Print Page - We really havent been talking about much lately

I remember just a few months ago, before the river vote, this forum was full of all sorts of discussion about where Tulsa needs to go, and what promising developments lay on the horizon. Did everything really just dry up when the tax was voted down? What things are under works right now?

I think the most positive thing that came out of the river tax debate was that everyone was full of ideas, and we were sharing them with each other. That seems to have vanished the last couple of months.

Was it the tulsanow server debacle? I noticed that really killed off a lot of the conversation here. Then there was the ice storm, many of us without internet for over 2 weeks. Was that the death blow? The only conversations I see going now are about Jenks, Owasso, Bixby, etc. What about Tulsa?

Let's get back to sharing our visions :) I used to look forward to loading Tulsanow every night to see what discussions and ideas were being thrown around.

quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan

I remember just a few months ago, before the river vote, this forum was full of all sorts of discussion about where Tulsa needs to go, and what promising developments lay on the horizon. Did everything really just dry up when the tax was voted down? What things are under works right now?

I think the most positive thing that came out of the river tax debate was that everyone was full of ideas, and we were sharing them with each other. That seems to have vanished the last couple of months.

Was it the tulsanow server debacle? I noticed that really killed off a lot of the conversation here. Then there was the ice storm, many of us without internet for over 2 weeks. Was that the death blow? The only conversations I see going now are about Jenks, Owasso, Bixby, etc. What about Tulsa?

Let's get back to sharing our visions :) I used to look forward to loading Tulsanow every night to see what discussions and ideas were being thrown around.

To me...there is the growing realization that this is an exercise in futility. Tulsa is slow and getting slower. Talk is plentiful and increasingly shallow all over town. The few people on this playground who are well informed and logically oriented are bound up in philosphical circular causation. Mostly it provides a chance for egos to puff and then clash. Yes, there are a few things happening that will make a blip on the screen but its pretty depressing around here if you have high expectations. A lot was invested in the last few efforts to break out of the 'just say no' attitude here, including V2025 and the river projects, and now many of those who voted for them have moved away. The economy is starting to sag, illegals are on the run, Jenks keeps embarrassing us and ....the damn piles of trees! JMO.

quote:
Originally posted by we vs us

quote:
Originally posted by Floyd

I have a feeling there's going to be one more big conversation very soon. It's going to involve a plan for a baseball stadium downtown as well as adjuacent development. It's probably going to involve subsidies from the city, which will inflame those who are always against that sort of thing. The result of that will drive our discussion for a long time--if Tulsa leaders are finally successful in getting commercial development downtown, we're going to have a good time debating the direction of development down there.

If not, we're just going to sit quietly, chat a little bit, and watch the suburbs prosper.

That's interesting. Do you feel like we're approaching a "last chance" sorta moment? And if so, before what happens?

Well, it will certainly be downtown's last chance to secure a ballpark and surrounding development. It won't be downtown's last chance period--but it's the sort of spark that works in other cities, and in my opinion would work for Tulsa. Although, there's no guarantee there will even be a downtown plan announced--just a lot of assumptions and scuttlebutt.

Honestly, the worst case scenario for downtown is not that bad--it's just the status quo. Without major capital investment, downtown will probably continue to be a half-empty commercial district with a handful of great bars, just enough eateries to supply the lunchtime crowds, and a few enterprising residents who wouldn't live anywhere else.

But, there's also a semi-decent scenario that looks something like the Wal-Mart proposal floated last year. Basically, someday, these downtown speculators will realize their ship of gold simply isn't coming in, and they'll release their empty lots for a modest gain and move on. National retailers could move in, and a small, vibrant neighborhood could spring up on the east side. It wouldn't be a destination for the rest of the city, but it would be self-sustaining and hip. Meanwhile, the central commercial/arena district could continue to slowly develop, with the opening of the Mayo and one other nice hotel. Downtown will continue to have its occasional shining moments--e.g., Mayfest, DFest, etc. But it won't have that constant vibe that other downtowns have achieved.

Tulsa metro will continue to grow. It's just a matter of where that growth will take place. Cash follows hype. Right now the hype is out south. Without something to reverse that magnetism, the core will continue to maintain, while outlying areas will thrive. In other words, I don't see Tulsa proper necessarily stagnating or declining, but without more of a kickstart, it's not going to gain population and commercial development.

That's just my prognostication. I could be wrong--some would say a Tulsa renaissance is right around the corner; others would say it's impossible and Tulsa is in fact about to take a nose dive. But as long as oil stays above $80/barrel, the economy in this town is going nowhere but up.

There are a few reasons. First of all there really is less going on. The failure of the river vote took the wind out of Tulsa’s sails so to speak for development. Tulsa as a city has said it doesn’t want to invest in itself. A deal that good almost never comes along, and we said no anyway. For $200 million raised by only 2/10th of a cent in sales taxes Tulsa would have gotten $170 million in donations and at least $500 million in commercial development. We turned down an almost 5-1 return on our money, so developers do not see Tulsa as a pro-development and growth community, at all.

Even with the river vote and the river competing to some extent with downtown before the vote there was a buzz about new activity downtown based on the arena. Now there is nothing, I really think that developers see Tulsa as having a poisoned atmosphere right now for new private projects.

I also think the rampant negativity and all the ridiculous accusations that fly on this site against every project and every person that tries to accomplish anything in this town has killed off much of the more “real” conversation on this board. And the failure of the river vote largely due to the kind of misinformation that has become pervasive on this site killed the rest.

I think it has become “cool” to be a basher and the ethic both on this board and in Tulsa generally is that only a fool or a crook would see anything positive in any way in this town.

Until that changes the only big projects in the city will be public funded one, the private projects will continue to go outside the city where the land is cheap and the atmosphere for development is more positive.

Tulsa has just entered that phase where development is going to be slow. Unless we spend some money to do something transformative with downtown, its going to improve, but will take a slow natural course to do so. The reason developments like The River District are going to the suburbs is because that is where the people are who have money to spend. If we want to spend tax dollars we can choose to make downtown an "attraction/destination". But we can also go the route of building a thriving and attractive, urban neighborhood. Brady District, Greenwood, smaller East End, more housing in old buildings like the Mayo and Philtower, parks, grocery store, etc. can all act to make downtown a very pleasing, place to visit and to live. That in time will itself bring more retail. Plus there are things to do there entertainment and culturally wise. Not flashy BIG developments, but very nice regardless. Shouldnt it be about quality of life not just big and flashy? As long as we are making progress we are doing well. Keep plugging along, but dont forget to relax and enjoy what we do have.

I still have some hope that we will hear about a river development for Tulsa this year. If not, cest la vie. And I still think we will get the baseball stadium downtown as well.

quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Man, Waterboy is a bit down.

I'd like to be able to say something to deflect some of the criticism but all I can come up with is that Tulsa's population is growing and I don't know anyone that got fed up and left. I'm still holding on to hope and the fact that Tulsa remains a fine place to live - or I'd be gone myself.

Development is slower than I'd hope for, but winter is generally not when projects make big headway or major announcements surface anyway.

Yeah, I need a little light therapy.

I don't think masses got peeved and left. But I do remember about 30,000 jobs that left town between 2001 and 2005. Those were the types of jobs held by upper educated folks with good incomes. Those were the folks who helped v2025 pass, helped to underwrite a lot of activities and generally were throwing their money around.

I am tending towards the view that Tulsa will always be a slow developing creature. And if oil drops, it will stop in its tracks.

quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub

Why do "we" have to fund corporate investments? If it isn't a good enough idea to stand up on its own, why should the taxpayer foot the bill?

I realize in today's day and time everyone feels that having a hand out is okay, but really.... Why do I have to pay for you?

And that’s the problem.

If you want everywhere to resemble 71stSt, then great, that’s what developers build when left to themselves. And there is cost involved there, lots of it. But it’s hidden, it’s in the ever widening of streets and highways, the cost of congestion, the cost of pollution that is related to congestion and seas of asphalt. We pay, but we don’t pay upfront.

If you want the kind of lasting urban development that makes a city a city and want it done in places where the infrastructure is already in place then we have to help differently. The cost of infill is probably lower in the long run, but the cost is upfront in helping to develop the project rather then on the back end in ever increasing infrastructure needs.

The other bad part about the development along 71st is that it is transitory. We paid to 6 lane 71st and to widen US 169 and everything around it and in 15 years it’s going to be a trashy area. There already are empty buildings. There will be more and more of that as the big box format moves onto something else. Places like Utica Square will remain, and will continue to be a place that business adapt to instead of being places they abandon. The River District in Jenks is getting $300 million in public funds and seems to be the kind of development that will last. Nothing on Memorial or 71st or at Tulsa Hills or at Smith Farm will.

Build something of quality and it will remain, the infrastructure that you have paid for will remain useful. Build crap and before long you are building all new infrastructure for all new crap.

Downtown has the greatest concentration of infrastructure in the city. We need to make use of that instead of always moving further and further out. It’s not only cheaper to do, it’s also one of those places that make Tulsa unique. 71st is bland crap USA, it looks just the same here as it does in Denver, and Des Moines and 60 other cities, why on earth is that what we should want?

quote:
Originally posted by swake

quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub

Why do "we" have to fund corporate investments? If it isn't a good enough idea to stand up on its own, why should the taxpayer foot the bill?

I realize in today's day and time everyone feels that having a hand out is okay, but really.... Why do I have to pay for you?

And that’s the problem.

If you want everywhere to resemble 71stSt, then great, that’s what developers build when left to themselves. And there is cost involved there, lots of it. But it’s hidden, it’s in the ever widening of streets and highways, the cost of congestion, the cost of pollution that is related to congestion and seas of asphalt. We pay, but we don’t pay upfront.

If you want the kind of lasting urban development that makes a city a city and want it done in places where the infrastructure is already in place then we have to help differently. The cost of infill is probably lower in the long run, but the cost is upfront in helping to develop the project rather then on the back end in ever increasing infrastructure needs.

The other bad part about the development along 71st is that it is transitory. We paid to 6 lane 71st and to widen US 169 and everything around it and in 15 years it’s going to be a trashy area. There already are empty buildings. There will be more and more of that as the big box format moves onto something else. Places like Utica Square will remain, and will continue to be a place that business adapt to instead of being places they abandon. The River District in Jenks is getting $300 million in public funds and seems to be the kind of development that will last. Nothing on Memorial or 71st or at Tulsa Hills or at Smith Farm will.

Build something of quality and it will remain, the infrastructure that you have paid for will remain useful. Build crap and before long you are building all new infrastructure for all new crap.

Downtown has the greatest concentration of infrastructure in the city. We need to make use of that instead of always moving further and further out. It’s not only cheaper to do, it’s also one of those places that make Tulsa unique. 71st is bland crap USA, it looks just the same here as it does in Denver, and Des Moines and 60 other cities, why on earth is that what we should want?

I agree with most of what you said except for the part about infill development being less. Infill is usually exceptionally more expensive than new development. It is also wrought with opportunity for failure. No matter what your infill project you are subject to a fight from the city and from the existing neighborhoods, or commercial developments.

People don't realize it, but most infill projects fail before anyone ever knows they existed. Modern environmental and engineering requirements make it next to impossible to do infill development on a parcel that was only subject to old requirements.

I've seen many that succeeded, but at an incredible expense to the developer and ultimately the consumer (underground retention tanks, dedicated streets, improvements, utility tunnels etc.).

It is far less expensive to build a high-end permanent structure on new land than it is to build a cheep EFIS coated metal econo-box on infill land.

quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill

quote:
Originally posted by swake

quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub

Why do "we" have to fund corporate investments? If it isn't a good enough idea to stand up on its own, why should the taxpayer foot the bill?

I realize in today's day and time everyone feels that having a hand out is okay, but really.... Why do I have to pay for you?

And that’s the problem.

If you want everywhere to resemble 71stSt, then great, that’s what developers build when left to themselves. And there is cost involved there, lots of it. But it’s hidden, it’s in the ever widening of streets and highways, the cost of congestion, the cost of pollution that is related to congestion and seas of asphalt. We pay, but we don’t pay upfront.

If you want the kind of lasting urban development that makes a city a city and want it done in places where the infrastructure is already in place then we have to help differently. The cost of infill is probably lower in the long run, but the cost is upfront in helping to develop the project rather then on the back end in ever increasing infrastructure needs.

The other bad part about the development along 71st is that it is transitory. We paid to 6 lane 71st and to widen US 169 and everything around it and in 15 years it’s going to be a trashy area. There already are empty buildings. There will be more and more of that as the big box format moves onto something else. Places like Utica Square will remain, and will continue to be a place that business adapt to instead of being places they abandon. The River District in Jenks is getting $300 million in public funds and seems to be the kind of development that will last. Nothing on Memorial or 71st or at Tulsa Hills or at Smith Farm will.

Build something of quality and it will remain, the infrastructure that you have paid for will remain useful. Build crap and before long you are building all new infrastructure for all new crap.

Downtown has the greatest concentration of infrastructure in the city. We need to make use of that instead of always moving further and further out. It’s not only cheaper to do, it’s also one of those places that make Tulsa unique. 71st is bland crap USA, it looks just the same here as it does in Denver, and Des Moines and 60 other cities, why on earth is that what we should want?

I agree with most of what you said except for the part about infill development being less. Infill is usually exceptionally more expensive than new development. It is also wrought with opportunity for failure. No matter what your infill project you are subject to a fight from the city and from the existing neighborhoods, or commercial developments.

People don't realize it, but most infill projects fail before anyone ever knows they existed. Modern environmental and engineering requirements make it next to impossible to do infill development on a parcel that was only subject to old requirements.

I've seen many that succeeded, but at an incredible expense to the developer and ultimately the consumer (underground retention tanks, dedicated streets, improvements, utility tunnels etc.).

It is far less expensive to build a high-end permanent structure on new land than it is to build a cheep EFIS coated metal econo-box on infill land.

I understand that and don't disagree at all. And that is why infill often needs a public component.

What that infill project doesn’t need is a widened street to it, and a widened highway to that street and expanded police and fire coverage or an expanded electrical grid. My guess would infill is less expensive overall, but it requires a much larger upfront cost instead the hidden and somewhat deferred cost of new development.

quote:
Originally posted by swake

Quote

I understand that and don't disagree at all. And that is why infill often needs a public component.

What that infill project doesn’t need is a widened street to it, and a widened highway to that street and expanded police and fire coverage or an expanded electrical grid. My guess would infill is less expensive overall, but it requires a much larger upfront cost instead the hidden and somewhat deferred cost of new development.

Actually, there is no part of infill development that is less expensive. The land survey is the only thing I can think of that will cost less.

Land will cost more.

The zoning services (if necessary) will cost more.

The engineering will cost significantly more.

Phase 1 and/or 2 enviro study will be needed.

Soils report will cost more.

Any grading and demo will cost more.

Retention/Detention requirements will eat up a more significant portion of the development than anticipated (always).

Architecture & structural will need to tie into existing utilities costing more and limit design.

Depending on the type of business and existing utilities on site, there will be an expense for upgrades.

Then there is the public notice and legal fees to fight for the project.

Infills are always delayed by something. If one angry neighbor who can't be paid off or a business owner that thinks you may provide space to his competition pops up, you will end up spending weeks, months, or years trying to fight. Meanwhile your buddy the banker is ever-so-gently massaging your buttocks through your wallet pocket.

quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill

quote:
Originally posted by swake

Quote

I understand that and don't disagree at all. And that is why infill often needs a public component.

What that infill project doesn’t need is a widened street to it, and a widened highway to that street and expanded police and fire coverage or an expanded electrical grid. My guess would infill is less expensive overall, but it requires a much larger upfront cost instead the hidden and somewhat deferred cost of new development.

Actually, there is no part of infill development that is less expensive. The land survey is the only thing I can think of that will cost less.

Land will cost more.

The zoning services (if necessary) will cost more.

The engineering will cost significantly more.

Phase 1 and/or 2 enviro study will be needed.

Soils report will cost more.

Any grading and demo will cost more.

Retention/Detention requirements will eat up a more significant portion of the development than anticipated (always).

Architecture & structural will need to tie into existing utilities costing more and limit design.

Depending on the type of business and existing utilities on site, there will be an expense for upgrades.

Then there is the public notice and legal fees to fight for the project.

Infills are always delayed by something. If one angry neighbor who can't be paid off or a business owner that thinks you may provide space to his competition pops up, you will end up spending weeks, months, or years trying to fight. Meanwhile your buddy the banker is ever-so-gently massaging your buttocks through your wallet pocket.

Yes. And yet it is vital to the health of the city. So, what to do about this conundrum?

Option 1: Let the market decide what the city will look like. Allow disposable development, and let historical commercial areas lie fallow.

Option 2: Provide subsidies to developers who invest in infill in an attempt to offset the increased costs.

I think Option 2 makes a lot of sense, given the deferred costs of Option 1 outlined by Swake. Of course, it's imperative that any developer subsidies be accompanied by smart zoning and good policies designed to streamline infill. But the inherent inefficiency of city government does not cause me to accept the flight of development dollars to distant pastures as healthy for Tulsa.

If the inner city dies, you end up paying more than if you paid some up front to get it to thrive again.

You hope the nice areas build up and grow outwards. But you run into nimbys in those nicer areas. Then the developer wanting to make a buck is left looking at "bad" areas in town and the growing areas in the suburbs. Which would you choose?

If you can "prime" an area like the Pearl District where there arent a lot of nimbys, create a pleasing pallet with a plan, put in some form based codes, etc. This can give developers some bit of assurance that their investment will pay out.

People often point to the main mall as an example of failed intervention. Downtown was on its way out and would have died anyway for looots of reasons. The new arena a cure all? I dont remember hearing that it would be nor have I ever been under the illusion that it would be. A step in the right direction? Yes. A baseball stadium is another step, especially if it has even a small amount of retail and or living along with it.

Your going to pay a price if downtown loses. It did a lot for us over the years. Its in a bad spot. If it gets going again, it will begin to pay out again.

As for the 71st corridor. I actually am of the belief that it will evolve over time. It will infill and become more varied and stable. Height restrictions lifted for the mall area. I would like to see some midrise and highrise living there. It in a way is the "downtown" of our age. To let it falter would be just as tragic as allowing downtown to. "Enable" the area and yes let the free market do its thing. One can imagine downtown and the 71st area evolving towards similar destinations. Both becoming, bustling urban villages.

OK LETS SETTLE THIS RIGHT NOW!!!! THIS INCOG DEBATE MUST BE PUT TO REST!!!!!!

White chocolate hot chocolate, is not superior to regular hot chocolate. By it's nature, it contains no actual chocolate, only coco butter, palm kernel oil and sugar. Without chocolate it can hardly be called "White Chocolate."

Chocolate contains a natural 'love drug'. Tryptophan is a chemical that the brain uses to make a neurotransmitter called serotonin. High levels of serotonin can produce feelings of elation, even ecstasy - hence the name of the designer drug that also works by increasing serotonin levels.

While tryptophan could be considered 'chocolate's ecstasy', another chemical called phenylethylamine has earned the nickname 'chocolate amphetamine.' High levels of this neurotransmitter help promote feelings of attraction, excitement, giddiness and apprehension. Phenylethylamine works by stimulating the brain's pleasure centres and reaches peak levels during orgasm.

So. Regular hot chocolate is far superior and can aid in the approval of PUDS, Plats and other permit documents at INCOG.

quote:
Originally posted by Floyd

quote:
Originally posted by we vs us

quote:
Originally posted by Floyd

I have a feeling there's going to be one more big conversation very soon. It's going to involve a plan for a baseball stadium downtown as well as adjuacent development. It's probably going to involve subsidies from the city, which will inflame those who are always against that sort of thing. The result of that will drive our discussion for a long time--if Tulsa leaders are finally successful in getting commercial development downtown, we're going to have a good time debating the direction of development down there.

If not, we're just going to sit quietly, chat a little bit, and watch the suburbs prosper.

That's interesting. Do you feel like we're approaching a "last chance" sorta moment? And if so, before what happens?

Well, it will certainly be downtown's last chance to secure a ballpark and surrounding development.

I disagree. There have been at least two ballparks in what is now downtown Tulsa. Even if the Drillers move to Jenks or to the west bank area, that's not to say there will be no chance of a downtown ballpark at sometime in Tulsa's future. Downtown Tulsa has gone through several cycles of tearing down, building up, then tearing down again, and so on. If not now, then it still could happen in the future.

quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill

OK LETS SETTLE THIS RIGHT NOW!!!! THIS INCOG DEBATE MUST BE PUT TO REST!!!!!!

White chocolate hot chocolate, is not superior to regular hot chocolate. By it's nature, it contains no actual chocolate, only coco butter, palm kernel oil and sugar. Without chocolate it can hardly be called "White Chocolate."

Chocolate contains a natural 'love drug'...

...Regular hot chocolate is far superior and can aid in the approval of PUDS, Plats and other permit documents at INCOG.

You've nearly convinced me. I want to start feeling the love at INCOG right now! But the white chocolate hot chocolate discussion at INCOG might very well be a red herring set up to divert our attention from a much larger issue. Now I'm starting to doubt and second-guess myself...

If we try to pre-empt further discussion about white chocolate hot chocolate, are we squelching free thought? What's the harm in white chocolate hot chocolate, anyway? Are we trying to fabricate a straw man merely to knock it down?

Could Michael Bates somehow be involved in this issue on some level? Has he written anything about white chocolate hot chocolate on his blog?

If commuter rail service is established between BA and Tulsa, should discussion of white chocolate hot chocolate be allowed on the passenger cars or at the train stations? It seems to me that it would be a shame to not allow the ongoing debate over the merits of white chocolate hot chocolate on the trains. And wouldn't it be wonderful if tumbling porters could serve white chocolate hot chocolate (a la the hot cocoa scene from The Polar Express) to weary commuters while they sat on the slow train as it crept along its pre-determined path from Broken Arrow to Tulsa at average speed of 27 miles an hour?

To end the white chocolate hot chocolate debate now would be devastating for the future of Tulsa -- a mistake of colossal proportions. Not only should the debate continue, I suggest that we establish a blue (or white or brown) ribbon task force to study the issue in depth. The future of all of Tulsa is at stake here...why can't everyone wake up and see that?

quote:
Originally posted by booWorld

quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill

OK LETS SETTLE THIS RIGHT NOW!!!! THIS INCOG DEBATE MUST BE PUT TO REST!!!!!!

White chocolate hot chocolate, is not superior to regular hot chocolate. By it's nature, it contains no actual chocolate, only coco butter, palm kernel oil and sugar. Without chocolate it can hardly be called "White Chocolate."

Chocolate contains a natural 'love drug'...

...Regular hot chocolate is far superior and can aid in the approval of PUDS, Plats and other permit documents at INCOG.

You've nearly convinced me. I want to start feeling the love at INCOG right now! But the white chocolate hot chocolate discussion at INCOG might very well be a red herring set up to divert our attention from a much larger issue. Now I'm starting to doubt and second-guess myself...

If we try to pre-empt further discussion about white chocolate hot chocolate, are we squelching free thought? What's the harm in white chocolate hot chocolate, anyway? Are we trying to fabricate a straw man merely to knock it down?

Could Michael Bates somehow be involved in this issue on some level? Has he written anything about white chocolate hot chocolate on his blog?

If commuter rail service is established between BA and Tulsa, should discussion of white chocolate hot chocolate be allowed on the passenger cars or at the train stations? It seems to me that it would be a shame to not allow the ongoing debate over the merits of white chocolate hot chocolate on the trains. And wouldn't it be wonderful if tumbling porters could serve white chocolate hot chocolate (a la the hot cocoa scene from The Polar Express) to weary commuters while they sat on the slow train as it crept along its pre-determined path from Broken Arrow to Tulsa at average speed of 27 miles an hour?

To end the white chocolate hot chocolate debate now would be devastating for the future of Tulsa -- a mistake of colossal proportions. Not only should the debate continue, I suggest that we establish a blue (or white or brown) ribbon task force to study the issue in depth. The future of all of Tulsa is at stake here...why can't everyone wake up and see that?

CAUTION GRASSHOPPER This conspiracy is larger than both of us. Regular chocolate has been proven to lower blood pressure and reduce cholesterol.

White chocolate has none of these properties and due to the fact that it is comprised mostly of coco butter and tropical oils (like palm) it in fact has a very detrimental effect on the health of the beverage consumer.

By supplying this toxic libation on the new BA/Tulsa Express Monorail, we increase the risks of heart attack and stroke, slowing the anticipated 27 mile an hour pace to make concession for frequent rendezvous with EMSA for victims of the Tulsa Rail White Chocolate conspiracy.

I will stop now, I think they are watching me.[:O]

quote:
Originally posted by booWorld

quote:
Originally posted by Floyd

quote:
Originally posted by we vs us

quote:
Originally posted by Floyd

I have a feeling there's going to be one more big conversation very soon. It's going to involve a plan for a baseball stadium downtown as well as adjuacent development. It's probably going to involve subsidies from the city, which will inflame those who are always against that sort of thing. The result of that will drive our discussion for a long time--if Tulsa leaders are finally successful in getting commercial development downtown, we're going to have a good time debating the direction of development down there.

If not, we're just going to sit quietly, chat a little bit, and watch the suburbs prosper.

That's interesting. Do you feel like we're approaching a "last chance" sorta moment? And if so, before what happens?

Well, it will certainly be downtown's last chance to secure a ballpark and surrounding development.

I disagree. There have been at least two ballparks in what is now downtown Tulsa. Even if the Drillers move to Jenks or to the west bank area, that's not to say there will be no chance of a downtown ballpark at sometime in Tulsa's future. Downtown Tulsa has gone through several cycles of tearing down, building up, then tearing down again, and so on. If not now, then it still could happen in the future.

Good point--if Jenks takes the Drillers, we'll only have to wait a generation or more to get baseball back in Tulsa where it belongs. Not to mention, the suburbs will think they can walk all over us and take not only our baseball team, but ALSO our white chocolate hot chocolate as well. That ALONE should give you reason enough to support a downtown stadium!

The smart posters are already in hiding....Fear not Cyber-Security Policy? Does this explain the lack of dialogue lately at TNF?

US drafting plan to allow government access to any email or Web search RAW STORY
Published: Monday January 14, 2008

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/US_drafting_plan_to_allow_government_0114.html
National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell is drawing up plans for cyberspace spying that would make the current debate on warrantless wiretaps look like a "walk in the park," according to an interview published in the New Yorker's print edition today.

Debate on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act “will be a walk in the park compared to this,” McConnell said. “this is going to be a goat rope on the Hill. My prediction is that we’re going to screw around with this until something horrendous happens.”

The article, which profiles the 65-year-old former admiral appointed by President George W. Bush in January 2007 to oversee all of America's intelligence agencies, was not published on the New Yorker's Web site.

McConnell is developing a Cyber-Security Policy, still in the draft stage, which will closely police Internet activity.

"Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the autority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer or Web search," author Lawrence Wright pens.

“Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation, he said," Wright adds. "Giorgio warned me, 'We have a saying in this business: ‘Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'"

A zero-sum game is one in which gains by one side come at the expense of the other. In other words -- McConnell's aide believes greater security can only come at privacy's expense.

McConnell has been an advocate for computer-network defense, which has previously not been the province of any intelligence agency.

According to a 2007 conversation in the Oval Office, McConnell told President Bush, “If the 9/11 perpetrators had focused on a single US bank through cyber-attack and it had been successful, it would have an order of magnitude greater impact on the US economy.”

Bush turned to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, asking him if it was true; Paulson said that it was. Bush then asked to McConnell to come up with a network security strategy.

"One proposal of McConnell’s Cyber-Security Policy, which is still in the draft stage, is to reduce the access points between government computers and the Internet from two thousand to fifty," Wright notes. "He claimed that cyber-theft account for as much as a hundred billion dollars in annual losses to the American economy. 'The real problem is the perpetrator who doesn’t care about stealing—he just wants to destroy.'"

The infrastructure to tap into Americans' email and web search history may already be in place.

In November, a former technician at AT&T alleged that the telecom forwarded virtually all of its Internet traffic into a "secret room" to facilitate government spying.

Whistleblower Mark Klein said that a copy of all Internet traffic passing over AT&T lines was copied into a locked room at the company's San Francisco office -- to which only employees with National Security Agency clearance had access -- via a cable splitting device.

"My job was to connect circuits into the splitter device which was hard-wired to the secret room," Klein. said "And effectively, the splitter copied the entire data stream of those Internet cables into the secret room -- and we're talking about phone conversations, email web browsing, everything that goes across the Internet."

"As a technician, I had the engineering wiring documents, which told me how the splitter was wired to the secret room," Klein continued. "And so I know that whatever went across those cables was copied and the entire data stream was copied."

According to Klein, that information included Internet activity about Americans.

"We're talking about domestic traffic as well as international traffic," Klein said. Previous Bush administration claims that only international communications were being intercepted aren't accurate, he added.

"I know the physical equipment, and I know that statement is not true," he added. "It involves millions of communications, a lot of it domestic communications that they're copying wholesale."

The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Talk About Tulsa => Development & New Businesses => Topic started by: YoungTulsan on January 13, 2008, 11:55:41 pm