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 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20100331_11_A10_Fiveco287218&archive=yes)
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.
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.
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.
Selling off park land is terrible idea and extremely short sighted......
Quote from: Breadburner on May 02, 2010, 06:59:25 PM
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.
Quote from: SXSW on May 02, 2010, 03:33:17 PM
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
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...
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.
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.
Revenue is recuring....Selling of parks is a one time hit.....Not worth it.....
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.
Better a park floods than somebody's house.
QuoteI would leave the city should our parks start being sold off piecemeal. Very bad idea.
For once, you and I agree on something, Waterboy. :)
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 02, 2010, 09:31:10 PMOnce it's gone, you will most likely never get it back.
My sentiments exactly. Very bad idea.
Quote from: buckeye on May 03, 2010, 04:54:56 PM
Better a park floods than somebody's house.
For once, you and I agree on something, Waterboy. :)
Its a foundation we can work upon. :)
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?
Quote from: waterboy on May 02, 2010, 08:30:40 PM
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.
Quote from: Bledsoe on May 05, 2010, 08:30:21 AM
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.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 05, 2010, 10:08:56 AM
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: SXSW on May 05, 2010, 12:48:34 PM
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
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.
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.
Quote from: carltonplace on May 10, 2010, 03:26:00 PM
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.
Quote from: SXSW on May 10, 2010, 10:05:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 11, 2010, 10:10:36 AM
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.
Quote from: SXSW on May 11, 2010, 10:34:10 AM
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.
Nah. Out of state private owners. They should have to stay there 24 hours and it would be flattened and rebuilt.
Quote from: waterboy on May 11, 2010, 11:12:29 AM
Nah. Out of state private owners. They should have to stay there 24 hours and it would be flattened and rebuilt.
Yes! Make them live there, that place is a terrible eyesore and I often think that it is 10x worse on the interior
Speaking of parks, and yes this is a sign of how long I've been gone, when did they rename Hicks Park to Bowman Park?
Quote from: dbacks fan on June 30, 2010, 12:51:18 PM
Speaking of parks, and yes this is a sign of how long I've been gone, when did they rename Hicks Park to Bowman Park?
I noticed that on google earth and have been wondering that myself. Given the fact that I only live a mile an a half from it, you would have thought I would have noticed before now.
Quote from: custosnox on June 30, 2010, 02:32:51 PM
I noticed that on google earth and have been wondering that myself. Given the fact that I only live a mile an a half from it, you would have thought I would have noticed before now.
It must be Google, because COT website lists it as Hicks.