REI

[patric]

I thought former Mayor Terry Youngs letter was informative, yet it did not sway the decision.





Mr. Chairman and commissioners, my name is Terry Young. I am a former Tulsa county commissioner and a former Tulsa Mayor.

I was sworn into office as District 2 County Commissioner in November 1976. I immediately began work on building 71st Street bridge, which had been a major issue during my campaign for the office.

Between November 1976 and December of 1983, when the 71st Street bridge was opened to traffic, I was personally involved in the following:

 My District 2 Road Crews laid the asphalt for the very first section of the River-Parks bike and pedestrian trail in 1977 when River-Parks was a little over two years old.
 I personally negotiated donation of the first 350 acres of land for the Turkey Mountain Urban Wilderness Park.
 I personally negotiated donation of the land for the PSO Soccer Park on the West Bank of the river.
 I personally negotiated the acquisition of right of way for construction of 71st Street from the river to Highway 75.
 And, I personally negotiated with the State Department of Transportation the inclusion in the 71st Street bridge construction the structural elements necessary to later add a bike and pedestrian path – which is, in fact, now in place and is THE link of the east side river trail to the west side trail through Turkey Mountain Park.

I tell you this to let you know that in the earliest years of the development of the River Parks system, I was directly involved and, therefore, I can state with authority what the intentions of those engaged in the establishment of River-Parks truly were.
In the area of the 71st Street bridge there was never any expectation of anything but public recreation and preservation and enhancement of the natural state of the land between Riverside Parkway and the river.

Similarly, on the west side of the river there was never an expectation of anything other than recreational and natural-state use of the land north of 71st Street from the bridge to Elwood – the Turkey Mountain area.

Commercial and other moderate to high density uses were expected and encouraged from Riverside Parkway east to Lewis and – on the west side – from Elwood to Highway 75. Coincidentally, you have just today acted on a proposed apartment development on the southwest corner of 71st and Elwood. (It only took 32 years!)

The proposed commercial development on the southwest corner of 71st and Riverside should not be allowed.
I can tell you unequivocally that that corner was always intended to part of the River-Parks system. Even the recently updated comprehensive plan states that, as well as the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan.

That is why the Helmerich family acquired and donated that land to the River-Parks Authority for park purposes in the first place
As Chairman Covey emphatically stated regarding land along the river at 121st and Yale that was donated for Cousins Park, "The donated part of the property is to be used as a public park, period."

And just as Mr. Covey said in the Cousins Park matter, "We're not a bunch of naysayers. We're not a group of NIMBY'S.
Those of us here today opposing any use other than a dedicated park on land donated for that purpose are not against commercial development on the other side of Riverside Parkway. We're FOR responsible use of the land that was donated for and is currently in use as park land.

Therefore, given all of these facts, I believe this matter can quickly be resolved by the Chairman entertaining – or himself making – a clearly germane motion to vacate PUD-128.

In the alternative, I would request that this commission schedule the necessary public hearings to amend the comprehensive plan to reflect this dramatic change in land use at 71st and Riverside Parkway.

[DTowner]

How odd than an outdoor apparel store wants to pave over and ignore the great outdoors to build its Tulsa store. 

Maybe REI can add a "Parking Lot Hiking Apparel" line of clothing to this store.  It would be in great demand in Tulsa.

[SXSW]

^ All it would take is one article in a national publication about how a development that REI is anchoring is paving over a park with well over the maximum parking and little to no interaction with the adjacent natural asset. 

[Conan71]

It's not like there hasn't been recent precedent of a developer changing their plans for a retail development due to public outcry.

[BKDotCom]

Maybe REI can add a "Parking Lot Hiking Apparel" line of clothing to this store.  It would be in great demand in Tulsa.

We already have an Urban Oitfitters.

[swake]

So now that this is all approved and going forward, who gets the money from the sale of the land? Where does that money go and who controls it? Will any of that money go to rebuilding the volleyball site?

[Conan71]

So now that this is all approved and going forward, who gets the money from the sale of the land? Where does that money go and who controls it? Will any of that money go to rebuilding the volleyball site?

The land wasn't sold as I heard on the news, it's a 99 year lease.  I've looked around and can't find the terms published anywhere, but I'm sure they are out there.

[swake]

The land wasn't sold as I heard on the news, it's a 99 year lease.  I've looked around and can't find the terms published anywhere, but I'm sure they are out there.

It would be nice if the terms of the sale/lease were made public, since this is a sale/lease of public land.

[PonderInc]

The land wasn't sold as I heard on the news, it's a 99 year lease.  I've looked around and can't find the terms published anywhere, but I'm sure they are out there.

The decision yesterday by the TPFA was to execute the contract to sell the land.

It's actually pretty hard to understand what they voted on because of Dooeys completely incomprehensible motion.  (Chairman: "Was that a motion?" Dooey: "Yeah, whatever all that stuff was I just said...") (paraphrased, but you get the point.)

Here's the contract: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0BgaBXva60WSGlPUzQwVmowYWs/view?pli=1

It appears that the contract is contingent upon the buyer signing a lease with REI.  (See p. 8, section 6) ("This contract...[is] specifically conditioned upon Buyer, on or before Closing, entering into a satisfactory Lease or Purchase and Sale Contract pursuant to which Buyer leases or sells all or part of the Property to a high-end outdoor retailer that offers its own line of high-quality sports and outdoor gear and apparel, in addition to products from other top brands.")

The contract includes a 99 year deed restriction preventing the property from being used for a bar, a titty bar, a porn store, a medical marijuana store, etc.

[PonderInc]

Another question that was raised in the meeting involves the process that must be followed to declare public property "surplus."

There's a state law that governs a municipality's ability to sell off public property.  The property must be declared "surplus" before it can be sold, and there's a specific public process that must be followed before you can declare a property surplus.

To the best of my understanding, this process was not followed.

One question is whether or not the TPFA is acting on behalf of the City. If so, do they need to follow the same strict rules for declaring a surplus.

The city ordinance that created the TPFA empowers it to buy and sell property on behalf of the city.  And the city lawyer who was on hand suggested that by deciding to sell the park land, the TPFA was essentially declaring it surplus.  She seemed to think that this fulfilled the obligations of the law.

I'm not sure I understood all of the legal details that were raised, so I may not have captured the concepts perfectly.  However, I think it's interesting that the two dissenting votes on the TPFA are both lawyers, and their major concern was that the TPFA didn't have the right to sell the property.

I think this is an important question.  If anyone knows a lawyer  it might be interesting to take a look at the state statutes related to declaring city property "surplus."

[Conan71]

Another question that was raised in the meeting involves the process that must be followed to declare public property "surplus."

There's a state law that governs a municipality's ability to sell off public property.  The property must be declared "surplus" before it can be sold, and there's a specific public process that must be followed before you can declare a property surplus.

To the best of my understanding, this process was not followed.

One question is whether or not the TPFA is acting on behalf of the City. If so, do they need to follow the same strict rules for declaring a surplus.

The city ordinance that created the TPFA empowers it to buy and sell property on behalf of the city.  And the city lawyer who was on hand suggested that by deciding to sell the park land, the TPFA was essentially declaring it surplus.  She seemed to think that this fulfilled the obligations of the law.

I'm not sure I understood all of the legal details that were raised, so I may not have captured the concepts perfectly.  However, I think it's interesting that the two dissenting votes on the TPFA are both lawyers, and their major concern was that the TPFA didn't have the right to sell the property.

I think this is an important question.  If anyone knows a lawyer   it might be interesting to take a look at the state statutes related to declaring city property "surplus."

According to the Tulsa Whirled, the question of the property having been properly surplused was the reason for the two dissenting votes of board members.  And it would be nice too, if the media could get its story straight (i.e. 99 year lease vs. purchase) prior to blabbing that out.

[carltonplace]

I think this REI boondoggle will kill any chance of a yes vote to put "water in the river"

Why exactly do we need water in the river if we are just going to sell off public land and land in trust to build bone headed big box developments that don't even face the water in the river

[PonderInc]

You'll be pleased to know that the developer said this is "not a big box store."  After all, it's only 27,000 SF (or whatever) vs.a super Walmart.

I guess we're all confused b/c they're building more parking than a super Walmart could ever hope to utilize for this little modest sized development.  

Oh, and in case anyone was wondering, it's a "lifestyle center."  

By lifestyle, I think they mean "drive and park and admire all the asphalt."

[dsjeffries]

You'll be pleased to know that the developer said this is "not a big box store."  After all, it's only 27,000 SF (or whatever) vs.a super Walmart.

I guess we're all confused b/c they're building more parking than a super Walmart could ever hope to utilize for this little modest sized development. 

Oh, and in case anyone was wondering, it's a "lifestyle center." 

By lifestyle, I think they mean "drive and park."

Yes, the term the developer used is "junior box". They equate "big box" stores to the entire Tulsa Hills development with 1,000,000 SF of leaseable space.

Having a "junior box" is like having a "mild" heart attack. In the end, it's still a heart attack.

I think this REI boondoggle will kill any chance of a yes vote to put "water in the river"

Why exactly do we need water in the river if we are just going to sell off public land and land in trust to build bone headed big box developments that don't even face the water in the river

I think you're right, and it's exactly what Councilor Bynum has been worried about. On one hand, we've got the mayor claiming this suburban style development is exactly the type of thing we want to see on the river, and on the other, we've got Councilor Bynum saying that development would be much more thoughtful in its approach. Those competing ideologies will do nothing but cause confusion among voters.

[DTowner]

Yes, the term the developer used is "junior box". They equate "big box" stores to the entire Tulsa Hills development with 1,000,000 SF of leaseable space.

Having a "junior box" is like having a "mild" heart attack. In the end, it's still a heart attack.


I think you're right, and it's exactly what Councilor Bynum has been worried about. On one hand, we've got the mayor claiming this suburban style development is exactly the type of thing we want to see on the river, and on the other, we've got Councilor Bynum saying that development would be much more thoughtful in its approach. Those competing ideologies will do nothing but cause confusion among voters.

I think the REI and the Jenks outlet mall developments give the "no damns" advocates a lot of added ammunition in another way as well.  If these developments are already happening along the river without the damns and the orientation of these developments are basically oblivious to the river itself, why bother spending all that money building damns just to get "development."  Based on these projects, you can make a pretty strong argument that all land along the river with development potential is going to get developed in time with or without the damns.  The only group left to benefit from a Jenks damn is the Creek Nation, and they are still being coy as to any firm dollar commitment for a damn.