|
Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Sangria on September 07, 2007, 06:24:25 am Don't they have the sweetest little kids saying vote yes?
Let me put this tax into perspective: Right now, in the City of Tulsa (you know, the people who will b ennefit from the project) we pay 9.517% in taxes... this added tax will put us almost to 10 cents on the dollar. (9.917%) Just because other places rob their citizens through taxes don't mean we have to do it too. When is the last time your property taxes went down? Mine go up every year. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Sangria on September 07, 2007, 07:07:19 am Sorry, the tax is actually 8.517%
The 9.517% is the nuimber I got off my sales receipt from Best Buy off I-44 last night. They over charged me for taxes and I will deal with them in a little while. Even at that, 8.917 is not a whole lot better. Those half pennies add up fast. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: waterboy on September 07, 2007, 07:24:16 am Why doesn't it bother you to say such things in the light of the often quoted link: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/475.html. ??
Our overall tax burden is among the lowest in the country. And bringing in property taxes (which are also low) to rebut a project funded by sales tax is just like those sweet little kids they show on the ads. Irrelevant. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: TheArtist on September 07, 2007, 07:40:14 am (1.) OKlahomans have the some of lowest over all tax burden in the nation.
(2.) A 1/4th cent tax will not even put us even close to the middle. (3.) Many would agree that the way we fund things needs to be changed so that we dont have to rely on a city sales tax in order to finance things. Where are these anti-river tax or anti tax "whatever it may be" people when there isnt something up for a vote? Why arent they as vocal about changing the way we tax or fund things here? Because... If you use the excuse that our city sales tax is too high, you must be saying one of these things. A. Your against taxes period. (so dont say your against this plan because of xyz, because essentially your against every plan, of any sort, that will require taxes.) And should state that honestly and not give the impression that if a different "better" came along you would support a tax for it. B. You believe the tax system should be changed. Therefor I believe you should at least be stepping up and saying that or doing someting about it. Dont just appear when something comes up for a vote then disappear to sit on your duff till the next time. That makes you appear deceptive and disingenuous. Dont say. "NO RIVER TAX because our taxes are too high!" Our taxes are not too high. The city sales taxes may be too high, but over all our taxes are not. You should either state your going to be against every river tax no matter what it is because of the WAY we are taxed. And you believe that way should be changed. And I think in order to be genuine you should at least be vocal on that issue or show that you have been, or are, persuing that change. Or you dont want any more taxes period. No matter what the river plan is. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Friendly Bear on September 07, 2007, 08:20:32 am quote: The small clique of Oligarch Families that control our local government just LOVE sales taxes, and just HATE property taxes. Why: Because the burden of sales taxes falls heaviest on the low and middle class wage and salary earners, and lightest on those in the high income brackets. and, Because the ruling Oligarch Families own so much real property, they just HATE paying the annual ad valorum taxes that constitute a sizeable portion of their cost-of-carry. They even own the building where the Tax Vampires have their Nest: 2121 S. Columbia Avenue. Owned by 21st Properties. Which is owned by: The Schusterman's?? [:O] Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: waterboy on September 07, 2007, 08:43:07 am I say we hunt the fuedal lord Oligarch's down, take their estates, shoot their accountants and pound this city's leaders back to an equal footing with us common folk. NO MORE PREMIUMS!!AA can get the torches and rally the peasants with Goebbel-speak, Wrinkle can find out where the cpa's slither to at night and Friendly can keep up the anti-everything PR machine.
Man, don't you guys ever get tired of that same old stuff? Try proposing something positive for a change. Find a cause worth fighting for instead of against. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Breadburner on September 07, 2007, 09:04:47 am I like how they use children to guilt us into voting yes....It's to bad but I'm stll voting no....If this money were for the Crow Creek corridor I would vote yes....Also if they can build Lamson a new ballfield...Why cant they give Robby some dough for Bell's.....I wish they would locate the ballfield and amusement park(Bells) on the river....And a 41st bridge......
Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: swake on September 07, 2007, 09:42:58 am quote: Really? As I recall they also backed the last GO bond issue, and those are paid with what again? Property Taxes. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Friendly Bear on September 07, 2007, 09:43:21 am quote: Sorry, but I simply cannot endorse a Terroristic Threat. MH2010 is watching, and knowing that I'd like to ground his free-loading on my tax dollars driving home MY police car, I really cannot endorse or participate in any proposed vigilante justice. On the other hand, wouldn't it would be motivational to hang a few by their heels from the nearest light posts? Nah. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Friendly Bear on September 07, 2007, 09:48:46 am quote: According to Jim Hewgley, former city of Tulsa Street Commissioner, GO Bonds can only be used to build or substantially IMPROVE (I.E. Widen) city streets. Cannot be used for maintenance. Overall, City of Tulsa has intentionally a very low level of city indebtedness. Because the Swells simply don't like paying Ad Valorum Taxes. On the other hand, they do LOVE you paying for street and road improvements with the Itty Bitty Third Penny SALES tax, which has collected over $1.1 billion. But, with the last Third Penny renewal in 2006, dropping to a mere 28% pittance of the total Third Penny "capital" expenditures for street improvements, from the previous 2001 Renewal at 52% of expenditures, the city will HAVE to raise the street bond level to meet the road improvement needs. [B)] Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Double A on September 07, 2007, 03:37:12 pm quote:It is not irrelevant considering that cities must rely on sales tax as their primary source of revenue, unlike the county, yet the county keeps choking off cities' ability to adequately fund the maintenance of our infrastructure by renewing and proposing new county sales taxes. How else do you propose the city come up with the huge amounts of money it will take annually just to keep our streets at D ratings? Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Tiny on September 07, 2007, 06:34:59 pm I hope everyone knows what this project will do to Oklahoma as a whole. These new dams will destroy one of the few striper spawning areas in the state. ODWC (Oklahoma dept of wildlife) depends on this area to harvest striper eggs for their striped bass/white bass hybrids that they stock in several Oklahoma lakes. This is just a minor point against the construction of the dams but if you think about it's effects on oklahoma ..it's a pretty major hit to Oklahoma tourism, non-resident fishing license and our own fishing opportunities. Once you take away the source of our hybrid production that shuts off our ability to trade hybrid fry for other species from other states like walleye and what not. Kurk Kuklinski (ODWC employee) stated that when they redesign the dams so that the striper can go through Zink dam and the other new dams the striper will spawn below keystone dam. Striper eggs have to flow freely in the water for three days in order to hatch and once they get to the slower moving water of Zink and the other dams they'll fall to the bottom and expire. It'll be as if the striper didn't even spawn because no eggs will survive the slower moving waters created by the low head dams. This will effect the fishing all the way to the Arkansas State line.
Keystone used to be well known and written about in lots of major magazines about it's great striper fishing ... when they built Kaw dam the striper haven't been able to spawn anywhere near the success rate they had in the 70's and the striper fishing in keystone is very poor now just because of Kaw dam. When these new dams are built and Zink redesigned it'll do basically the same thing to the whole arkansas basin and you won't hear of the great striper fishing in the lower illinois any longer because one of the few spawning areas will be gone. Now consider the amount of tourism dollars we lost to the area when Keystone striper fishing took the hit from Kaw dam being constructed. It'll be basically the same results for the arkansas river. No striper means no hybrids which also means no walleye, trout or any other species of sport fish we currently acquire. The ODWC may be able to find an alternate source for their eggs but they may not be able to either. Who really knows for sure. Now my take on the tax to get this funded is this. the rich developers and anyone that may benefit from these projects is certainly not any of the john Q Public that's going to be paying for these projects. Why should tulsa county citizens be forced to pay for these rich folk's projects. Seems to me like if I wanted a new building or shop set up in town then I should be able to figure out a way to get the working class folks to pay for something I want. I feel like if they want to build something then let them pay for it because it has nothing to do with me. My taxes are high enough now. There's currently laws on the books in Oklahoma that prevents land owners from damming a creek that would effect their neighbors in any way. What tulsa county is planning on doing is going to effect the whole state and I don't see how they could be allowed to do it. the endangered least terns is another issue ... how could tulsa county get away with destroying their nesting areas since they're an endangered species. They talk about building a new nesting area for them but how would they know they'd be able to use it ... maybe the extinction of the least terns will be a result. who cares though, we want our rich folks to get richer and make the poor and working class pay for their projects. the tv ad on channel 8 almost had me wanting to vote yes on the river tax. it's got me worried now that it's going to pass because all the media is on board with this Yes vote thing and no one is telling about the negative impact these dams are going to have on Oklahoma. I hope there's a way to get the word out to the voters and point out the bad things that are going to come of this if it's passed. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: waterboy on September 07, 2007, 06:40:43 pm quote: If property taxes are relevant then so are sweet little children who stand to be big users of river development. Do you honestly think the county is keeping the city from maintaining roads? Would you support this plan if it were funded with ad valorem taxes? Your manifesto says no. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: RecycleMichael on September 07, 2007, 07:22:25 pm quote: I disagree that this project will hurt the striped bass any more than we have already screwed them up by building Zink Lake and Keystone Dam. I think that this project will actually be very good for fish, birds and other river creatures. I spent quite a bit of time with the federal and state fish and wildlife folk during environmental meetings over the Channels. I spent hours listening to fish people talk about striped bass. The dams are situated to work with the river distance that works for the spawning of their eggs. The new dams will give them a chance to move throughout the river and the slight flow of the new design will help move their eggs, unlike what the low flow months can do. The new designs of the dams will actually add about two feet of depth to Zink Lake which will help all river creatures except for the Least Terns (don't you think they need a new name? I knew a guy named Les once, but they are named "Least"). The Terns will easily move to new habitats and the plans say they will create replacement habitat for them. The new step design of the dams will also tumble water slowly, adding oxygen to the water. This vote will make it a cleaner river that is also better for all the fish and birds. One can argue about county control, regressive nature of sales tax, overall tax burden or even the wrong priorities for today on this vote. But I have done a lot of research and asked a lot of questions about what happens to the river and I truly believe passing this vote will make it a better and cleaner river. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: waterboy on September 07, 2007, 08:17:28 pm quote: Here’s my take Tim. I’m surprised you wouldn’t welcome this plan. I’m a fisherman too. I’ve seen flat head cats about the size you’re holding in your pic being pulled out below the Keystone Dam. I watched noodlers pull them out below Grand Lake too. I’ve also seen them carved up by the turbines at each of those dams. Big dams are hard on fish. From discussions with other sportsmen in the area it seems the Striper Hybrid was not native to the river but was introduced after the dam was built. Perhaps it was a mistake to do so. Each change to the river since the seventies has affected the population negatively. Some species have entirely disappeared since the lowater dam was built. However, the changes to the Zink dam should provide openings to allow the stripers to move upstream more easily. Perhaps there are other species that could be introduced that would do better under this kind of flow management. I think the stripers have a better chance under this plan than currently. But you cannot overlook that the Kaw and Keystone dams protected the areas along the river from more flooding damage than tourist dollars would ever have equaled. Even in the spring there were never more than dozens of visiting fishermen in Tulsa. The economic impact was negligible. Even though Oklahoma has protections against farmers damming up water that flows across their land, it is to protect against what happened in California when land speculators dried up irrigation to orange groves so they could develop Los Angeles. If a river flowing across a farmer’s land is flooding the nearby city, the state will allow it to be diverted or dammed. That’s only fair isn’t it? The least tern is and will continue to be protected with this plan. I spent 5 years up close watching the rising/falling river levels decimate the terns each spring from Keystone to Jenks. There has been little if any growth of tern populations in that area as what didn’t get washed away eagerly grew shrubs that hid their predators. But statewide the tern population continues to grow. So any improvement here would be a success and I think you will find there is great improvement in their habitat with the “living river” segment from Zink dam to 61st street. It protects their sand bars from the daily releases and predators. You think rich people are cramming their pleasure dreams down our throats? That their expensive visions will be carried on the backs of the working poor? I’ve been on both sides Tim. My experience is that the local rich and powerful do not, will not party on or around the Arkansas River on a regular basis. I had many who rode on my airboat on the Arkansas for the novelty of it but most of them prefer more exotic locations. Out of town rich? They’ll visit and check it out on their way to their Grand Lake homes. Hell, the Lortons own their own island in the Pacific!! And this plan is cheap. We’re talking less than a half cent which isn’t going to jam up anyone. No, this plan has evolved over 60 yrs time with input from your fellow sportsmen, wildlife associations, preservationists, runners, kayakers, and the Corps of Engineers. People just like you. It just so happens that there are wealthy folks involved too. They run along the river, watch the wildlife and they want to improve the river’s usefulness and make it something the city can be proud of. They may profit from their donations eventually. But there are no inside deals by robber barons unless its hidden pretty well. If anyone can prove that they stand to make big money, then they should step up and tell us all how. NO ONE HAS. The money they pledge will simply be moved somewhere else if Tulsans don’t want it. There is a lot for you to like with this plan Tim. Check out the website and get the truth. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: TheArtist on September 07, 2007, 09:22:59 pm Tim. This has a link to the Tennessee Valley Authority Report and some other good info about the dam designs and Living River project.
http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/default.htm Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: booWorld on September 07, 2007, 10:29:09 pm I very seldomly watch TV, so I haven't seen the ads. But I bet those kids are absolutely adorable.
Let me guess: Big, pleading, Precious Moments styled eyes? Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: waterboy on September 07, 2007, 11:05:11 pm quote: They were nice looking kids, parents, grandparents and of course Betty Boyd. All no doubt related to greedy oligarch ruling families. [;)] Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: booWorld on September 08, 2007, 11:17:15 am For the past 18 years, I've lived within a few blocks of the river. I can see it from where I live and from the building where I work also. On average throughout the years, I estimate that I've walked or biked to River Parks about three times a week or so, depending on the season and on my work load.
I spend far more time looking at the river than I spend watching TV. Yard signs and TV commercials for or against the tax will not persuade me to change my position. There is no doubt in my mind that I would personally benefit from the approval of this tax, but yet I am against it because I don't think it's fair. Why should someone in the hinterland of Tulsa County whose income is much lower than mine be forced to pay a sales tax in order to increase the value of my property and my quality of life? I've enjoyed the Arkansas River for years. Before I moved to Tulsa, I lived near the Arkansas in two separate cities in Kansas. I love looking at the river from my window, and it was no accident that I chose to live close to it again when I moved to Tulsa. As I write this, I'm glancing from my computer screen to the river and back, thinking about the unfairness of a regressive river sales tax. On a very selfish personal level, I will gain from the approval of this tax, but I'm satisfied with the river as it is. If a majority of Tulsa County voters approve it next month, then fine. But if the tax is rejected, that's okay with me, too. Some of the posts here are so extreme. Some are written as though Tulsa will never survive if we don't approve the tax. Others are written as though Tulsa will suffer greatly if we do approve it. Putting the extremism aside, I ask myself the following questions: Should river development be a priority for Tulsa right now? If so, is a county sales tax the best way to fund it? Might there be other ways to finance river development other than a county-wide sales tax? I think some of the arguments for the tax are valid. My gut is telling me to vote against it. I'll be interested to see what happens on October 9th. But either way, it's nothing to blow a gasket over. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Double A on September 08, 2007, 04:08:26 pm quote:My answers your questions are absolutely not, absolutely not, and emphatically yes. Thanks, those questions really do put things into perspective and put the extremism aside. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: TheArtist on September 08, 2007, 04:29:11 pm Frankly I think these commercials are quite vanilla and uninspiring. The Channels video was a top notch example of the type of advertising I was thinking they would use. They need to have some dimensional, computer, renderings that show all the features, visually explaining what is really in this plan. The average person has no idea and I still hear people complaining about this as being an island with buildings on it in the middle of the river lol.
Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Friendly Bear on September 08, 2007, 06:23:59 pm quote: It WOULD actually be interesting to know whether the Tax Vampires served up their own children to serve as PROPS for the Kaiser River Tax commercials. When Vote YES TAX campaign adopts "It's for the Children" as its theme, reach for the Airsick bag. [V] Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: RecycleMichael on September 08, 2007, 06:50:12 pm Why would it matter if the children actors in the movie were from prominent Tulsa families or not?
They are actors in a television spot. Please tone down the rhetoric...there is no need to use phrases like "served up their own children". Actors...cute kids...not threat to you... Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Double A on September 08, 2007, 09:37:56 pm (http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p315/TYProle/DVC00175.jpg) (http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p315/TYProle/DVC00176.jpg)
Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: sauerkraut on September 09, 2007, 12:40:58 pm quote:The sales tax rates do seem high in Oklahoma and Tulsa. When I visit Tulsa I just can't get use-to paying sales tax on food items. Out of habit when I'm visiting Tulsa/Oklahoma and a food item is 99 cents I give the clerk $1.00 bill expecting to get a penny back in change then the clerk sez $1.09 and I have dig out some coins from my pocket. I'm from Ohio and we don't pay any sales tax on food items. If it's 99 cents we pay 99 cents. Paying sales tax on food itmes seems strange, but many other states also tax food items. However, Oklahoma is dirt cheap on prop. taxes. In Ohio we pay around $2,000.00 + prop. tax on a $100,000 home, in Oklahoma it's offten under $1,000.00. Our utility bills are thru the roof. The heating bills in Ohio are sky high, our Ohio vehicle license plates cost about $50.00 in reg. fees per year which is not bad. I don't know how much vehicle tags in Oklahoma cost. However, Oklahoma as a whole is a far cheaper place to live than many other states when you balance everything out. (many Ohio cities have a local income tax on top of the state income tax, Oklahoma does not have that.)[B)] Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: TheArtist on September 09, 2007, 04:07:21 pm Kinda neat. "stolen from Tulsa World Sunday Opinion article"
(http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/9316/riverlivingriverbridgebj2.jpg) (http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/1151/riverlivingriverdamem3.jpg) One thing though.... If thats the Living River Dam and pedestrian bridge/restaurant. Where is the kayak and canoe part? I am guessing its cut off in the lower left foreground. The river seems to be flowing from left to right according to the dam structure so we are looking at the East Bank. Just where is this pedestrian bridge(street wise) and what is that bridge in the background? And its supposed to be a sunset, we are looking east. Would the moon be there in that phase at that time? I cant possibly vote for this plan if they cant even get the moon in the right position. [:P] Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: pmcalk on September 09, 2007, 06:01:32 pm That top picture, while kind of cool, looks to have a LOT of light glare. Where's Patrick when you need him?
Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Friendly Bear on September 09, 2007, 06:02:18 pm quote: Well at the 61st Street pedestrian bridge, I don't see any graphic effects of the GAS MASKS depicting on the pedestrians strolling over the Sewage Treatment Plant Overflow Ponds....... Oooooh, what's that Smell?? Do you smell THAT smell?? [8)] Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: inteller on September 09, 2007, 06:29:41 pm quote: so you don't find it sad that they play dirty with commercials that are based on emotion instead of fact? I mean, the "do it for the kids" angle is the sign of a desperate campaign. and on another point....do the No River tax people get free commercial time? They obviously can't afford to make a fancy commercial like this, but I thought there was a fairness act that gave equal air time to both sides on an issue. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Steve on September 09, 2007, 07:24:38 pm quote: I highly doubt that any of those kids in the commercial under the age of 13 have the slightest idea of the issue at hand. And the same goes for every other child in Tulsa. If the "Yes" people want my vote, then ditch the lisping children and give us some proven numbers to justify this economically over other infrastructure needs. They can't do it so they resort to emotions. After a series of court rulings in the 1980's by judges in thick with the Reagan administration, the FCC abolished its regulations known as the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987. Since then, there has been much debate on the issue, but unfortunately there are currently no "fairness" rules required of broadcast TV. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: RecycleMichael on September 09, 2007, 07:40:41 pm quote: I don't think the cute kid campaign implies any desperation on the vote yes campaign. The commercial also had senior citizens in it...they must be desperate to use both old and young... I also am pretty sure that the vote yes commercials were not aired or produced for free. The vote no people have just as much opportunity to open their own wallets and pay for ads. Your post says that the vote no people can't afford to make a fancy commercial. Why not? Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Tiny on September 10, 2007, 03:48:03 am I think this is more accurate
(http://www.catfishing.tv/cattalk/album_mod/upload/6.jpg) Although this photo is not going to be how it is it's kinda cute. In the real futuristic photo there won't be a little striper to ask what happened to the good ole days except the ones that come through keystone dam. (http://www.catfishing.tv/cattalk/album_mod/upload/2.gif) I'm not saying that the flood control dams weren't necessary as they were and still are but when you slow the water flow of a successful striper spawning habitat the eggs will die ... you can mark my words on that ... once the zink dam is redesigned so that the striper can go through the dam and spawn by keystone dam they'll get stuck at zink dam and the others because the flow will be slowed enough that the eggs won't free flow in the water for the required three days. it'll take them about 6 hours to get from keystone dam to zink and then when they get in the deeper water they'll get stuck there or at any of the other dams they're putting in. These dams going up don't have anything to do with me at all ... that doesn't mean that I shouldn't take a stand against something that is very wrong that will effect my friends. Every wildlife dept person I spoke with about these dams feel it's going to be bad for the striper so there's no need for me to second guess them. I'm not sure who spoke to you or who you listened to about this stuff because it's totally different from what I've heard ... incog isn't a good source for any impact on anything as far as I'm concerned ... to me they're about like these people that are saying this is good for the fishies like Gaylon Pinc who's acting as some king of authority on all this water quality stuff and environmental expert when he couldn't even name 5 species of fish that lived in the river at this meeting they had a while back. These guys they're getting to do these studies also have no clue. They seem to have searched for some knothead to do the studies that'll side with them instead of deliver the facts about damages these dams will cause. They're also falsifying the data to water flows at keystone saying that they're always released at a certain time so that tulsans never see any river flow ... this isn't very accurate either as I've pretty much lived down at the dam for years and they're never releasing at the same time very often or shutting them down at the same time either. Sometimes you can depend on them to be more accurate on their water flows but this is of little importance as it's not going to matter ... you dam up sewer water and that's what you're going to get is a sewer pond. They talk about the key to cleaner water is going to be the sand springs dam and it's going to be funny when there's not going to be near enough volume held around sand springs to insure a constant water flow for more than a few hours unless maybe they hold it back to 100 cubic feet per second or slower and then you're not going to be able to tell there's any water flowing at all ... the stinch is going to be really interesting because if they released say an equal amount of water compared to the flow of the sewage then the volume of water isn't going to be nearly enough to accomidate these sewer ponds. it's going to have to be a pretty substantial flow of water to do anything and when keystone dam is shut down for a couple days they'll have three massive sewer ponds with river walks around them and cafe's that no one can eat at due to the constant nose full of sewage. I've seen keystone dam stay off for a very long time ... for weeks at a time. what will they do when they can't run water to supply these dams with fresh water ... it's going to be all sewage. I kinda hope they do put these dams in just to see if my predictions come true ... they've got people working on these studies with their heads affixed with rose colored glasses so they can spout numbers and conditions that will correspond with their building plans. the rich that are wanting this done may not use these facilities for themselves ... I don't expect they would ... they want to make money off them so they can own islands in the pacific ... they don't want their own playground in tulsa ... they're the ones that want to make money off of it. These dams would be great for me as they'll let fish through once they're done or supposedly they would ... that's been my main gripe about zink dam but it's got a gate on it already that's supposed to let fish through ... they don't use it because they can't as it's been silted in for years. the only time the fish has been able to come over zink dam was in 1986 and 1993 ... fishing was great for several years after those floods because they hit just at the right time of year for the fish to come over ... the average flathead caught below keystone then was about 30 lbs ... the average now is about 6 to 8 lbs ... the flathead I'm holding in that picture was caught below keystone dam. but like I said ... the dams would be great for me as I'm a catfisherman and they won't hurt me one little bit ... the taxes won't hurt me either except if I go to basspro and buy something ... it's 100% good for me as a catfisherman and 0% bad for me ... but you can flip those numbers for striped bass and hybrid production ... what they should do is go in and blow zink dam up like they did that other one and leave it like that then get the corp to schedule constant release from keystone so that tulsa can have their water 24/7 like they want and that won't cost ya'll anything. better management of the water and generation from the dam would give tulsa all the water they needed for their walkways and what not. get rid of zink dam and it's great for the fish and everything else ... build the least terns a big sandbox up there on the side of the bank and it's all good. then you don't have sewer ponds ... you got good water all the time and the riverbed full of water or at least covering all the sand bars ... dam them up and you get what you deserve. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: sgrizzle on September 10, 2007, 07:00:11 am quote: That's a picture of the low water dam. Last I checked those were in sand springs and jenks. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: waterboy on September 10, 2007, 07:14:04 am This would all be great if you knew what you're talking about. You may know fishing but stay away from engineering, flood plain management and your analyses of wildlife preservation.
Two things tipped me off that you're not genuine. One is your constant reference to the river and the impounds as sewer water and sewer smell. Yet you fish in that water? No one who spends any amount of time up and down the river or any fluctuating lake would talk bs like that. I got news fella, lots of people run, walk, play, eat and drink around that lake you think is so smelly. And we don't smell any sewer. Maybe its the smell of your own selfish interest that is masking your true motives here. If you really believe its so bad why would you have anything at all to do with the area? Secondly your ignorance of the flow management at the Keystone Dam. The figures on water release are public record on the internet. The Corps puts them out in several different ways. And they show water levels of the river since before the dam was built. Even you could look them up. www.waterdate.usgs. Last nite the river peaked at around 11,000cfs around midnight with a level of 7.3ft. Since the level started rising around 2pm that means the water was released from the dam in the morning around 8am. They show historically what "they" have said is accurate. I check the website everyday and note the spike in water levels at the 11th street bridge as the dam releases arrive while Tulsans sleep. And strangely, those releases co-incide with electricity generation for peak hour usage in the area. Yes, there are non correlating releases that occur because of many different reasons. I guess you're convinced they fake those numbers. Why? So those rich fat cats can kill stripers and make big money? How? How are people who are already rich, going to fleece the public with this plan? Kaiser could fund the whole damn thing himself and still be rich. I suspect one of the anti-everythings around here enlisted you to share your vast knowledge of the river to help them in their crusade. Or that you are unwilling to share the river with the rest of the community that you think is just stupid and gullible. Many organizations, and educated people study this river closely with more than their nose and their fishing tackle. I'll take their opinions over yours right now. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: RecycleMichael on September 10, 2007, 08:09:50 am Today's newspaper has a couple of fish guys say how the dams will be hard on fish. I know these guys from the technical advisory committee and I respect their opinions. They want some different modeling done using low flow information from a bad year 2006, rather that the computer modeling traditionally done by the Corps of Engineers.
There is not a more harmful thing to the fish on this river than Keystone dam. When it was built 50 years ago we changed the Arkansas river forever. These new dams are designed way better for fish. They will allow passage and keep water in the river. 2006 was a bad year for the fish because there was almost no water in the river. I believe that the new dams will help in the bad water years that happen every decade or so. The simple solution is to make the furthest upstream dam hold more water so it could be released during dry times. I am sure that the engineers can design it to function and help keep water flowing on down river. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: NellieBly on September 10, 2007, 08:10:55 am I noticed a new commercial airing this weekend. The first words were that a vote for the river means a vote for street improvements. Huh? They are confusing the issue by saying that the river money includes street repairs.
Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: sgrizzle on September 10, 2007, 08:43:23 am quote: It does... to riverside. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: MichaelBates on September 10, 2007, 09:09:36 am quote: This is a classic example of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. A handful of construction companies and other businesses stand to make a lot of money from this and can justify contributing large amounts to make sure it passes. If you're going to get a contract for $50 million, a $50,000 contribution is no big deal. That's a buck for every thousand you stand to make. The cost is spread out among all Tulsa County taxpayers, so that even a modest campaign contribution would be a significant proportion of the money someone would safe if the tax fails. If the tax is going to cost you $1,000, even a modest contribution of $20 is proportionally a much bigger share of economic benefit than what the construction company is contributing. You see the same phenomenon in lobbying. It's worth paying for lobbyists if your company stands to make millions from a change to the tax law or the earmarking of a Federal contract. The cost of that benefit to a single company is spread out so broadly that no one person or company can justify funding a lobbyist on the other side. Public interest groups like Citizens Against Government Waste and Club for Growth help to aggregate opposition to these special deals, and often they're funded not from direct economic self-interest but from principle or passion. The interplay of concentrated benefit and distributed cost also explains why elections for state auditor are dominated by contributions from abstractors and elections for state insurance commissioner are dominated by contributions from insurance companies and agents. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: MichaelBates on September 10, 2007, 09:15:07 am quote: The claim in the mailer that hit this weekend is that if we spend $282 million now, we'll eventually have $85 million to spend on "basic services, like better streets and public safety." Even accepting their numbers, that's a pretty bad deal. It's like one of those alternative energy schemes that consumes more energy than it produces. If we're going to raise taxes to improve basic government services, wouldn't it be more efficient to spend the money directly on basic government services? Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Vision 2025 on September 10, 2007, 09:54:58 am quote: I had nothing to do with those ads but in my opinion it is a simple concept: Do projects which are highly likely to grow the economic base of Tulsa County. The river projects do this by making us a more attractive community to a larger region, to ourselves (pride is contagious take in a Jenks-Union game sometime), to visitors, and ultimately to new employers and you create a larger permanent revenue stream to maintain Tulsa's relatively finite needs (The City of Tulsa is not significantly growing geographically) making the street problem and other issues finite. We are making an excellent start with Vision 2025 and the River project (in my opinion) completes a missing piece for the long term economic health of the entire metropolitan region. The other solution to the City of Tulsa's (and other community’s financial problems like streets and needing more cops is more taxes for government operations... all in favor? I wonder if those leading the against movement will knock others down to march out front for a “let's grow government operations tax” which is the only other viable long term solution available to the City of Tulsa unless of course you just like to complain and be against which if that is the case keep up the good work because decay is your friend. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Vision 2025 on September 10, 2007, 10:00:43 am quote: That is "a" concept plan for the Sand Springs Dam/Bridge developed (not by me) by an artist. Technically, the lighting in such circumstances would likely be by programable LED and the river orientation there is more E/W so does that make the moon location better for you? Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: MichaelBates on September 10, 2007, 11:27:24 am quote: So here are two options: (1) Raise county taxes by 0.4% for seven years -- $282 million. Pay a bunch of it to Manhattan Construction, Flintco, Kirby Crowe's PMg (program management), and John Piercey (bond financing). Eventually generate enough economic activity to bring in $85 million (county wide, not all of it in Tulsa) that can be used for fixing streets, hiring cops, and putting water in the city's pools. (2) Raise city taxes by 0.4% for seven years. I think the rule of thumb is $70 million per penny of city sales tax? So that's $196 million over seven years. The $196 million goes directly to fix streets, hire cops, and put water in the city's pools. Both approaches involve the same cost to taxpayers -- 0.4% sales tax. One would bring in $196 million to fund basic government services. The county approach would bring in "as much as $85 million" to fund basic government services. Which would be a better deal for the citizens of the City of Tulsa? Which would be a better deal for Kirby Crowe? Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: swake on September 10, 2007, 11:51:36 am Michael,
I don't think cities are allowed to levy more than two cents for operational needs. More than that I have been told would require a change in state law. Cities can levy an income tax for operational needs, but that would require an approval vote of the people and would never pass. The county used to give two mills of property tax to the cities, but stopped doing so when the county was broke a decade or so ago. The feds also used to give several million dollars a year to maintain roads, but stopped that 10 or 15 years ago. Those two changes got us to where we are today, along with the growth of retail in the 'burbs and internet shopping bypassing sales taxes. And it's not just Tulsa, it's every city in the state. But, big cities with urban issues have higher costs to run, so Tulsa and Oklahoma City are hurt worse. Oklahoma City actually collects less money on a per penny, per capita basis than Tulsa. of course they have even fewer cops per capita than we do that make even less and they have no public pools, a weaker parks system and even worse rated roads. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: pfox on September 10, 2007, 01:24:01 pm That is the Sand Springs Dam... the Whitewater Park is near the 31st St Ped bridge...
Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Double A on September 10, 2007, 01:47:19 pm Why should we trust anything coming from the pro river camp at this point, if the information they are relying on to come up with these delusional outcomes that this new tax will generate is as reliable as the corps study on the environmental impacts of these low water dams?
Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: waterboy on September 10, 2007, 01:53:06 pm quote: I'm sure your example is good. But, you're assuming a contractor is going to get 50 million and spending $50,000 to get the business is a good investment. But he's not going to have 50 million after expenses. He will net much less, with competitive bidding probably less than 10% which is less than 5 million. Still a good investment but not crazy good. Do you resent local contractors from profitting from river development? Would you rather it be outsourced or just not done at all? They will be accused of insider profiteering whether or not they support the plan. Might as well do what makes sense for them. That's pretty well accepted behaviour. No one checks the anti-forces to see how they may profit. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: RecycleMichael on September 10, 2007, 02:05:44 pm quote: I don't doubt that construction companies have donated to the vote yes campaign. They always do and do have motives of making more business. But I see that Quik-Trip is part of the yes campaign. What is their motive? They won't probably be able to locate a store on the river development and collecting more in taxes doesn't help them. Are you saying that the vote no people can't contribute money? That big business are always for more taxes? There are a handful of elected officials involved that seem to be able to raise money for their own elections, why can't they do the same here? Just because you vote no doesn't mean you got no money. The vote no crowd is doing a great job in getting the message out without money, yet complain about the ads the vote yes people have paid for. I think you have just lost focus. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Friendly Bear on September 10, 2007, 02:06:26 pm quote: My own smouldering resentment against the Vote Yes TAX VAMPIRES is really pretty simple: Unlike candidate elections which have actual campaign contributor limits, by clever maneuvering there are no individual campaign LIMITS on what the Tax Promoters can raise and spend to promote and pass a tax. A tax which they in turn will profit from handsomely. Flint and Rooney financial interests contributed a pittance compared to the revenues thrown to them on the Arena construction. And, just how much profit did they make: It's a secret. Likewise, the two Sole-Sourced bond underwriters contributed a pittance, and then gained $millions in bond underwriting fees. Nice racket, if you're one of their Connected Cronies...... [B)] As to the Vote No forces, the only beneficiaries would possibly be those cities that planned to raise their own sales taxes, and would be forestalled by the Kaiser River Tax raising a tax that they also plan to raise. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Vision 2025 on September 10, 2007, 05:14:15 pm quote: BETTER FOR TULSA, guess you missed that lecture in economics about growing your overall market base vs. competing with others (who already have you beat)for a bigger piece of the same pie as sound business practice. If you favor option number 2. You will be doing it again and again and again rather than creating the real potential for growing the economy in order to provide a permanent funding solution with more and better JOBS. Go ahead Michael, demonize me if makes you feel righteous in your quest. It is not your first time and likely will not be your last from my observation of your methods. You want infrastructure but you regularly go after those employed in that field. I am proud of what I do and I sleep well each and every night knowing that I bring value to the community with my days work. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Vision 2025 on September 10, 2007, 05:26:25 pm quote: FAIR QUESTIONS Yes, I am with PMg and am the Managing Director of the firm which I started. After many years on the consulting engineering side I observed first hand the need for public projects to have effective, practical, professional management which brought value to the client. Is it my living? Yes, part of it. Am I getting rich? No, PMg charges fees for services - not commissions and with Tulsa County our fee increases have not kept up with the cost of inflation. Additionally, we provide a considerable amount of service pro-bono to the County and others. PMg (via Vision 2025) administrates the Corps of Engineers Phase 3 contract with Tulsa County, for the environmental studies related to the Corridor Master Plan. This has been stated in recent news articles and I believe I have addressed it here as well. Following many meetings with representatives of the foundation concerning the river PMg, was requested by the Kaiser Foundation to consult on potential river projects that they felt were important and finally they asked us to to develop presentation materials which they utilized in various presentations and until the press conference our logo was on them. When the amount of time required became awkward for them to ask for without compensation we were offered and accepted compensation for our time which was appropriate. As I have stated before; I believe that the river projects are critical to Tulsa’s long term future and for the campaign PMg’s time, including my time here, has been tracked for reporting as an in-kind contribution as we are required by law to do. Let’s throw out some others… Am I or is PMg a Metro Chamber member? No, but we did manage their relocation several years ago into the current space they occupy pro bono (long story requiring beverages) and I do like the direction I see the new leadership going and am considering a membership. Have I been demonized by those with opposing opinions, I’ll let you be the judge. Funny thing, I could have set up a phantom name and remained hidden here but I believe the net makes that all too easy and there appears to be more than enough games here already. And lastly out of fairness, to whom am I responding? Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: waterboy on September 10, 2007, 07:02:47 pm quote: Read more than the headline and intro, then spout. Your lucky anyone even responds when you do this. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: waterboy on September 10, 2007, 07:15:22 pm quote: Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: TheArtist on September 10, 2007, 07:50:03 pm quote: They say we need 600million dollars of road repairs to keep us at the level we are. And I am sure by the time they get around to "fixing' that proverbial last road, the ones they fixed first will need repairing and round we go all over again. We need to grow the economy so that the taxes we have will be able to keep up with road maintenance. We need to get more population densities, especially attracting those types of educated, urban, yp people that make good money. The more people we have living in areas like downtown and areas around it the better. Those roads are going to have to be paid for whether nobody lives there or 1000s. . What gets me is how I always hear people complaining about this being a "playground for the wealthy" or catering to yuppy YP type people going out to have a drink etc. As if thats a bad thing? What kind of people do they want to encourage to stay in or move to our city? Poor working class people? How much taxes can they pay in comparison? You run off the wealthier people who is left to pay for the roads, police, etc.? The same amount of roads are going to have to be repaired regardless of who lives here, might as well attract more people who spend more money thus paying more taxes to help fix them. Lets see. I am not one of the wealthier of my YP "ilk". Rather poor and small time in the scheme of things and probably too old to be a YP anyway lol. I only employ 2 people. 3 including myself. Looking back over the last 3 months I have spent about 20-25 thousand dollars. Bought a little french country light to go in the kitchen just yesterday, 900 dollars paid about 80 dollars in taxes for that. (Thats a lot of groceries. over how long a period would it take for a poor person to pay for that much roads?) Building a studio in my backyard, am paying cash and not using my tax ID number, I am not that picky over taxes, I am extreemely fortunate and dont mind paying them. Will be buying fixtures and furniture for that. Heck just bought 6000 dollars worth of canvas from the local art store will need another 6000 worth in a few months. I eat out a lot, occasionally buy some expensive wine, like buying decent things. Car. etc. etc. A lot of my friends like that contemporary designer furniture for their new homes and condos. Have you seen the prices? That stuff aint cheap. I could go on and on.... Many of my YP friends make a heck of a lot more than I do and they spend money. Aka each one of them pays a looot of taxes and if they dont want to live here. Who gets left paying for the roads? When I hear some one who doesnt make much money, some older person or east or north sider perhaps, saying they dont want to do anything that would attract people like me and my friends to the city. I cant help but think. "Well who is going to pay that 600million in roads?" They say it will put a burden on them for food. And you hate to think of that, but then I cant help but think if the demographics stay mostly poor people. How much food can they possibly eat to make up for the fact that they will be paying for it by themselves without people like me paying taxes? I pay a lot of taxes in comparison. Just one of me can really help pay for a lot more things. If they dont like 4tenths of a tax for 7 years to equal 280 million. How much will they have to pay, by themselves, to pay for 600 million, and then likely have to start all over again? If you dont want to cater to those who can and do pay a lot of taxes. The burden will shift ever more to the poor to make up for what the wealthier could have been paying. Again, the same amount of roads will be here needing to be repaired and kept up...for a long time. (and you can argue about the rich and their tax shelters etc. but I am not talking about them, I am just talking about middle class YP types like myself. Plus I guarantee you even those wealthy people spend a lot more money on buying things than I could ever dream of.) I know its not politically correct to talk like this but I dont know how else to say it. We have to grow the tax base and the economy or you will fix the roads and soon after your done "if you ever really are" you will be right back where you are now. If you want the city to grow. What kind of people, jobs, taxpayers, do you want to attract? What do you do to help attract them? If you dont attract those types of people. just what type of people and growth will you get? Is there a direction the city wants to go, or is it just fix what we got and keep doing the same thing and keep getting what we have been getting. We arent going to be able to attract the suburban types like we once did. The suburbs will beat us at that game. I think we need to be able to attract the urban types who like living in nice, beautiful, lively, urban areas. Of which YPs are only one type btw. No the river isnt everything there are other parts to this picture, but the opportunity our river gives us to improve our attractiveness and lifestyle, for generations, is very fortunate. I think we should finally take advantage of it. This may not be the perfect plan for it. But I think we should do most of these things, in some form or another, very soon. The economy is doing amazingly well here, lets keep it going. Its gonna go down sooner or later and we are definitely not going to be able to do much then, roads or otherwise. Sorry for the long rant lol. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Tiny on September 10, 2007, 08:03:26 pm Hmmmm ... I guess ole Tiny Tim Smith may have been right in the previous post ... look what ran in the Tulsa world today.
Tulsa World this morning A federal biologist says the Corps of Engineers' report used a faulty assumption. The Arkansas River might not bring enough water to Tulsa to support additional low-water dams without harming the environment, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials say. The agency is questioning an environmental impact study by the Army Corps of Engineers in advance of the Oct. 9 vote on taxes to support proposed river projects. But a consultant who worked with the corps on its first report on the projects says they won't harm wildlife. "I'm convinced, in my professional opinion," said Gaylon Pinc, a consultant who is working with Tulsa County and the Corps of Engineers on the environmental part of the master plan, "that the net effect will be an improvement to the river and to the habitat." A spokesman for the corps said it hadn't started the process that could result in a permit for the projects, and until it does, he can't say whether possible environmental problems can be overcome. Pinc's report to the corps found no reason to oppose a key part of the proposal -- constructing low-water dams near Jenks and Sand Springs in addition to altering the dam near 31st Street and Riverside Drive. A Fish and Wildlife biologist, Kevin Stubbs, said the corps' analysis assumed an unrealistically high average flow of water in the river. Partly because of the natural flow of the river, and partly because of electric power generation at Keystone Dam, the amount of water in the Arkansas tends to fluctuate a great deal from day to day, even from hour to hour, Stubbs said. "It tends to be all or nothing," said Stubbs, a member of an advisory committee for the proposed river developments in Tulsa. "You have a lot of water or hardly any water. Statistically, the average will be somewhere in the middle, but in reality you never see the average." Without enough water coming downstream, pollutants could build up behind the dams, possibly creating a fetid and murky pool, Stubbs said. And the amount of dissolved oxygen could drop, too -- essentially suffocating fish in the river. "Averages don't mean anything to a fish," Stubbs said. "If you have eight hours of low flow followed by two hours of high flow, if you're a fish you're still dead. The two good hours won't bring you back." The corps' environmental impact study used a standard called "7Q2," a complicated method of predicting the lowest average flow of water that a river would be expected to have over an extended period. The problem, Stubbs said, is that the Arkansas routinely falls below its 7Q2 level. In fact, during last year's drought, the river fell below 7Q2 on all but three days during a three-month stretch, re cords from the U.S. Geological Survey show. Instead of using the 7Q2 standard, the Fish and Wildlife Service wants the corps to study what impact the dams would have on water quality during drought conditions, with 2006 used as a benchmark. "You can make an argument that last year was an extreme situation and it won't happen again," Stubbs said. "Well, it won't happen every year, but it is sure to happen again, sooner or later. "And you have to account for extremes like that when you plan a project like this." Tulsa's existing low-water dam, which creates Zink Lake south of the 21st Street bridge, has been shown to reduce fish populations for miles downstream, according to a report from the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. Pollution, nonetheless, hasn't been a major issue in Zink Lake. The proposed low-water dams, however, would create larger pools of water and would come one after the other along the river's course, creating a cumulative effect, Stubbs said. More important, Zink Lake is upstream from Tulsa's sewage treatment plant, but Jenks is downstream, Stubbs noted. "You're going to be pooling water at precisely the point where you want to dilute this discharge," he said. "What happens when you have 10 or 12 hours -- or even 10 or 12 days -- without a significant amount of fresh water coming into that pool?" Tulsa County voters will decide Oct. 9 whether to approve a $282 million plan to build the two low-water dams and renovate Zink Lake. The projects would be financed by an additional 0.4 percent sales tax. Those revenues would be added to a $117 million pledge by the George Kaiser Family Foundation to develop attractions along the river. Proponents acknowledge that Tulsa will endure periods of drought, during which the low-water dams will likely not be able to keep the river high. Especially on weekends, when Keystone Dam tends to release less water as it reduces power generation, water levels may drop, said Pinc, the corps' consultant. "The vast majority of time, we're going to have a good, steady flow of high water," Pinc said. "As for the extremes of nature, there's no way to avoid them. We'll simply have to suffer through them, like we suffer through them now." Ken Levit, the executive director of the Kaiser Foundation, referred environmental-impact questions to Pinc. Pinc promised that officials would work with the federal wildlife agency to minimize the environmental impact as they design the low-water dams and the supporting infrastructure. Wildlife habitat can either be protected or "replaced" by restoring similar habitats elsewhere along the river, he said. The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, however, predicted a net loss of habitat, especially for native species of fish, in a report prepared for the corps' environmental impact study. The low-water dams would destroy about 10 miles of "prairie river habitat," said Brent Gordon, a fisheries biologist who prepared the report for the state agency. And the water level will fluctuate too much to replace the river habitat with a sustainable lake habitat, Gordon said. "What you end up with is neither," he said. "People think that if you want fish, all you need is water. But that's not true. It's not even close to true." Neither the federal Wildlife Service nor the state Wildlife Conservation Department could block construction of the low-water dams. But under the federal Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, the Corps of Engineers must consult both agencies before it can issue a permit for the construction. Edward Engelke, a spokesman for the corps, said the process that could lead to a permit for the projects would also involve consulting historical groups and conducting public hearings. That process hasn't started, so it would be premature to address the river projects specifically, he said. Hypothetically, if a project could harm an endangered species such as the least terns that nest in the Arkansas River in the Tulsa area, it might not receive a permit, Engelke said. However, such impacts often can be mitigated or the project changed in modest ways to allow it to proceed, he said. When the Creek Turnpike was planned, problems that a bridge over the Arkansas River would have produced for least terns led to design changes that allowed the project to advance without hurting the birds, he said. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: RecycleMichael on September 10, 2007, 08:04:57 pm quote: We just spent six grand on new appliances and fixtures for the kitchen. The taxes on them equalled 511 dollars and if this vote passes it would be 535 dollars in taxes. 24 dollars is a lot of money if I was buying a few nick-nacks, but on a major purchase that I would only do occasionally, it was reasonable. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: MichaelBates on September 10, 2007, 08:10:05 pm quote: Demonize? I don't think of you as a demon or a bad person, Kirby. By all accounts you do a fine job in your line of work. The monthly Vision 2025 reports are very thorough, and I hope at some point you post them on the vision2025.info website. But as the saying goes, to the man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If someone runs a business that manages large public construction programs, it's only natural for that person, when choosing between different approaches to "growing the pie," to prefer the approach that involves a large public construction program. Acquiring new civic toys when we can't take care of what we already have is not going to grow our local economy. It will only transfer money from the rest of the county's economy to the construction industry. Taking care of our streets, keeping our parks in good shape and fully operational, and reducing crime will matter just as much, if not more, in keeping and attracting a quality workforce and ultimately growing the local economy. I'm not inclined to raise sales taxes for any reason at the moment. I'm still puzzled that we spend more and more (adjusted for inflation and population growth) for less and less in basic services. I'd like to see a top-to-bottom audit of the city public works department and a review and implementation of the recommendations of the city government performance audits that have already been done. But if we are going to raise sales taxes with the ultimate goal of having more money to spend on basic public services, spending the tax increase directly on those services is clearly the most efficient approach. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Tiny on September 10, 2007, 09:04:01 pm Waterboy Quote -
quote: The Tulsa World ran the article and information from Brent Gordon and others that varified what I said in that post you replied to with the quote above. You think I"m not an authority on release of water but I think I may be more in tune to it than you realize since I've studied these release flows for a very long time. I've been down there sometimes 150 days a year and seen first hand how much water actually comes out of the dam. The article that ran in the Tulsa World today confirmed what I said about the river flow and sewage problems you'd have with the dammed river. The sewage problem I was referring to was the stinch that comes from the river when you drive over the 71st street bridge ... as I'm thinking right now the dam at Jenks is going to be below that area and that's the one that's going to be stinking the place up. Zink dam isn't the one I was talking about. It was also confirmed that Zink dam took it's toll on the fish population down river as well but what remained was the striper spawning area just below Zink ... once that dam is put up down river that's probably gone as well because they're designing the dams so that the fish can get through there which is even worse as they will go through and then their eggs are going to die as a result as confirmed by Kurk Kuklinski ( I may have spelled his name wrong ) Fisheries Biologist for the Oklahoma Dept of Wildlife. This is a quote from Kurk posted a few days ago. quote: You think I'm not for real, well I can assure you that I am and more in tune to this issue than you'd ever realize. What I am is a fisherman and that's it ... damming the rivers won't effect me one bit as I don't go down river near far enough to be effected in any way except maybe when it comes to hybrid fishing ... I do like to do that and when the ODWC loses it's source for hybrid eggs then that does effect me just a little bit ... I don't fish for hybrids but maybe once or twice a year though so that, I can live without. I also don't fish for any of the species that they trade those hybrid for but what I do is try to help the ODWC when and where I can .. when they have a project that I can help with then I'm there. I helped them with a show to promote catch n release of the larger bluecat last year with Fisheries Biologist Jeff Boxrucker and others that were there was Paul Moore, Dan Miller, Brent Gordon and a guy they called Stimey or something like that. I also stay in touch with a few ODWC fisheries biologists on occasion and they've informed me about the bad outcome these dams are going to have. If they do go up then enjoy your sewer pond all you want but there's likely going to be a few months out of several years in the future that no one's going to be wanting to be around that one below zink dam. Low flow will make it so. nuff sed! Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: swake on September 10, 2007, 09:14:28 pm Again,
2006 was not a representative year as the Keystone dam was closed for repairs (for the first time in 40 years) so the flows were not representative of normal flows. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Oil Capital on September 10, 2007, 09:40:01 pm quote: OMG "No public pools???" WHERE do you come up with the BS you post? What a joke. Didn't that seem just a bit unlikely, even to you? It takes about 30 seconds to go to OKC's city website and find that is of course not true. Makes it more than a little difficult to put much faith in your other claims. . . Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: TheArtist on September 10, 2007, 09:47:10 pm If there is a drought. Wont the fish will be just as dead in a river with no water in it as they would be in a stagnant lake?
Remember when they emptied Zink lake a while back? They can emty the new ones just as easily. There doesnt have to be any more "stench" than there is now. If we dont have enough rain. The lakes can be emptied and the river flow as it usually does, or wouldnt. Even Zink lake can do that now. The fish spawn and migrate during certain times and Keystone takes that into account already by releasing water during those times. It can still do that with these lakes. The Sand Springs lake will enable the water to flow more often in the river than it can now. The TW article you showed had a list of remedies along with it. I would have figured they would use most of them anyway. I dont think anyone here, knowing how varied the flow in this river can be, expected that these dams would be able to make things perfect all year round, every year. That would be a ridiculous assumption. I still believe it will help put more flowing water in it more often. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: swake on September 10, 2007, 10:41:50 pm quote: Oh good lord, yes, I checked and you are correct, for now. I had read that Oklahoma City was going to transition to Splash Pads in favor of pools as a cost saving measure. It may well be that has not been completed yet or the plan may have changed, I can't find the article any longer. My point was hardly to bash your beloved city, it is simply to point out that the budgetary problems that Tulsa is facing are ones created by the funding structure for cities in this state. I have done some more checking and I was wrong on another count. Cities (and counties) can pass additional sales tax above the 2 cents for public safety and just recently can for educational infrastructure. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Tiny on September 11, 2007, 12:19:08 am I think the repair on Keystone dam was done in 2002 and 2003 ... the tainter gates (the ones at the top of the dam) was being refurbished and painted and was completed by the time I quit fishing there regularly and that was in 2004. They were also generating during that time ... in 2006 it was due to drought conditions that caused the low flows. The lake was really low and only a few boat ramps were usable. I'm a catfish guide on keystone so I remember how low it was. They had to dig out cowskin bay so that boats could launch there. Normal level is 723 ft above sea level and it got down to something like 714 ft asl at one point so they quit generating completely and brought it back up to about 719.
Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Friendly Bear on September 11, 2007, 05:12:42 am quote: EXPLOITING Children for craven financial GAIN?? Isn't there a LAW against that? Phoning the DHS Child Abuse Hotline immediately!! Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Friendly Bear on September 11, 2007, 05:19:17 am quote: Sunday's NO RIVER TAX rally at the closed Albertson's Grocery Store on North Peoria was as different from the Kaiser River Tax serial TV and print ads as bermuda grass is different from Astro-Turf. Difference: AUTHENTICITY. Sunday's NO RIVER TAX rally included the REAL children of Tulsa's REAL families: Oppressed and Exploited middle-class families whose budgets are being ripped apart by sky-high Un-controlled gasoline prices, increasing food costs, among other escalating expenditures. Stick a fork in Kaiser's River Tax: It's DONE. [:D] Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: sgrizzle on September 11, 2007, 06:50:00 am quote: Weren't they also protesting the sheriff and lack of funding for TPS? Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: waterboy on September 11, 2007, 07:06:17 am quote: Like most folks, you stake out a position then only read and quote what fits that position, totally ignoring any factual disagreements. You misled in your original quotes and you refuse to give the Corps credibility, but choose to believe one federal biologist. Hundreds of people have researched, studied and taken input from many different sources, not just fishermen, and conclude this plan can work. But one federal biologist and a fisherman disagree. If you knew anything about me you would know that I really don't want any changes to this river other than eliminating the Zink dam, clearing out past pollution sources and debris from the river. I am a believer that we have changed the nature of the river so much as to have offended nature. We should have worked with the river, not against it. Channelizing, wing dams, connecting canals to creeks all would have been better than what we did the last hundred years. I happen to like sandy rivers and their behaviors. I made most of the arguments you are espousing for the last 5 years to anyone who would listen. Few agree me. We must realize that there are strong economic forces at work; that the majority of Tulsans want a different type of river with more sophisticated development and that we will lose the battle to keep it natural. If that is true then making adjustments to planning for development is the best route. The living river is a good effort to educate the public about the river. The lakes will provide economic benefit. Your plan seems to be to take your football and go home if no one wants to play by your rules. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Friendly Bear on September 11, 2007, 08:33:37 am quote: I saw only the news reports of the Rally. I did not actually attend. The print and TV news coverage seems to focus on NO RIVER TAX because the north side residents saw NOTHING in it for them, as interviews with their leadership Jack Henderson and Roscoe Turner indicated. The rally was also a protest against the re-cycling of Police Chief Ron PALMER as the new At-Will Tulsa Police Chief. The rally picked the closed Albertson's grocery store as emblematic of the economic problems chronically facing north Tulsa. North Tulsa does not have river problems. They have a basic problem of where to buy groceries for their families, without driving to Owasso to shop for necessities. [:O] Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: sgrizzle on September 11, 2007, 08:42:45 am I think claiming it's a north Tulsa issue is short-sighted. West Tulsa and downtown have no grocery stores and East Tulsa is pretty sparse too. North Tulsa residents can go to 15th and Lewis Reasors or Admiral and Memorial Wal-Mart and be a lot closer than Owasso.
Either way, the county river tax isn't taken their groceries or changing their police chief. Plus, I went to that Pine&Peoria Albertson's many times and it didn't look like anyone was shopping there anyway. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: swake on September 11, 2007, 09:00:36 am quote: Owasso? Bear, while I do think the store needs to be reopened for the good of the area it’s obvious that you don’t go to the north side, even for the children. Roscoe is being more than a little disingenuous when he says there are no grocery stores on the north side: Save a Lot at Pine and Lewis Warehouse Market at Admiral and Lewis Perry’s at 10th and Lewis Piggly Wiggly at Admiral and Harvard Las Americas Admiral and Lewis Warehouse Market at 56th St N and Peoria Alberton’s has led a revitalization of the near north side that is amazing to see. From Morton, to the new Peoria Ave, to the homes and the new smaller stores in the area, North Peoria is a success story. When I was in high school (a long time ago now) north Peoria was awful, burned out houses and almost no businesses. Despite what Roscoe says, the city has devoted a lot of resources to the area and it shows. A new store needs to be found for that location, and the mayor is working on that, but Roscoe don’t really care about the people, he cares about political points, that’s the reason for his “protest”. Did you know that Chief Palmer won a settlement against Henderson for slander when he was the head of the local NAACP? Do you think that could also be a real reason for the protest? Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Friendly Bear on September 11, 2007, 10:04:21 am quote: I rarely go north of Utica Square. sniff, sniff. I was surprised to see there was actually life north of 21st Street. sniff, sniff At every Warehouse Market when I walked in the door, smelled like something dead for a long-time hadn't been cleaned up. sniff, sniff I'm still waiting for Northland to re-open....... sniff, sniff I think the Albertson's was picked for Symbolism. Kind of like bone-dry EMPTY city public pools while Vision 2025 was being promoted by Billy-Bob MisFortune. And, REALITY check: About HALF our public pools were still closed this year. No funding. No summer jobs for life guards and rec center temps. Not a funding priority. Instead, burn-up the operating budget on allowing TPD police cars to commute to Mannford , Broken Arrow, Sapulpa, Owasso, Jenks, and Bixby instead of giving children all over Tulsa a forum for recreation. It will only get worse when the Arena opens next year, and is vacant most of the year, except when they GIVE the house away to act like someone's interested in coming to Tulsa. The arena will just create another huge hole in the city operating budget. Oh, and like the new City Hall Borg Cube won't be money pit, too? OVER-Paying $52 million for a nearly vacant building with $76 million in financing means there's 40% juicy legal graft built into this monumental bad deal for the citizens. Good deal for Leucadia, the bond underwriters, a small coven of attorneys, Staubach company, and ???. A new city hall with TRANFORM OUR SOUL, per Chatty Kathy?? But our city so-called leaders priority is to pass a NEW TAX to move sand around in the Arkansas River....... How sick things have become. But, It's for the CHILDREN. That's Okay? [:(!] Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: waterboy on September 11, 2007, 01:30:48 pm quote: How can you stand to live here? Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Friendly Bear on September 11, 2007, 02:04:02 pm quote: The reason I stay is simple: IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN. I'm fighting for their future. Trying with all my muscle, sinew, heart and mind to keep the TAX VAMPIRES off of our bloody necks. [B)] Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Tiny on September 11, 2007, 05:27:08 pm Waterboy, the only reason you don't hear from more biologists on this is because of the media's big push to get the yes vote out there and they don't want to hear from the people that say it's a bad idea. channelization would be a great idea I think ... but if they widen this channel to the river banks to create a more massive hole there than what the water flows can support then it'd be the same as damming the river ... if they could implement some kind of channel that would create enough flow to keep the water moving then that'd be great but it'd be a much smaller channel than bank to bank like they're wanting if they built it according to the minimum flows. Like gordon or stubbs said ... if the flow gets down enough to where the fish die then it's not going to matter about the average flow of any levels they've done on their mock-up. the fish will be just as dead. I've stated for years that they need to get rid of Zink dam also ... for as long as I've been fishing down there on an almost daily basis from 1993 to about 1990 but tulsa wants it's playground and everyone else can just lump it ... it don't matter what damage they're going to do to Oklahoma. There's lots more people in Oklahoma that say that this is a bad deal than just brent gordon and kevin stubbs and from the sound of it it seems like there's been two major environmental agencies that's tried to block these constructions.
quote: or at least looked into trying to get it blocked but do you think that these people don't know what they're talking about? I think they do and it's pretty evident that the only voices that actually get heard are the ones with big money to launch a tv ad campaign and when you have a lot of money being put into something like this on one side and just regular folks that actually know what's going to happen on the other side that doesn't have these deep pockets then you're going to hear more for the building of the dams than you hear from the folks that know it's going to destroy a lot of river habitat just because of the lack of funds to fight against this and then maybe even the media wouldn't want to be democratic in it's presentation of the facts when it could hurt their income if they didn't side with the big money guys 100% of the time. I don't see any point in discussing this any further though. you want the dams ... then I want them too ... I like the idea of the fish being able to come through zink dam. I don't get a vote though as I'm not in tulsa county. I'd still vote no because it's the right thing to do. some years from now if the dams do get put in, as this isn't the end of it even if the vote is no, they'll try something else then something else and it'll be a constant battle to prevent this stuff from being put in but in the end I think they'll probably go up anyhow. Just remember that when you're driving across 71st street the next time there's low flow just roll down your window and picture that smell being there 24/7 because of the dam down river and all the dead fish lining the banks and then remember that tiny told ya so. Saying I'm like the kid that has the football and not wanting to play because the other kids won't play by the rules is kinda silly since it's tulsa that has the football in this situation. The river belongs to me and how dare tulsa do damage to it just because it runs through 30 miles of tulsa county or however long it is. How dare they take it upon themselves to destroy that much prarie river habitat just because they want a big money pitt to build on and charge tulsa county tax payers anything to get it done then reap the rewards where the few rich folks that can build on it or buy and sell property around it to make money or whatever their plans are ... they're messing up my river by gawd and they have no right to do so. the river belongs to me as an oklahoman, just as much as it does every oklahoman and if they're allowed to destroy it or do just anything they want to it where it runs across their land then there's something seriously wrong with oklahoma laws. Laws should be in place to prevent city or county to do anything with water flow like they did with zink dam ... tulsa wanted a little playground lake and they built one ... two to be exact but they blew the other one up ... that's what they should be forced to do with zink dam and then be forced to leave our river alone. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: waterboy on September 11, 2007, 06:24:31 pm Like you, I don't want the dams. Like you, I would love to have my natural river tweaked but not changed into lakes. Unlike you, I am willing to tolerate them if the majority rules and the protective government agencies say it can be done without too much damage to the ecology.
Also unlike you I don't think the press is eliminating coverage of the anti-river arguments and events. The anti-s are just gathering momentum and the press is more than anxious to sell ad space by covering both sides. They are the bookies in the process. Good luck and good fishing brother. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Tiny on September 11, 2007, 09:30:04 pm I can tolerate um I guess if they go up because if the fish come through the dams I can fish more below the dam. if they go up then there's nothing to do but tolerate um. but there's no need to stand idly by without voicing an oppinion on stuff like this when there's quite a bit at stake.
zink lake didn't spark too much development it doesn't seem like and there's some use that people get out of the bike trail or jogging trail around it but I've never seen but a few people there using it. I've never seen people fishing in zink lake at all but seen lots of people fishing below it. the lake itself is pretty much dead to fishing activity. never seen any boats on it or anything of any kind ... I have seen a couple of old folks admiring the fountain or whatever that deal is on the east side of the pedestrian bridge. seen one little rude gal running across it being mean to folks and telling them to step aside and hollering at them instead of just going around ... that was pretty comical. seems like she'd have gotten more excersize if she'd have just went around the old folks instead of scaring them half to death when running up behind them. that's not of any importance but thought I'd include that as it was kinda funny. it seems that the river tax vote about 17% yes and 68% no with the rest undecided in the KRMG poll. They'll probably have to figure out another way to fund this injustice to oklahoma ... maybe if it takes long enough the kaiser money will go away and then we can worry bout their next attempts to mess up the river. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: yayaya on September 12, 2007, 10:54:59 am ok-I don't get it-WHY would anyone want the Kaiser money to leave Tulsa!? Are you guys nuts!
Look at what they are doing all over Tulsa- I just watched the boards for a while-but I KNEW the naysayers would go to town on this river deal. I walk/run on the river every weekend, and let me just say it NEEDS improvement-I have nearly been run down by "on your left" bikers who come up so fast they startle you. I used to live in Philidelphia, and one of the most calming, wonderful places to get away from dowtown where I lived was to run along that "stinky" river in Philly. The tax isn't going to kill anyone-why don't you guys focus your effort on no taxes for groceries? That would definitely ease my tax burden with three teen kids. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Tiny on September 12, 2007, 11:32:16 am yayaya, I don't care where the money goes just as long as it leaves the river be .. it's not just tulsa's river ... it's oklahoma's river and further down stream and up stream it's other people's river ... not that the lowhead dams will effect the other states, but it will be a great effect on Oklahoma. some city folks want the dams but it seems that most of them don't. if this were a statewide vote then it'd get crushed by a landslide. when a 15 to 30 mile stretch of the river means so much to so many people then it's pretty bold of those people to even think they've got the right to mess with it, imho. seems that there's been two major conservation agencies that's looked into the blocking of the dams being put in so it's definately not a good thing for oklahoma to have tulsa put up the dams. zink is evidence of that with it's 0% usage other than the pedestrian bridge and bike trail. they coulda had that without putting zink dam in. they could do all kinds of stuff around the river without messing with the river itself. we need the river to stay the way it is for several reasons. One improvement would be to blow up zink dam however. it serves no purpose but just being a big silted in water hole. it also disrupts fish migration to keystone dam which is a necessary flood control dam and power generator. it's also just 15 miles away from tulsa but they want that in their back yard and want the public to pay for the biggest percentage of it. people that won't have any benefit from it at all aren't wanting to pay for it. let the kaiser money go for river bank development like ya'll want but for goodness sakes leave the river alone.
Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Tony on September 12, 2007, 11:49:48 am The vote will be no Oct.9 so all this will be a somewhat moot point -- Tulsa county is getting an expensive straw poll to see what way the wind blows -- I don't like the FACT that I am getting dams (as proposed) rammed down my throat. It is CLEARLY EVIDENT these dams designs are what DEVELOPERS want and not what is best for the Arkansas river which belongs to ALL OF OKLAHOMA -- I agree with Tim on this, state law and federal law should reflect all Oklahomans not just a select site thru Tulsa County. We ALL can have our cake and eat it too on these proposed lakes, and it can be accomplished in such a way that will meet ecological requirements -- but to do so the elevations will be lower and the DEVELOPERS won't get high enough off the floodplain to be able to build on -- (they have to be above the 1986 flood level to get insurance) The PROPOSED lakes will not get used anymore than Zink lake does -- they won't draw people from out of state to spend a day on the pedestrian trails just to look at a rootbeer colored pond. Why can't we celebrate the river for what it is and attempt to restore the beauty of the river bottom and banks, I am 100% behind cleaning up the banks and the river -- I just think (along with US Fish And Wildlife and ODWC biologists) that the dams (as proposed) are a bad plan. INCOG planners and developers haven't set one foot of their GUCCI loafers in the river bottom mud -- proposals like this should seek input from those who really use the river - anecdotal observation from people who have had years of actual river use should be part of any planning process -we (the users) have been TOTALLY left out of planning for this proposal -- its "we hear you but you don't count from the developers" that is just plain wrong. Gaylon Pinc is an oft quoted so called expert yet at the INCOG pep rallies that were held in Jenks I ppoinedly asked him what fish were in the river and he didn't even know what a Sauger was (a very important fish in Oklahoma) to this the MAYOR of Jenks replies "We won't let environmentalists stop our plans" HMMMM such a great ATTITUDE from a self-appointed KING.
I am willing to work out a compromise but they are usually satisfactory to none -- so it will be majority rules this time. After defeating this proposal we will be past the TAX deadline that would benefit Kaiser bottom line so money withdrawn there, thats sad and was the REASON this early vote was called in the first place. This is a great discourse for Tulsa and maybe , just maybe, citizens will wake up and see what can be done to help our threatened River -- Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: swake on September 12, 2007, 11:53:44 am quote: So we are back to the argument about not harming the natural river. The Arkansas River not in it’s natural state now. The animals and plants that should surround and interact with the river don’t exist because the river is passing through an urban area of nearly a million people. We define the riverbanks in region and don’t allow them to naturally shift because of all the development right up against the riverbanks. The river’s flow is greatly altered on a daily basis by the Keystone dam built to prevent the natural flooding that should occur, but isn’t allowed. The river’s chemistry is altered by all the urban rainwater that is guided into the river by a massive unnatural flood control system built to protect hundreds of thousands of homes and thousands of businesses. You would have to go miles above the Keystone dam to find a river that is natural in any way. You are arguing to preserve the river in it’s current UNNATURAL state. That makes perfect sense. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Tony on September 12, 2007, 12:02:37 pm And you proponents are asking that we further destroy the river -- doen't fly with me -- how about RESTORING the river to a more NATURAL state -- it can be done but certainly not with
YOUR proposal - A lake is not a pedestrian use of the river -- interacting with the river doesn't mean sitting on a concrete patio sipping a margarita -- interacting with a river is wading in it, sliding your feet thru the sand, mud and rocks, and that is the biggest difference we have with proponents who want to further DAMAGE an already threatened river -- must be the MAYOR of Jenks , I am replying to. (Granted the river was channelized years ago by USACE to alleviate flooding }, levies raised etc, BUT with bald cypress planting along streambed elevations , center river islands to divert low flows into a more concentrated channel the river THROUGH Tulsa can be made a showpiece that will ENHANCE the beauty of downtown -- plans for lakes for development are unrealistic -- For a change it would be nice to see some outside the box thinking on this -- take down Zink move it down past 21st, then raise the elevation with a rock rapid type structure,(instead of an impassable DANDEROUS weir structure) put another one in line and so on till we have a CLEAN flowing river that can heal itself of the sewage gray water and storm drain runoff. The planners are so one dimensional -- kinda like City Hall [:D] Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: swake on September 12, 2007, 12:36:27 pm We are talking about further altering an already non-natural 20 mile urbanized section of the river.
20 miles out of a river that is 1,469 miles long. Or, exactly 1.4% of the river, and that 1.4% is again, far from natural now. I think you will be able to find another fishing spot somewhere in that nearly 1500 miles of river. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: yayaya on September 12, 2007, 12:50:59 pm my thoughts exactly-I personally love to fish, but seems like when my dad used to take me we we go and float the white river in southern OK-
or go to a lake, stream or river. Please, progress should not be stopped for fishing-uh, personally I would go WAY downstream to fish-please come up with something better than fishing Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Tulsa4Life on September 12, 2007, 01:23:36 pm I'm ready for a change. I'm ready to stop having the Arkansas River be the butt of everyones joke. I'm ready to be really proud of something in Tulsa. That place I can take my friends when they come in from Dallas for the weekend. I'm ready for them to regret not coming back to Tulsa after they graduated college. The same companies that many of them work for are here in Tulsa, but Tulsa "hasn't been ready to develop the river." Well Tulsa... I don't know how much longer I can wait
Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Vision 2025 on September 12, 2007, 01:33:02 pm quote: You really need to study the Master Plan and the proposal as most of what you are saying needs to be done IS IN THERE! First off, Mayor Vic does not “do computers”, so it can’t be him. Ok as to your objections. This proposal includes a combination of virtually everything you say. The intent is to enhance interaction with the river not to make a total hardened edge, no where is that identified or proposed. Fix Zink – the Ogee weir goes away. I personally fought hard for the inclusion of this in the master plan and it will happen to Zink and the new proposed dams, NO MORE KILLER WIERS. What Zink will get is significant new gates added in the center section for silt and flow passage, be made deeper by raising the top of the dam a bit (18-30 inches likely and deeper is healthier for impoundments), and the remaining portion of the dam will be made into a cascade or other step style weir that will enhance water quality by entraining more air as the water goes over it. An interesting note is that on half a dozen waste water treatment plants I have managed the construction of the very last item after all of the other treatment process has been a cascade aerator/outfall weather it was needed or not because it is essentially FREE treatment. In addition to cascades and gates Zink will include a flume through the dam to provide for fish passage up stream which can also be managed to provide a SAFE white water passage through the dam. The only thing not advocated is swimming. Wading, boating, toes in the sand or mud, floating, etc are all identified appropriate uses. Living River – Between Zink and the Jenks impoundment the river will be turned into exactly what you describe (except for maybe the cypress trees but that will be looked at in the design for living bank stabilization, ie. no sea of rip-rap) with a narrowed low flow channel (approx 500 feet wide) that allows flood flow passage, creates islands for habitat and makes for a fun venue for water sports and wildlife viewing. New Lakes – not everybody likes lakes, not everybody likes a managed river, not everybody likes the current river look, what you will get is a combination of all three. The river is healing, water quality today is significantly better than 5-10-20 years ago, with this proposal we firmly believe it will get even better and the burden for being a good steward then becomes even stronger to those who utilize it for discharges (permits and storm sewers) that what we have now. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Tony on September 12, 2007, 01:53:41 pm I guess you didn't read or don't belive what US Fish And Wildlife nor ODWC thought on YOUR dam proposals -- I have seen the four dam "concept" design "proposals" and all still use a CONTROLLED gate -- deeper water IS NOT better unless you are talking about a lake that will form a thermocline -- which none of these "ponds" will. Your Vision 2025 suppositions IGNORE the science and HOPE you are correct in your ASSUMPTIONS (kinda like the flow data) we could have some basis for agreement would you LISTEN to the SCIENTIFIC experts -- but you choose to ignore or dismiss them --
AND OLD Vic voiced HIS opinion at the first SO CALLED INCOG public hearing in Jenks -- certainly no friend of the river or the fish and wildlife in it --and WHY should I be required to go elsewhere to fish? the fishing is good at times right downtown -- Your "Living Concept" is a great IDEA -- we differ on the Biological SCIENCE and SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS -- Here is a question for ya -- who is the Biologist on the Vision team ? -- whats that? there isn't one? It certainly isn't Gaylon Pinc of PMg. Still voting NO till you proponents come up with a better plan IN the river. OH yea I am STILL waiting to hear who your biological EXPERT IS, maybe its Vic Vreeland he knows a lot about SNAKE OIL. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: RecycleMichael on September 12, 2007, 02:08:25 pm quote: What? There are fishermen fishing off those piers almost everytime I walk across the bridge. I have personally caught many a fish there, just not for a few years. Just because there aren't boats doesn't mean there aren't fishermen. The fishing is better past the dam, but that dam creates awfully good fishing in the lake certain times of the year. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: USRufnex on September 12, 2007, 10:21:28 pm quote: Wasn't that Betty Boyd in a couple of those "vote yes" commercials? Dang. Don't get on the bad side of that "Blood Thirsty Tax Vampire" Betty Boyd... wouldn't wanna see her in a dark alley at night... "Ladies and Gentlemen... in this corner...... Betty 'the bloodthirsty tax vampire' Boyd..." (http://tulsatvmemories.com/imag1999/boydmor.jpg)(http://tulsatvmemories.com/imag1999/boydclos.jpg)---both pics can be found at tulsatvmemories.com--- ***Yeah, I'd pay some serious $$$ to see her wrestle Betty "the Golden Girl" White" in a no-holds barred cage match... [}:)] /sarcasm Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Rico on September 13, 2007, 06:40:15 am In today's Tulsa World there is an article regarding how the TYpros came to endorse the "River Tax"...
They sent 3000 members a survey... 10% responded... 60% of the 10% were in favor of the "River Tax"... Mister Roby came to the conclusion that this was enough to endorse the "Tax"... Roscoe P. Coletrain would love this math... 300 member of 3000 responded..... Of the 300 responses 180 members were in favor of the Tax... So let's see... 180 members in favor... that took the time to fill out a possible question sheet of what was probably 10 questions or so.... That comes out to a "Majority in Favor" of the Tax according to Mister Roby.... He says in the article "had the results come back the opposite they would not have endorsed the "Tax".... 180 members of 3000 is approximately 6 percent.... Boy that is enough to "Endorse just about anything isn't it.... The Mayor had a "Mentoring" Month.... Quite possibly Mister Roby missed his opportunity to brush up on his math.... Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: sgrizzle on September 13, 2007, 06:43:48 am quote: Same way we pick presidents and mayors. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Rico on September 13, 2007, 06:46:35 am ^
LOL If our luck is as good with this Tax as it is with Mayor's and Presidents we are in for one heck of a ride...[;)] Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Friendly Bear on September 13, 2007, 08:33:47 am quote: The TYPros organization was a creation of the Metro Tulsa Chamber of Commerce. While the membership includes many varied viewpoints, the LEADERSHIP is carefully Delphi'd for PRE-SELECTION to promote the Metro-Chamberpot Party Line: TAX ME MORE..... The Metro Chamber receives $2 million a year in OUR lodging tax dollars to promote "economic development", which means, it promotes: Nothing. This is $2 million per year in funding that the Metro ChamberPots do NOT have to collect from their membership. They've received our taxes for the past 30 years. Have they actually developed ANYTHING with the $60 million?? In return, they re-create as needed their front-organization, Citizens for Tulsa / Citizens for Tulsa County, to promote every tax increase or tax renewal, in effect reycling our Tax Dollars to RAISE our taxes: --The Kaiser River Tax, --Vision 2025, --Third-Penny Sales Tax Renewals, --Tulsa Street Bond Issues, and, --TPS Bond Issues. The same PAC is the perpetual political voice of the controlling Twelve Tulsa Oligarch Families. What a neat SWINDLE........WE pay for the privilege of continually raising our taxes. [:O] Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: TheArtist on September 13, 2007, 12:47:00 pm quote: Sounds like one of the problems with this plan as I see it. Yes they had public involvement and asked the public what they wanted. But its one thing to sit around dreaming up things you would like. Its quite a different matter to say, What do you want to actually spend your money on, with this budget, right now? Wish lists and Priority lists are different things. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Tony on September 14, 2007, 11:45:12 am The IDEA was approved -- the nuts and bolts are proving to be more expensive than Tulsa Taxpayers are willing to bear -- the main problem is proposals within proposals ad infinitum --
Had any real thought or a REAL PLAN with factual construction estimates, timelines, sanity check points --- been put before the VOTERS and then adhered to -- this proposal might have flown -- instead the targets just keep on changing -- A shotgun approach to TAXES -- with birdshot for ammo. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Tulsa4Life on September 14, 2007, 12:23:18 pm Tony, I sure have heard a lot out of you since this river tax issue has come up... Tulsa World and here. I just want to know what you have done to get your ideas out to the people that were behind this plan... have you contacted anyone to voice your opinions?
Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: sauerkraut on September 14, 2007, 01:19:56 pm I can't vote on this issue since I don't live in Tulsa. I am a big Tulsa fan since I'm in the city alot. I'm not sure how I stand on this issue. I normally vote down all tax hikes, but this is for the river, Tulsa's only national resource. I am kind of-sort of- favoring a "YES" vote. The tax hike is not much and Oklahoma already has a 9% sales tax and another 1/8% won't make much of a impact, and it seems like it'll do alot of good for the city. JMO.
Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Tony on September 14, 2007, 01:23:18 pm The only way there has been ANY opposition ALLOWED for this so called "plan" is thru Editorial comment -- I attended EVERY INCOG supposed OPEN meeting -- the only comment allowed was by paper ballot at those pep rallies -- there were no opposition voices allowed to be heard -- I was "interviewed" by a News 9 Reporter after the Jenks meeting but the spot wasn't used.
So not anymore - I am fed up with the whole lot of the PRO folks -- Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: sgrizzle on September 14, 2007, 01:52:42 pm quote: go to the TulsaNow meeting on September 18th, 2 for and 2 against in an open forum. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: USRufnex on September 14, 2007, 02:04:55 pm quote: I call BS. The naysayers are ALWAYS heard in this city... ALWAYS... Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Tony on September 14, 2007, 02:12:04 pm HMMM did you attend even ONE INGOG meeting? Call BS I wasn't really against this proposal till I saw how misleading and devious the planning group were -- I can fight just as dirty -- while they MAY have fooled a FEW of you younger crowd by takin a better than thou highroad --
Who called this pep rally this week? the pro river group -- just like typing on here its fartin in the wind -- But at least we have the opportunity to rebut on a forum that is read. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: USRufnex on September 14, 2007, 02:16:22 pm Hey, I never got interviewed by a tv station about my views...
yet anti-tax activists gripe and complain about EVERYTHING. How old do you think I am, Tony? Look it up. --Ruf Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: chesty on September 17, 2007, 02:46:13 am quote: Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Vision 2025 on September 17, 2007, 03:48:56 pm quote: Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Steve on September 17, 2007, 03:55:00 pm quote: And that amounts to an interest-free loan to the government. I think there is also a senior/low income rebate on Vision 2025 tax, and possibly other taxes too. It is ridiculous, to have to pay the money up front, then apply for a rebate. More damned paperwork to shuffle. And the pro-tax side knows that a large percentage will not bother with the rebate because of the hassle or lack of understanding of the process. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Vision 2025 on September 17, 2007, 05:46:14 pm quote: There is a Vision 2025 rebate for seniors that require a simple one page application and verification of eligibility. Presently the County Treasurer sends the next year’s application to all who applied the previous year and new applications are readily available. Many years ago, the original 3rd penny sales tax program had a rebate provision however the subsequent renewals did not include it and I don’t know of others that have included such. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Double A on September 17, 2007, 08:47:57 pm quote:If this were truly a progressive tax it would not be collected on food or medicine, instead of this regressive tax rebate scheme that reminds me of the EMSA opt out cop out. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Tiny on September 17, 2007, 10:26:50 pm that rebate deal is a joke, $25 per household or something like that. a family might eat at the sonic one night a year on that. that is, if they don't include gas money to get there.
Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: chesty on September 18, 2007, 07:17:43 am quote: Yeah, a $25 rebate that must be filed for EACH YEAR starting in 2009, and within a certain time period. Read the fine print people. It's on the ballot. My Opinion.....The proponents are trying to buy the votes of seniors with a bribe of $25. They are making it sound like a 100% rebate. But in reality it's not. And you have to jump through hoops and red tape to get. Trying to bribe seniors and low income people for their vote. Someone should be ashamed of themselves. The average family is estimated to to spend $100 more in sales tax because of this tax. Make it a real rebate and offer that amount. That would be an honest rebate and would eliminate my arguments. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: swake on September 18, 2007, 07:48:07 am No the average family is not expected to pay about $100 on this.
$25 is a rebate on $6,250 in taxable spending, o about $500 a month in taxable spending. This is a real amount, a “poor” family does not spend four times that amount on taxable goods in a year, that would be $25,000 a year in taxable spending, well over $2,000 per month, that’s a big amount and far from “poor”. Seriously, $25 for the YEAR is about right, the tax is THAT small. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Conan71 on September 18, 2007, 08:45:19 am quote: Actually Swake, I believe the threshold they were using for low-income was $50K per household and less. Take out 25% for payroll deductions, another $1000 per month for housing and you come up with $25K NDI. A family of four has greater needs than $500 per month in clothing food, and other necessities. Point is, very few will take the time to fill out the rebate form and the yes people know and are counting on this. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: HazMatCFO on September 18, 2007, 07:53:07 pm Anytime a "cause" uses children as the hook, I get a bit suspicious.
Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Friendly Bear on September 19, 2007, 05:50:40 am quote: The children in the commercials are being used. Contact DHS with a referral of child abuse. It's a sneaky emotional ploy, developed by the degenerates at Snakey, Turncoat and Flake. They love little children sooooooo much.......... Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: USRufnex on September 19, 2007, 06:50:02 pm I noticed the last commericial I saw actually had a little black kid at the end... did the vote-yes people just hire Token from Southpark???
(http://www.planearium2.de/bilder/charaktere-token.jpg) Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Rico on September 19, 2007, 06:59:06 pm I thought they should have one that was broadcast in Spanish.....with subtitles
They are about as likely to vote for this as the African Americans... [}:)] Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: TheArtist on September 19, 2007, 08:38:33 pm They really need to show what they want us to be voting for. People are like, little kids, say yes to the river, and then think... I am not paying for some stupid islands.
Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Rico on September 19, 2007, 08:52:20 pm quote: If they did that.. it could be construed as a promise (The money is going to be spent on this)......... The ballot is so vague that they could spend the money on anything having to do with the river and it would be all right... I'm fairly certain that those that are a part of the inner circle know full well what the (have to build...) list looks like. They are playing this very close to the vest.... as supported by the "Ballot". Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: swake on September 19, 2007, 09:17:40 pm quote: Certainly, but services are not taxed through sales tax, nor are car payments, day care, utilities, or most family expenses. Family of 4 Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Friendly Bear on September 20, 2007, 09:06:14 am quote: Swake: Check your electric, gas, and cable TV bill. You do pay sales taxes. Sometimes these local sales taxes are called a city "franchise fee", and sometimes they are in addition to the sales tax. For instance, your AEP Electric Bill shows you pay: 2% City Franchise Fee 3% City Tax 1.07% County Tax You now even have the recent privilege of paying an additional 1.07% to the County on utility bills, thanks to the wonderful county commissioners lobbying the state legislature so that they too could charge sales tax on something for DOING NOTHING. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Tony on September 20, 2007, 09:24:33 am Next thing the PRO ponents will do is Hire Michael Jackson and two thousand kids to Sing "WE are the River"
Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Friendly Bear on September 20, 2007, 09:41:28 am quote: Sounds EXACTLY like something that the degenerates at Snakey, Turncoat & Flake would promote. Did you hear that they are now handling the PR for NAMBLA, too? Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Conan71 on September 20, 2007, 12:19:53 pm quote: And so far they either have not been able to properly communicate it or are reluctant to do so. They need a better PR firm handling this. There are also too many gov't/bureaucrat proponents behind this who are not overly popular with the electorate. John Piercy really creeped a lot of people out the other night. I've heard the term "used car salesman" and "televangelist" thrown around. We already have issues with the lack of transparency in government and a lot of people I've talked to say this is a classic example of doing nothing to try and regain the trust of the voter. Or it could be as I wrote on anther thread, that perhaps they are having a hard time defending this plan in public because they don't have enough details to make it defendable as of yet. I'm amazed at how little debate has happened to this point. I couldn't find anything about yesterday's TCC debate in the World this morning. Must not have been anything the World wanted us to hear. It's a shame because there really might be some realistic details which could make this happen. One on-going thing which is offending me is hinting that if we don't take this now, they will never give us the river of our dreams. Balderdash! Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: rwarn17588 on September 20, 2007, 01:11:01 pm Conan wrote:
One on-going thing which is offending me is hinting that if we don't take this now, they will never give us the river of our dreams. <end clip> I agree. It's not like Vision 2025 was passed its first time out. Similar initiatives bit the dust several times, until the powers-that-be tinkered with it enough to make it palatable for a majority of voters (well, more than a majority -- 60 percent is a doggone mandate). So the "last chance" pleas ring hollow, especially when you look at Tulsa's recent history. If the idea for river development is viable, it will be brought up again with a better-thought-out plan. Or someone rich will simply do it himself. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Friendly Bear on September 20, 2007, 01:40:47 pm quote: I was frankly surprised the Kaiser River Tax promoters picked John Piercey as one of their debaters. Mr. Piercey has a very long association with the Tulsa County Ring, and is a very old, "dear" friend of former County Commissioner Dirty Bob Dick. With Dirty Bob's close patronage, he sole-sourced financial advisor deals with the County, as well as his County TIA financed low-income FANTASTIC housing coups, making him purportedly one of Tulsa's wealthiest residents. His house is a Mega-MegaMansion. It may have been someone's strategy to counter a serious numbers guy, Councilor John Eagleton, who has suggested using the Vision sales tax collection "overages" to finance the majority of the Kaiser River Plan. Mr. Piercey's good working knowledge of what he is REPORTING on the County Vision 2025 program finances may have been the Vote YES strategy to deflate Big Bad John Eagleton's moxey. You know Councilor Eagleton's right, because the Lorton's World editorials have him targeted as Tulsa's Public Enemy #1, supplanting Chris Medlock. Is John Eagleton being measured for a Lorton's World correographed Recall Lynching? See today's www.batesline.com for today's very detailed analysis of what Piercey is reporting on Vision 2025 collections and debt service. http://www.batesline.com/archives/2007/09/vision-2025-fin.html Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Conan71 on September 20, 2007, 02:42:32 pm quote: Oh, they hammered Eagleton on the op-ed page this morning. It's an un-signed editorial, but I'll give you two guesses. You'd have a 50/50 chance if you pick one of the guys he debated against Tuesday night. Title: Vote Yes Commercials Post by: Conan71 on September 20, 2007, 03:01:02 pm quote: I think the county believes it's got better clout than the city since they finally got V-2025 passed and the city got one of it's most ambitious single projects ever out of it. Therein lies one of the bigger mistakes. They've created somewhere in the neighborhood of a 50,000 "no" voting bloc in the other suburbs (just a wild stab at how many vote in Owasso, Collinsville, Sperry, BA, etc.). Don't think because the city management in Owasso is for the development that all the citizens there will vote for it. I'm not making the assumption that since the power in BA has come out against that everyone in BA will vote no, but it doesn't help. One common complaint I've heard is that it's a development which is 30 or so miles from where they live and prefer to eat and shop (speaking of Owasso & C'ville). So much for the "county-wide" aspect of the benefits. I think they figured enough people around the county would view Tulsa as the hub and "donate" via sales tax. Unfortunately, only Sand Springs, Tulsa, Jenks, and Bixby have property on the river bank (well BA does, but it doesn't seem relevant to them). This is the kind of vote which might get some surprising numbers to the polls in the 'burbs. I predict it will fail miserably in the communities not directly (or not taking advantage of) on the river, and might have a slim margin of favor in Tulsa precincts. There's been a pretty good job of covering up the negatives and making sure there's plenty of eye pollution to get the "yes" message out. They have also worked very hard at quashing and dis-crediting the harshest critics and skeptics. I think overall it will fail by a slim margin. Then I think they should re-group, re-package, gather more information and let Tulsa, Jenks, Sand Springs, & Bixby vote for their own improvements. Make the elections simultaneous so it doesn't have a domino effect if it fails in one place. Or, get honest with the numbers and figure out if we really can or cannot do LWD's out of V-2025 surplus (hey think of all the extra sales tax revenue the new arena and bombing Bell's will attract). If we can't, let Tulsa's tax cover the LWD's up and downstream and let Jenks, SS, & Bixby fund their own improvements along the banks. One of the bigger boondoggles is the $50-some million we "need" for property acquisition. I overheard one of the "yes" people explaining after the debate that it involves only the concrete plant. Why on earth would someone like the Branson Landing people want to pay an inflated price for the concrete plant dirt when they could likely buy it for half or less in a direct transaction with the present owner? Other than that, the city property in the area is nothing more than a paper-shuffle to likely make the move to OneTech legal finally. |