The author of that article makes a number of mis-statements. "The Channels" was never on a ballot, The Stakeholders and their concept gradually faded away until, then county commissioner Randi Miller, proposed the make-over that led to the failed river tax vote in late 2007. Secondly, the Blue Rose did not "relocate" to River Parks. It was an idle concept which had left Brookside years prior to the opening on the river. Third, it's "Oktoberfest" not "Octoberfest", there's plenty more to snipe at but I'll quit there.
There were a number of troubling issues about the 2007 ballot measure:
-They tried to cram it through as quickly as possible with many vague details. I believe it was roughly 90 days from roll out to vote. I was told later that part of the reason for the rush was signs of a pending economic slowdown.
-There were still outstanding studies due from the USACE as to whether or not a lot of the proposals to the river flow and dams were even possible. Those results would not be available until well
after the election took place.
-They made it county-wide thinking the V-2025 approach was the way to get it passed since the "Tulsa Time" vote failed in getting necessary $$ to build a new arena. The mistake here, there was no "chicken in every pot" like there was in V-2025 so people in Collinsville, Owasso, and other areas really didn't see anything in it for them to vote for
-The over-inflated price for the concrete plant on the west bank which would have been purchased for approximately 1/5 to 1/6 of the total package cost made it look like some lucky property owner was going to get royally greased by tax payers.
-Confusion over this being "The Channels". Bing Thom's vision for Tulsa, as an outsider, rubbed many the wrong way. It also had the image that a bunch of wealthy people would benefit from these islands with high-rise condos and not many others.