I filled in about 600-700 acres. You can't just hand-wave 90% of that away because you think it seems stupid.
I didn't hand waive anything. I covered all the tracks by actually looking at property records. Everything I stated was accurate and you refuted none of it. I tried to be brief, but I will restate and expand:
1. I've heard more than once this place is not long for this world. While there is water there sometimes, the new dams are supposed to bring a longer and more regular water level.
I canoe on that river. I cycle along the river. I hang out at River Parks West, Blue Rose, and at Elwoods. That stretch of river nearly always has water in it. I'm not sure I have ever seen that part of the river enter into "desert phase" like the southern part of the river does unless Zink is closed for maintenance (which has been a more frequent recent issue).
And that still doesn't cover the economic question. The property is worth tens of millions of dollars as it stands. It is well occupied and reasonably well maintained. The primary draw backs of Westport are the ghetto nearby, the (occasional in my view) refinery smell, and the location (good and bad IMHO). I have never heard anyone who lived at or considered living at Westport say "I would be happy to double my rent if there was another 6" of water in that river."
2. See #1
The concrete plant is even CLOSER to the dam. It always has water, barring some sort of intentional draining of Zink lake. It has been available for development, with water in the river, for decades.
3. The skate park is in for shape and the city land is a lot closer than your portray it to be. The actual Riverparks area is only about 10 yards across in some of that area.
The skate park and parking lot ARE within sight of the river and are within ~100 yards of it. The City land to the West of there is not. Hence, i stated
"Outside of the area taken up by the parking lot and the skate park, there isn't accessible land there that even views the river." We certainly could give up the parking lot, access point, restrooms, and skate park for development (there is also some great land currently occupied by dead Roses near 21st and Peoria we could develop!), but the rest of the area is either not accessible or not within sight of the river.
Again, you can see this on the Sat maps in addition to actually being there a couple tie=mes per week. And again, giving up parkland for "development" is not something worth spending hundreds of millions of dollars on.
4. The soccer complex, to the best of my knowledge, is owned by AEP. Most of that land is underused and worth almost nothing now, despite being about a mile off the highway and on the river. Had the 41st bridge been built, there would be development here now. Widening 41st would be easy and the industrial area would become commercial quickly. As for the levy, they could build a parking garage with restaurant/retail above and have killer views.
The land is owned by River Parks. You are again advocating taking away park land and selling it (almost certainly below market value) for development after we spend hundreds of millions to improve it.
Ignoring that, the refinery does not want that land developed and would exert considerable influence to prevent that from happening. AEP does not want that land developed. Access to that site is poor and relies on a small road through an industrial complex, widening that road would not be easy given the location of many of those factories. If you managed to do that, you are surrounded by abandoned houses and, whatever the polite term is for really trashy properties; as well as heavy industry - including the aforementioned refinery. Ignoring all that, the
only draw to that land would be the location in proximity to the "now filled" river.
BUT - the river is behind a levy (sure, we could all build 4 story buildings with views from the roof, but I'm trying to discuss this in practical terms). Also, there is the small matter of the fact THAT THERE WILL NOT BE WATER IN THE RIVER AT THAT SPOT! The south dam only backs water up to 71st, and only to the east bank of 71st.
So that's another instance in which the area could have been developed for decades as it stands. The river at that location is not going to significantly be altered (if the Sand Springs dam were constructed, we would have a small flow at the location, but not "water in the river" like around Zink). Why would it suddenly be desirable (ignoring all the above issues).
6. I didn't include the biosolids facility.
The biosolids plant is part of the same tract of land bordering 71st St. that you did include. Furthermore, to get to the tract of land that you did highlight you would have to drive through the bio solids sites off of 71st St. (recall 71st is elevated at this location) or go up and around and under via the unimproved road (which is an interesting hike, fwiw). Finally, it seems unlikely that high end condos would go in next to the piles of drying human feces (granted, I've never smelled a problem driving or riding by). So it seems more likely that the City would have to sell the entire tract.
AND, of course, I didn't address the fact that the plans don't call for "water in the river" at that location. At best, there will be a tail of the lake on the east bank of the river behind the big box development. It will be more water than is there now, but not a picturesque lake or anything of sort. It will remain a trickle of water just downstream from the turd plant.
But I granted that this area can potentially be developed.
-- - - - - -
So we could tear down existing successful development and count that as "new." We could develop a site that has sat as a concrete plant alongside a river full of water for 30 years. We could remove a parking lot and skate park in order to put development. We could pretend that we can develop soccer fields that no one has wanted developed for a generation, cant see the river, and won't have water in front of them. And yes, we could develop a small parcel of land near where there might be some water in the river.
Hell, lets ignore all that. Lets pretend all 600 acres is opened up for development and would bring spectacular new growth all along the river. After we spend money on infrastructure and the dams, we are in for more than $500,000 per acre. Even if we weren't trading existing development and park land for it... what's the expected ROI on that?
I'm all for public works projects. I'm for quality of life. I'm for redoing Zink Dam. But the overall plan to add water to Jenks and Creek land makes ZERO sense to me. I see nothing in it for me, for the City of Tulsa, or even for the region. The Creeks will have prettier views for their new quarter billion dollar casino and new shopping complex. Jenks will gain a handful of riverfront parcels... but they won't even gain much.
I don't get it at all.
