I think the public opposition to this project has, sadly, become all about saving parkland at all costs, when, in reality, there are more nuanced positions out there. I'm not categorically against developing parkland (this spot or otherwise). Partially because, I think Tulsa is fortunate to have a lot of great parkland and losing Helmerich wouldn't make that big a difference in our park inventory.
But also because, and more importantly, I think development in all of our parks would be great, as long as its done tastefully. The consensus here seems to be that more Elwoods, more things like the Ice House, would be a good thing. That kind of stuff actually draws people out to experience the parks more. I'd like to see quite a bit of that up and down Riverparks and elsewhere.
The problem with this REI proposal is that's not at all tasteful. So I'm happy to see its certainty waning. I'm afraid, though, that the lesson learned by the townsfolk, city hall, and developers will be "Parks good. Any businesses in parks bad!" And we've shot ourselves in the foot and lost out on opportunities for cool, new stuff in the future.
I think what precipitated the
awareness of just how tortured this transaction is was the shitty design and ground utilization when it got rolled out. Had the design been something which really embraced the river, I do believe this project would have never risen to the level of protest that it has. In fact, it might have happened with relatively little fanfare. There’s something for most everyone to dislike about it whether it is the bad design, the undervalued sale, or simply not following the proper legal process.
Some people have pursued the illegal transaction angle and/or undervalued sale angle to try and combat the terrible design and prevent the transaction from happening.
Terry Young, Herb Beatty, Jeff Immel, et. al. are primarily concerned with the fact this park was placed into a public trust specifically to prevent it from being developed commercially. Knowing Walt Helmerich’s affinity for parks and park land and the work he put into securing this property, there is little doubt the namesake of this park would agree this was not the intended purpose of this land...ever. His widow has even echoed that sentiment.
That said, there was to have been much more to this park, the intention was never for this to be a sand lot and briar patch which is basically all it has ever amounted to. There were always bigger priorities in the budget and no one stepped up with a private fund drive to improve the amenities in the park. But that, in itself, did not allow the TPFA in concert with the mayor’s economic development director, to try and develop the land for commercial purposes.
As a secondary issue to this group: In order for the TPFA to
legally sell or otherwise dispose of the property required a declaration from the city council that the land was surplus and was being abandoned from its purpose as a park. TPFA did not have this granted by the council prior to entering into an agreement with the developer.
It probably would have been a good idea to have had that declaration from the council before an RFP was let out on the land. The RFP could have also been better promoted so that this didn’t take on the appearance of a backroom deal between an out of state developer and a member of the mayor’s staff who just so happens to be connected to the real estate business.
What the city has is a bad image problem on its hands. Its process for this did not follow the law, it was less than transparent, and the development does not harmonize well with its surroundings.
Instead of realizing and owning up to their errors, this administration has a bad problem with blaming "tree-huggers and naysayers” for Tulsa becoming unfriendly to developers. In reality, our zoning code and approach to developing on properties like this needs to show some self-esteem and respect for the surroundings instead of begging people to plop down layup concrete dreck.