Ideas on funding/fixing public safety

[Breadburner]

Exactly and thank you.....Anyone thats thinks any kind of tax/impact fee as progressive is a dingle-berry.......

[shadows]

Never came across anyone that was interested in that spot.  Many looked at it, but when they figured in the demo costs, parking problems, proximity to the courthouse and library, the attractiveness faded.  I would think the spot would make a good class B/C office building for lawyers or other related businesses. 

Time to cut bait, don’t you think?

It is time to cut bait as the fish are not biting.

In citing the reasons why the former city hall has not created any interest for redevelopment.  

The glass cube is in the most inconvenient location that could be selected as a core to the governing departments of a supposed progressive city.  It seem it was selected to be inaccessible to the general public which it is to serve and incorporates all negatives on the redevelopment of the former city hall.  

One could believe that it is a product of a trust established by the public works department to place a distance from public interference.      

Planers shoud be cutting the bait.

[Gaspar]

spoken like a true development mooch.  for every city that has botched impact fees i can show you one that hasnt.  impact fees can greatly aid a city when leveraged correctly.  i guess your derision of them speaks more to the incompetence of this city to administer them rather than if they work or not.  but how you can sit there and say someone at the fringes of the city should not pay more for infrastructure than someone in the core is laughable.

I would be interested in your examples.  Would make a good discussion and exploration.  Perhaps we can learn how to do or not do it correctly.

[Conan71]

spoken like a true development mooch.  for every city that has botched impact fees i can show you one that hasnt.  impact fees can greatly aid a city when leveraged correctly.  i guess your derision of them speaks more to the incompetence of this city to administer them rather than if they work or not.  but how you can sit there and say someone at the fringes of the city should not pay more for infrastructure than someone in the core is laughable.

Please give an example of leveraging them correctly, I'm just not seeing how there's a correct way to do it without increasing flight to the suburbs. 

Sooner or later, someone building a house at 121st & Sheridan is going to call me an infrastructure mooch since I live in mid-town in a 55 year old house and I didn't pay a dime other than my annual property taxes and sales taxes to support the infrastructure to maintain the nicely poured concrete street and driveway entrance that was done at some point in the last few years, sanitary sewer lines which they recently came through and tested, and the arterial streets surrounding my neighborhood (which aren't being maintained worth crap).  Ostensibly, I'd make more use of our infrastructure shopping and eating within a few miles of my house and the 8 or 9 miles I commute to work and back every day than the person living at 121st & Sheridan, especially if they work and shop primarily in Bixby.

I simply don't see where it's equitable or progressive.

[rwarn17588]

Please give an example of leveraging them correctly, I'm just not seeing how there's a correct way to do it without increasing flight to the suburbs. 

Sooner or later, someone building a house at 121st & Sheridan is going to call me an infrastructure mooch since I live in mid-town in a 55 year old house and I didn't pay a dime other than my annual property taxes and sales taxes to support the infrastructure to maintain the nicely poured concrete street and driveway entrance that was done at some point in the last few years, sanitary sewer lines which they recently came through and tested, and the arterial streets surrounding my neighborhood (which aren't being maintained worth crap).  Ostensibly, I'd make more use of our infrastructure shopping and eating within a few miles of my house and the 8 or 9 miles I commute to work and back every day than the person living at 121st & Sheridan, especially if they work and shop primarily in Bixby.

I simply don't see where it's equitable or progressive.

+1

[Red Arrow]

I simply don't see where it's equitable or progressive.

It's equitable because you live in the chosen land. All others in the outlands should tithe to the Great Ones.  The Great Ones live the only sustainable lifestyle, even though they get their food, water, and power from the outlands, mostly still require the vile automobile to get to their place of providing productive output to society, and ultimately dump their waste in the outlands.   

Oh, wait a minute.... (approximately) 50 years ago your home (midtown) was suburban sprawl.  You are not one of the Great Ones and will be required to tithe as an outlander. 

Nevermind.

[Conan71]

It's equitable because you live in the chosen land. All others in the outlands should tithe to the Great Ones.  The Great Ones live the only sustainable lifestyle, even though they get their food, water, and power from the outlands, mostly still require the vile automobile to get to their place of providing productive output to society, and ultimately dump their waste in the outlands.   

Oh, wait a minute.... (approximately) 50 years ago your home (midtown) was suburban sprawl.  You are not one of the Great Ones and will be required to tithe as an outlander. 

Nevermind.

Oh hell, one more thing I forgot, my share of the infrastructure that pipes water in from Spavinaw or Oologah.

[Red Arrow]

Oh hell, one more thing I forgot, my share of the infrastructure that pipes water in from Spavinaw or Oologah.

I guess it will be bottled water for you.  No dumping the bottles either.

Edit:
I knew a family (20 or so years ago) that lived along Lynn Lane (or thereabouts) and had to truck in their household water.  They owned a small tank truck and a few times a month had to go buy their water.  I don't remember the details of why they couldn't (afford?) get rural water service or dig a well.

[Red Arrow]

I might be able to support an impact fee on new construction commensurate with the density of that construction.  If housing in northern Bixby / SE Tulsa had remained at 1 house per acre, we wouldn't need a 6 lane Memorial Drive, maybe only 3 lanes (total) with the center lane for turns. Of course fees crossing city boundaries could be messy.  Should they be at the county level? If you want everyone in the area to pay the fee, then when it's repaving time in mid-town etc then they get to do the impact fee for their maintenance/improvements.

I think I remember reading on this forum that 21st St. was made into 4 lanes to encourage development.  How was that financed?  How about the 4 lane arterials in mid-town?  How were they initially financed.  Those were the areas of early suburban sprawl.

Same old arguments we had during the road rebuilding discussions before.  

[Breadburner]

the current method infrastructure is funded is not equitable or progressive.  So what if you came to the party before they started the cover charge..that happened in lots of other cities too but eventually you gotta pay to get in the door.  ALl of you thinking that this will cause flight to the suburbs are kidding yourselves.  They will see the dollar signs like everyone else and start charging impact fees to.  I think it is absoultely hilarious that some of you were the same ones pooh poohing the paving and widening of many of the south tulsa streets during the whole tax debate, yet you wouldn't support a fee that could be used to do this widening as it is needed.  Right now 121st between SHeridan and yale is being resurfaced.  Why?  Only a few years ago it was a podunk road between sod farms.  But the developers spralwed out that way, increased traffic, and now we are paying for roads that should have had impact fees covering them.  You can take the same story and apply it all around the fringes of Tulsa.

Here is a very well done study on impact fee assessment and calculation. http://www.accessfayetteville.org/government/planning/documents/Impact_Fees/Water%20and%20Wastewater%20Impact%20Fee%20Analysis-031208.pdf
 Fayetteville has no"rings of dispair" and all this other bullshit you talk about.  But I remember when this was passed and the developers were all up in arms over it like the sky was falling.  But did they go running to other suburbs?  No.  I only wish TUlsa was a 5th as progressive as Fayetteville in sticking it to the developers and making them pay to play.

That did not make any sense.....

[rwarn17588]

That did not make any sense.....

Apparently snark is easy, explaining is hard. 

[waterboy]

I might be able to support an impact fee on new construction commensurate with the density of that construction.  If housing in northern Bixby / SE Tulsa had remained at 1 house per acre, we wouldn't need a 6 lane Memorial Drive, maybe only 3 lanes (total) with the center lane for turns. Of course fees crossing city boundaries could be messy.  Should they be at the county level? If you want everyone in the area to pay the fee, then when it's repaving time in mid-town etc then they get to do the impact fee for their maintenance/improvements.

I think I remember reading on this forum that 21st St. was made into 4 lanes to encourage development.  How was that financed?  How about the 4 lane arterials in mid-town?  How were they initially financed.  Those were the areas of early suburban sprawl.

Same old arguments we had during the road rebuilding discussions before.  

Yes, and you keep making these comments as though they have merit. The cost of repaving, road building and other infrastructure costs in the midtown area that you seem so bent on punishing, are reflected in the cost of our housing, our ad valorem taxes and our occassional special assessments. We paid extra to live in these homes in purchase price. Because our homes increased in value, (while suburbanites chased cheaper $/sq ft options in newer hoods whose homes did not reflect the true cost of developing them), our taxes were/are higher than yours. Our taxes also were used to build expressways and widen arterials that had no real benefit to us so that the new suburbanites could race back and forth from downtown. We fought hard to keep a good chunk of my neighborhood from being razed to make a Riverside expressway for the developers. We've subsidized your lifestyle for 50 years. Pay up.

Do you not remember when newly arrived Cities Service employees all bought expensive homes south on Sheridan Road which was a GRAVEL two lane because developers refused to pave it? The city had to wait for their property taxes and sales taxes to start rolling in before it could be paved. Yeah, that made sense.

[Conan71]

I wish I had time to read the 51 page report from Fayetteville, if someone has the time and cares to summarize and explain how this could be a relevant benefit to Tulsa, I'm all ears and no, I'm not being a smart arse.

I assumed as it is now that the developer of a new housing addition is responsible for all costs from within the boundaries of their development for water and sewer lines, electric, gas, and all the asphalt and concrete for the streets and curbing, and that was accounted for in the per lot price for houses.  Is that not how it is being done now?  I can see a little better the point inteller is trying to make- that people who choose to live in newly-developed areas should be paying to widen the roads, and run the lines for municipal services (water and sewer).  I think proposing it as a per-house "fee" or "tax" on the homeowner is what everyone is getting stuck on here.  Does it make more sense put in the perspective that developers should be paying for main arterial improvements or at least a share and then passing that along as a part of the lot cost?

An addition I lived in at 105th & Yale had city water but all houses were on septic.  Seems like there was a proposal going around to tie in the houses to COT sanitary sewers and that each homeowner was to pay for a share of the tie in which also reflected a proportionate cost of the main sewer line we would all tap into.  This was very preliminary and we moved from that 'hood before it ever came to pass.  I have no idea if it ever did.

I have to admit planning and development is not one of my more passionate causes and I'm more of a casual observer on these threads unless it's something I'm really adamant for or against.

[Gaspar]

I wish I had time to read the 51 page report from Fayetteville, if someone has the time and cares to summarize and explain how this could be a relevant benefit to Tulsa, I'm all ears and no, I'm not being a smart arse.

I assumed as it is now that the developer of a new housing addition is responsible for all costs from within the boundaries of their development for water and sewer lines, electric, gas, and all the asphalt and concrete for the streets and curbing, and that was accounted for in the per lot price for houses.  Is that not how it is being done now?  I can see a little better the point inteller is trying to make- that people who choose to live in newly-developed areas should be paying to widen the roads, and run the lines for municipal services (water and sewer).  I think proposing it as a per-house "fee" or "tax" on the homeowner is what everyone is getting stuck on here.  Does it make more sense put in the perspective that developers should be paying for main arterial improvements or at least a share and then passing that along as a part of the lot cost?

An addition I lived in at 105th & Yale had city water but all houses were on septic.  Seems like there was a proposal going around to tie in the houses to COT sanitary sewers and that each homeowner was to pay for a share of the tie in which also reflected a proportionate cost of the main sewer line we would all tap into.  This was very preliminary and we moved from that 'hood before it ever came to pass.  I have no idea if it ever did.

I have to admit planning and development is not one of my more passionate causes and I'm more of a casual observer on these threads unless it's something I'm really adamant for or against.

It's a study.  Done in 08'.  Arkansas impact fee enabling act is only a few years old.  Kind of verifies what I was talking about.  These programs start with good intension, and lofty goals, but the final product 10, 20, 30 years down the road is destructive.

Kind of reminds me of another government program, I just can't remember which one. 

[patric]

This tax-averse city is about to learn what it looks and feels like when budget cuts slash services most Americans consider part of the urban fabric.

More than a third of the streetlights in Colorado Springs will go dark Monday. The police helicopters are for sale on the Internet. The city is dumping firefighting jobs, a vice team, burglary investigators, beat cops — dozens of police and fire positions will go unfilled.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14303473