer]

The QT plaza, while small and often crowded is a much loved addition to the neighborhood. We live in brookside and use Zink park, the Eliot playground (during off hours) and the new QT park all on a regular basis. 
The neighborhood is attractive, but the lots and yards are small. Zink park could use some updating for sure, but selling off any of that land would be a tragedy.

[carltonplace]

I agree with most of the responses: selling park land for short term revenue shot is a bad idea.

A better long term approach to revenue problems is to use our parks as urban growth stimulators to spur development around them. A good example is Centenial park at 6th and Peoria which is slowly starting to develop at the fringes. I think Veteran's park could do the same at Boulder if we dug up Elm Creek where it runs through on it's way to the river. The park is big enough that it could support a water feature/flood prevention mechanism and still support sports and events.

[SXSW]

I agree with most of the responses: selling park land for short term revenue shot is a bad idea.

A better long term approach to revenue problems is to use our parks as urban growth stimulators to spur development around them. A good example is Centenial park at 6th and Peoria which is slowly starting to develop at the fringes. I think Veteran's park could do the same at Boulder if we dug up Elm Creek where it runs through on it's way to the river. The park is big enough that it could support a water feature/flood prevention mechanism and still support sports and events.

I've thought the same thing about Veterans Park.  It already has the SpiritBank building on the east side and the Boulder Plaza apartment building on the west side (in need of a facelift IMO), as well as some small office buildings.  I could see townhouses like what has been proposed in the past overlooking the park on 21st and the same thing on 18th and where a few small houses are on Boston.  Surrounding the park with residential development would really energize the place and certainly help grow the adjacent SoBo and Riverview areas.  

[Conan71]

Boulder Plaza apartment building on the west side (in need of a facelift IMO),

I'd rather see that post-modern Beirut disaster imploded and start over with something else, perhaps a mixed-use development.

[SXSW]

I'd rather see that post-modern Beirut disaster imploded and start over with something else, perhaps a mixed-use development.

A new exterior skin, like stucco or even EIFS, new windows, and central air to get rid of the window units could really improve that place.  Isn't that a Tulsa Housing Authority project?  I can see that as a deterrent to development around there in its current state.

[Conan71]

A new exterior skin, like stucco or even EIFS, new windows, and central air to get rid of the window units could really improve that place.  Isn't that a Tulsa Housing Authority project?  I can see that as a deterrent to development around there in its current state.

I don't know if it's THA or not, but it's low income. 

[waterboy]

Nah. Out of state private owners. They should have to stay there 24 hours and it would be flattened and rebuilt.