October 2021 - Parks & Recreation - 32

LAW REVIEW
Abandonment Resolutions
As cited by the
state supreme
court, under Oklahoma law, " to
constitute abandonment in respect
to property, there must be a concurrence
of the intention to abandon
and an actual relinquishment of
the property so that it may be appropriated
by the next comer " :
In
determining whether one
has abandoned his property, the
intention to abandon is the first
and paramount object for inquiry.
There can be no abandonment
without the intention to abandon.
Because abandonment rests upon
the intention to relinquish the
premises, it is a question of fact
for the jury.
In this particular case, the court
found there was " conflicting
evidence in the record
concerning whether Tract A
of the Park has been lawfully
abandoned by the TPFA and/or
the City. "
The court further acknowledged:
" The TPFA and the City unquestionably
have the burden of establishing
abandonment. " In this particular
case, the court found there
was " conflicting evidence in the
record concerning whether Tract
A of the Park has been lawfully
abandoned by the TPFA and/or
the City. "
To establish abandonment, the
TPFA and the City had pointed
to the two Resolutions passed
by the City Council as evidence
of the City's intent to abandon
Tract A. In claiming Tract A had
been abandoned, the TPFA and
32 Parks & Recreation | O CTOBER 2 0 2 1
the City also maintained it was
" impractical and unreasonable to
erect a fence around the 8.8 acres
of [parkland] for purposes of establishing
actual relinquishment
of the property. "
At the same time the resolutions
were passed, the Taxpayers had
argued " the land was not actually
relinquished " because " Tract
A and the entirety of Helmerich
Park was still in use and open to
the public as a city park. " Moreover,
the Taxpayers contended
" the TPFA and the City conceded
Tract A had not been abandoned
when they acknowledged Tract A
was still in use as a public park
in their joint motion for summary
judgment. "
As characterized by the state supreme
court: " The two Resolutions
passed by the City Council may
be affirmative official acts by the
City Council indicating the City's
intention to abandon Tract A. " On
the other hand, the court acknowledged
that these two resolutions
" may also be viewed as an attempt
by the City to validate its authority,
in conjunction with the TPFA, to
sell Tract A to the private developer
in the first place " :
The City Council passed the two
Resolutions approximately one
year and seven months after the
original Purchase and Sale Contract
was approved by the TPFA
in August
2015. Whether the
TPFA and the City had the intent
to abandon Tract A and whether
there was an actual relinquishment
of the property are questions
for the trier of fact [i.e., a judge or
jury that determines questions of
fact in a trial].
In light of such " conflicting evidence
in the record concerning
| PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G
whether Tract A of the Park has
been lawfully abandoned by the
TPFA and/or the City, " the state
supreme court reversed the summary
judgment in favor of TPFA
and the City and remanded this
case to the trial court " for a determination
on the merits as to
whether Tract A has been lawfully
abandoned. "
Public Purpose
On appeal,
the
state
supreme
court further noted " disputed material
facts concerning whether
the 'public purpose' requirement
was met. " As cited by the court,
the Oklahoma Constitution " restricts
the use of public funds to
expenditures for a public purpose "
to prevent " the investment
of public funds in private enterprises. "
That being said, the court
acknowledged the term " public
purpose " should not be construed
" in a narrow or restrictive sense. "
As defined by the court: " A public
purpose affects the inhabitants
of the state or taxing district as a
community. "
Within the context of a legal
" public purpose, " TPFA and the
City had argued " Tract A of the
Park can be sold to promote economic
development. " Under the
state constitution, the state supreme
court acknowledged that " economic
development is a legitimate public
purpose for which public funds
may be expended. "
Further, the
court noted an " economic development
plan did not lose its public
purpose merely because it involved
a private actor. "
That being said, the court held
" this power is restrictive " in structuring
plans for economic development.
Specifically, the court found
October 2021 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of October 2021 - Parks & Recreation
