BROKEN ARROW — A standing-room-only crowd of Broken Arrow residents opposing the proposed Bell’s Amusement Park raised their concerns to the Broken Arrow City Council Tuesday night.
The crowd filled the council chambers, and an overflow room itself was overflowing, with a group of people lining the doorway into the hall.
The amusement park proposal was not on the agenda, so the people speaking about the park did so during the public comment portion of the meeting. No action from the City Council could be taken on the issue, but City Manager Michael Spurgeon did speak on the subject after residents were finished.
Eight residents spoke against the plan to build a new Bell’s Amusement Park in east Broken Arrow, and one person spoke in favor of it.
Linda Montgomery, who lives near the proposed site, presented a petition signed by area residents opposed to the amusement park.
Montgomery said the petition came from members of the “Community Watch Team of Broken Arrow.”
“We hereby protest and oppose and forbid the heavy commercial development of a 102-acre amusement park located at 71st Street to 81st Street east of the Creek Turnpike to 212th East Avenue, Broken Arrow,” Montgomery read from the petition.
“We oppose and forbid the proposed 102-acre park, which encroaches on multiple neighborhoods of over 1,000 Broken Arrow homeowners.”
She said the park would affect those homeowners’ property values, livelihoods, and mental and physical health, as well as would lead to increased crime and the destruction of wildlife in the area.
An increase in homes for sale in the affected neighborhoods already shows the damage the park would have on the area, she said, and residents who only recently purchased homes in those neighborhoods were “devastated” when they learned about the new development.
“We the undersigned implore you, each of you, to do what is right, what is just, for thousands of families that would be affected by your decision to move forward with this planned nightmare,” she said. “It’s the wrong location. It’s the wrong development for our neighborhoods.”
The petition, which was addressed to the City Council as well as to amusement park developer Robby Bell, who was at the meeting, was signed by residents from several neighborhoods in the area of 71st Street and the Creek Turnpike.
Montgomery did not acknowledge or respond to the Tulsa World’s question after the public comment hearing about how many signatures were on the petition.
The crowd of hundreds at the meeting was overwhelmingly against the proposal, however, as Montgomery received a large round of applause from council chambers and the overflow room.
Other residents who spoke against the proposal largely focused on the potential for crime increase and property value decrease.
Doug Campbell, a former Tulsa police officer and former chief of criminal investigators at the Tulsa County District Attorney’s Office, pointed to Orlando, Florida, and said a study published in Justice Quarterly showed crime near Universal Studios, similarly sized to the proposed Bell’s park, increased 110%.
Johnny Walker also pointed out areas around large amusement parks and their crime rates.
Using crimegrade.org as his reference, Walker said the ZIP codes around Frontier City in Oklahoma City, Silver Dollar City in Branson, Missouri, Worlds of Fun in Kansas City, Missouri, and Six Flags over Texas in Arlington, Texas, all had crime ratings of D or below.
Crime Grade shows Frontier City’s ZIP code, 73131, has a rating of C plus, while the others all do have D ratings.
The ZIP code of the proposed park site, 74014, has a B-plus rating, and Walker said that would be lost if Bell’s is allowed to develop there.
Property values would also take a hit, Stephanie Williams said. The people around the site would lose property value, affecting property taxes that go to Broken Arrow Public Schools, the county and the city’s general obligation bonds.
“This is not the place; this is not the time,” Williams said. “You’re taking away your ‘cash cow’ from your property taxes, which we all here have paid, that support the school, support the city, support the town, support our community, and now you’re pulling that out from under us.”
Williams advised the council and Bell to move the amusement park to somewhere “truly rural” and let it develop there.
Then people can decide whether they want to move there or not.
“Dropping Bell’s in my bedroom community gives us no choice,” she said. “And it will drain BA’s cash cow.”
A community member named Matt was the lone speaker in favor of the proposed amusement park.
He said that while people against the development claim that the park will lower property values, a study on Coney Island in New York City indicates that property values and development will actually increase.
After Coney Island was created, a residential building that would be the tallest building in Brooklyn at the time was built next to it. The increase in development in Broken Arrow would bring in jobs, which would attract young people to the city, he said.
Broken Arrow City Manager Michael Spurgeon said the city and the council will take all the residents’ concerns seriously and weigh those factors while the proposal is considered.
Since the land is already zoned for heavy commercial, which an amusement park would require, the city has to go through the process of considering this development, City Councilor Scott Eudey said.
Councilors have no legal way to object to the development even if they wanted to, since no zoning changes would be needed, but, Eudey said, the city can make sure the amusement park follows all ordinances and city laws if it were to proceed.
Speaking directly to Bell, Spurgeon said the council and he share the same concerns about the project.
“I can assure you, the council members and I — this is for you, Mr. Bell,” Spurgeon said. “We have the exact same concerns you do about traffic, about storm water and about other impacts your potential development and your partners can have on our community.
“And while this is a tremendous opportunity, this council is going to look at this very seriously because we don’t want the storm water to increase on other developments. We don’t want crime to increase in the area.”