I see the city council has this question on the agenda for tonight. They also are going to discuss putting both on the ballot at the same time.
What do TulsaNow posters think?
I think the "both" alternative is a bad idea. I can't imagine the confusion. I know I am easily confused, but this just seems impossible to get people to make an informed decision. If I don't understand it, I am against it.
I could argue for both of the two plans. I have heard from lots of people on the topic and listened to both sides from a lot of different angles. I have also read what the police union said to the media about their survey (translated...if you commit to the 12 year plan you might not be able to give us the 12 pay raises our union will demand).
The big one (12 year) just makes sense. If you are going to do something, do it right. I don't think the roads are bad enough to warrant this, but I must be in the minority because everybody else sure does. Bill Martinson heard what the people were saying, went out a figured how much of a problem there was, then figured out a way to pay for it. That is exactly what I want my representative to do. Thank you.
The five year financing plan seems passable by the voters however and I am not sure the 12 year financing plan is. I have heard from lots of people who don't think now is the time to commit that much and point out that the world could be way different in 12 years. Why would you lock in this plan knowing that the cost of materials, the traffic counts to justify the improvements, and the potential for different priorities could be so different in 12 years?
I want something done. I want something passed. I am not sure the twelve year plan can pass. I think the five year plan moves us forward. Yes, not as far as doing it right would move us forward, but at least the right direction.
You don't drown by falling into water, you drown by staying there. If we don't get a vote passed...it says as a community we are giving up on our roads and sinking.
I agree that the 12-year plan makes sense...especially the point about hiring in-house road crews to stay on top of maintenance. But I also agree with those who worry about "locking in" for 12 years with no money left over for other projects. (I'm one of the people who think we need to invest in more than just asphalt to "fix the streets.")
The Mayor's plan is a compromise that gets us to the same level of improvement in 5 years as the 12 year plan. (Minus, presumably, the in-house crew for maintenance.) We can always "re-up" if we like the deal. I can live with that.
Putting both options on the ballot seems sort of goofy to me. Sounds like the council needs to step up and make a decision...do that "representative government" thing they're tasked with doing.
I personally doubt there's any way the $2 billion option would pass. People on the streets will think: "That seems like an awfully big number..." Others will think: "For $2 billion, I want transit and a purple helecopter to go with that asphalt..."
Hmmm... Admiral is being redone now, so is 11th , Garnett from I-244 to 11th will be soon and I-244 is getting a new layer... I think I'm good for awhile [}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
I agree that the 12-year plan makes sense...especially the point about hiring in-house road crews to stay on top of maintenance. But I also agree with those who worry about "locking in" for 12 years with no money left over for other projects. (I'm one of the people who think we need to invest in more than just asphalt to "fix the streets.")
The Mayor's plan is a compromise that gets us to the same level of improvement in 5 years as the 12 year plan. (Minus, presumably, the in-house crew for maintenance.) We can always "re-up" if we like the deal. I can live with that.
Putting both options on the ballot seems sort of goofy to me. Sounds like the council needs to step up and make a decision...do that "representative government" thing they're tasked with doing.
I personally doubt there's any way the $2 billion option would pass. People on the streets will think: "That seems like an awfully big number..." Others will think: "For $2 billion, I want transit and a purple helecopter to go with that asphalt..."
I think the 5 year plan can pass and I tend to think that with a 5 year plan, we are less likely to get ripped off.
quote:
Originally posted by jne
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
I agree that the 12-year plan makes sense...especially the point about hiring in-house road crews to stay on top of maintenance. But I also agree with those who worry about "locking in" for 12 years with no money left over for other projects. (I'm one of the people who think we need to invest in more than just asphalt to "fix the streets.")
The Mayor's plan is a compromise that gets us to the same level of improvement in 5 years as the 12 year plan. (Minus, presumably, the in-house crew for maintenance.) We can always "re-up" if we like the deal. I can live with that.
Putting both options on the ballot seems sort of goofy to me. Sounds like the council needs to step up and make a decision...do that "representative government" thing they're tasked with doing.
I personally doubt there's any way the $2 billion option would pass. People on the streets will think: "That seems like an awfully big number..." Others will think: "For $2 billion, I want transit and a purple helecopter to go with that asphalt..."
I think the 5 year plan can pass and I tend to think that with a 5 year plan, we are less likely to get ripped off.
Same here!
Let's see....Union to 71st is good, South Yale is good...okay I can get to work if I must drive an auto. All I need fixed is the bike route from Peoria to Lewis. Or I can always catch the bus at my corner. Sorry, don't need either plan. No problems.
But thanks anyway.
I think most folks would agree that Tulsa's streets are in a terrible state of disrepair. The five-year plan wouldn't do much to change that... the streets wouldn't get worse, but wouldn't get noticeably better either. That's not an acceptable option. The 12-year plan is a FIX. The five-year plan is purgatory.
Perhaps if voters reject the true fix now, they'll embrace it in a year... after another year of potholes. I think the five-year plan is one of the worst things we can do. Voters and elected officials will wash their hands of the issue and fail to pay mind/commit funding to a true fix for a long time to come.
I hope they both make it to the ballot. I like the fact there's money in it(12 year plan) for mowing, graffiti abatement, and street maintenance. I'd vote yes on both.
Frankly, I don't trust the city to do it right. Twelve years is too long and $2 billion is too much. I expect cars to get lighter, traffic counts to drop and density of population to increase. Our population is not growing much but we're expanding physically. Asphalt will get more expensive. Concrete as well.
The only chance we have is to pass a manageable figure for short periods, reassess, and pass more if necessary.
Now, fundamentally change the way we finance growth in the suburbs by assessing each new sprawl proposal a realistic fee for providing roads and services to them and I'll change my vote to a long term fix. Or show the local donors how they can control the city and let them volunteer to provide new roads.
5 year plan?
5 YEAR PLAN?!
it all makes perfect sense now.
Frankly, if either one actually passes I will be pleased.
While it is true that the smaller package doesn't "fix" our streets, it essentially does the same thing the larger package would do in its first five years.
I would prefer the larger package just so we won't have to do this over and over again. And I don't buy the argument that passing the larger package would restrict essential resources that may need to go to other essential government functions. Streets are an essential government function! If other essential functions need additional funding over the 12 year span then we need to fund those as well.
The 5 year plan is far more sensible than the 12 year. Priorities change, and street plans are driven by the ebb and flow of development, not by some static plan.
To quote my favorite Python line "Power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."
Ridiculous, but there is a lesson there!
In 12 years we should all have jet-packs or ride the hydrogen buses, right?
Watch it live ( 14 or so second buffering)on the internet:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/tgov-
Five year plan is where it's at. We need to accept the fact that streets are "consumable".
Thanks for the link tulsaworld.cc!
Can anyone tell me what the attraction was to voters for Bynum or Gomez? Talk about empty suits.
Council just voted for the 12 yr. plan. I think they are way too optimistic. Eagleton quoted nearly 73% of polled liked one plan or the other. The key word is "or". Not sure those who support a 5 year will now support a 12 year just because that's all being offered.
It is going to be the 12 year plan.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
It is going to be the 12 year plan.
well, a 12 year plan will be voted on. slim chance it will pass with the FOP and south Tulsa lining up against it. all the opposition has to do is drum up all the recent actions that have lost the public trust.....this thing goes down in flames.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Can anyone tell me what the attraction was to voters for Bynum or Gomez? Talk about empty suits.
establishment tools. add patrick to that list but people are trying to fix that with Gomex and Patrick right now.
Who could have known..... Paul Tay has psychic capability.[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Who could have known..... Paul Tay has psychic capability.[}:)]
only when he wears his homemade mickey mouse ears.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Who could have known..... Paul Tay has psychic capability.[}:)]
only when he wears his homemade mickey mouse ears.
I could do nothing but shake my head...I had to leave the room.
I hope someone got a screencap of that. I can just see the photoshop opportunities out of that.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
It is going to be the 12 year plan.
The councilors aren't listening to the constituency. Sure sounded to me from anyone who had been following this that the five year plan was something everyone was agreeing on. Encumbering the city for 12 years is just too long. I'm going to assume that first priority would have to be repairs. Let's say we got ahead of that in five years then we could vote for improvements and expansion for another five or seven years.
For anyone who is interested, here's a copy of the 2001 to 2006 3rd penny proposed budget.
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/Budget/documents/descriptions.pdf
I found it interesting that the first street project mentioned in this was widening of the 15th & Utica intersection, and it's just now being done.
Memory fails me. At what point did the 3rd penny become a pork pie for police, fire, EMSA and other various capital projects outside public works? Or was it intended to fund equipment as well from the beginnng? For some reason, when this originated, I thought the purpose was street expansion and repair, sewers, flood control, infrastructure.
Our council blew it tonight and they will blame it on stupid voters come November. A five year package would have passed and would have provided needed repairs and improvements.
I predict it goes down with a no vote of 60%.
The attention-whore at it again...
What's up, Santa? (//%22http://tinyurl.com/56n4xg%22)
The city devils can't support the package being put forth. But they fought the 2025 debacle and lost. So, that may be a good sign for you tax and spend republicans.
quote >"I predict it goes down with a no vote of 60%."< end quote.
I would say higher than that... 74% or possibly a tad higher...... people are pissed off.
How would you like the job of making the signs and promotion for this fiasco?
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote >"I predict it goes down with a no vote of 60%."< end quote.
I would say higher than that... 74% or possibly a tad higher...... people are pissed off.
How would you like the job of making the signs and promotion for this fiasco?
And really, I find this quite ironic.
That people who have *****ed and moaned for YEARS about our streets now finally have a chance to speak with their votes, and the likely vote will be no.
I hate to say this, but you have to start somewhere. I'm not going to like it, but I'll likely vote YES. If we don't, I don't want to have to explain to my descendants or the next generation why our roads suck.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote >"I predict it goes down with a no vote of 60%."< end quote.
I would say higher than that... 74% or possibly a tad higher...... people are pissed off.
How would you like the job of making the signs and promotion for this fiasco?
And really, I find this quite ironic.
That people who have *****ed and moaned for YEARS about our streets now finally have a chance to speak with their votes, and the likely vote will be no.
I hate to say this, but you have to start somewhere. I'm not going to like it, but I'll likely vote YES. If we don't, I don't want to have to explain to my descendants or the next generation why our roads suck.
After this fails, in another year there will be a new proposal.
It will not be the end of Tulsa if the vote is defeated....but it will further retard south Tulsa growth to the dismay of few here.
I would've prefer the 5 year plan to come up to a vote but I probably will vote for whatever comes around at this point. There were plenty on this board who said "vote no on this river plan and there will be another vote in 6 months, a year tops" and from the looks of it, we won't see another shot at that for years now. Ironically, that tax would now be quite a bit lower since they are likely getting the federal funds.
Anyway, a vote yes gets something started in 2010. A vote no means 2011 at the earliest. And while "2 Billion" sounds like a scary number, in reality the plans are for $100M/yr or $165M/yr on average which sounds less drastic.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
It is going to be the 12 year plan.
The councilors aren't listening to the constituency. Sure sounded to me from anyone who had been following this that the five year plan was something everyone was agreeing on. Encumbering the city for 12 years is just too long. I'm going to assume that first priority would have to be repairs. Let's say we got ahead of that in five years then we could vote for improvements and expansion for another five or seven years.
For anyone who is interested, here's a copy of the 2001 to 2006 3rd penny proposed budget.
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/Budget/documents/descriptions.pdf
I found it interesting that the first street project mentioned in this was widening of the 15th & Utica intersection, and it's just now being done.
Memory fails me. At what point did the 3rd penny become a pork pie for police, fire, EMSA and other various capital projects outside public works? Or was it intended to fund equipment as well from the beginnng? For some reason, when this originated, I thought the purpose was street expansion and repair, sewers, flood control, infrastructure.
Our council blew it tonight and they will blame it on stupid voters come November. A five year package would have passed and would have provided needed repairs and improvements.
I predict it goes down with a no vote of 60%.
Exactly! What a waste of time. This will be another failed vote and another embarrassment.
I am interested to see how they attempt to market this. Perhaps some images of children starving because their school lunches can't be delivered on the crumbling streets, or busses crashing into trees because of pot-holes. Grandma breaking her hip crossing the street when her cane gets stuck in a crack. Just some suggestions.
The 5 year plan would have required more wisdom and less money-lust, that's why it didn't pass. Within 3 or 4 years our needs will change and funding requirements will be different.
No worry. . . this too shall NOT pass.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I would've prefer the 5 year plan to come up to a vote but I probably will vote for whatever comes around at this point. There were plenty on this board who said "vote no on this river plan and there will be another vote in 6 months, a year tops" and from the looks of it, we won't see another shot at that for years now. Ironically, that tax would now be quite a bit lower since they are likely getting the federal funds.
Anyway, a vote yes gets something started in 2010. A vote no means 2011 at the earliest. And while "2 Billion" sounds like a scary number, in reality the plans are for $100M/yr or $165M/yr on average which sounds less drastic.
IF...the proposal can be marketted as an annual investment of $100m/yr-
IF...the economy in Tulsa remains strong-
IF...the politicians involved can explain why they went against the current on this decision-
then it will pass. I don't have much faith in any of that happening. Five years and reassess was a good plan. But not to worry, I'm usually on the wrong side of these issues.[;)]
PS. Was quite ironic to hear Eagleton refer to the Spavinaw water project of the twenties and how long that funding lasted. Where did I hear that before? Oh, yeah...THE CHANNELS which he so vociferously opposed.
quote:
THE CHANNELS which he so vociferously opposed.
It's this 'CHANNELS' type thinking that gets a NO vote. Why can't we do 'practical' stuff instead of 'designer' stuff.
edited for spelling, sorry.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I would've prefer the 5 year plan to come up to a vote but I probably will vote for whatever comes around at this point. There were plenty on this board who said "vote no on this river plan and there will be another vote in 6 months, a year tops" and from the looks of it, we won't see another shot at that for years now. Ironically, that tax would now be quite a bit lower since they are likely getting the federal funds.
Anyway, a vote yes gets something started in 2010. A vote no means 2011 at the earliest. And while "2 Billion" sounds like a scary number, in reality the plans are for $100M/yr or $165M/yr on average which sounds less drastic.
No there has not been another river vote. However, as predicted, things are moving forward in the meantime without another vote. We've ostensibly got funding for LWD's, previously promised (and yes, for the umpteenth time I realize they are unrelated to the Kaiser $117mm "gift") improvements to the trail systems are nearing completion, TRD is moving forward down in Jenks, and if the city would make good on their promise to vacate the M & E facility at 23rd & Jackson and consolidate offices into OTC and move the maintenance and parking to Downtown Airpark as I was originally told would happen, we'd have viable land for a great MUD unless TDA were allowed to jack around with it for another 20 years and scare off private, un-connected developers.
I've not decided either way how I will vote on this. I want to see what all is involved and make an educated decision. Regardless of what I personally think is the "better" plan, the five-year had a far, far better shot at getting passed. I don't care if my personal paradigms would have been met with either plan, I just wanted to see progress on repairs.
Our politicians learned nothing from the epic fail of the RT vote. Long-term packages before or since 2025 don't seem to be too popular in the COT.
These councilors need to remember they don't each OWN 1/9 of Tulsa. They each REPRESENT 1/9 of Tulsa. They just voted to put a DVD rewinder on the ballot in November. Morons.
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a62/photohosting1234/Fail/fail-1.gif)
I want one of those. I get so tired of waiting for my DVD to re-spool.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote >"I predict it goes down with a no vote of 60%."< end quote.
I would say higher than that... 74% or possibly a tad higher...... people are pissed off.
How would you like the job of making the signs and promotion for this fiasco?
Well... if they spend an amount equal to just roughly .01 to 1% of the total package price of the "epic fail" version of our street package, I'd say I'd love to have that gig!
The Mayor has not signed it yet. She could easily hold it over the council until they approve her ballpark board groupie thing[:D]
This will NEVER pass.
Hope there is a plan 'B'.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
This will NEVER pass.
Hope there is a plan 'B'.
well good thing Randi Miller isn't heading this up, cause she's tell you "THERE IS NO PLAN B!"
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
The Mayor has not signed it yet. She could easily hold it over the council until they approve her ballpark board groupie thing[:D]
oh yes, lets continue to erode credibility down at City Hall.
the package needs to go forward and get shot down. Nothing bothers me more than seeing KKT use that over reaching veto power to basically nullify anything 9 elected officials come up with.
It seems foolish to me to consider a long term streets plan when the master plan for the city's longer-term future is in the process of being created.
Should the master plan contradict the streets package, it will be too late to do anything about it, thus compromising the viability of the master plan.
The answer is to fix what we can fix with what we have and to wait for the master plan to be finished.
If we're insisting on a streets package right now, we should definitely consider a very short term one to repair emergency areas that pose a safety threat, etc.
Following up the approval of the new master plan with a well thought out streets package would really show the voters something great...that their master plan means something...unlike the current one.
quote:
Originally posted by JoeMommaBlake
It seems foolish to me to consider a long term streets plan when the master plan for the city's longer-term future is in the process of being created.
Should the master plan contradict the streets package, it will be too late to do anything about it, thus compromising the viability of the master plan.
The answer is to fix what we can fix with what we have and to wait for the master plan to be finished.
If we're insisting on a streets package right now, we should definitely consider a very short term one to repair emergency areas that pose a safety threat, etc.
Following up the approval of the new master plan with a well thought out streets package would really show the voters something great...that their master plan means something...unlike the current one.
And just how did five councilors miss this simple logic?
All I can figure with Eagleton is he's such an anti-tax hawk that he voted for the plan which will most certainly not wind up in higher taxes because it won't pass muster with the voters.
He was the one who shocked me on this. Did he invoke Churchill last night?
[:P]
Included is $150,000,000+ that has absolutely nothing to do with streets.
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=8887957
$84,000,000 for buildings
$20,000,000 for two new fire trucks (can that possibly be correct? $10M each? Wow!)
$68,000,000 for 'accounting' (what is that?)
What seems to off everyone's radar is the left over money from Vision 2025. Of course, 'they' want you to forget that.
That makes it even more perplexing why Eagleton supported this, Wilbur. Only thing I can figure is he's got a better idea somewhere up his sleeve that's not yet ready for public consumption and he thinks this will tank for sure.
Anyone else care to venture a guess? Eagleton has been my bull**** barometer on city issues, but the $7.1 mm BOK settlement and now this have me scratching my head.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
That makes it even more perplexing why Eagleton supported this, Wilbur. Only thing I can figure is he's got a better idea somewhere up his sleeve that's not yet ready for public consumption and he thinks this will tank for sure.
Anyone else care to venture a guess? Eagleton has been my bull**** barometer on city issues, but the $7.1 mm BOK settlement and now this have me scratching my head.
The view changes once you assume the yoke of leadership. His ambition dictates that he move farther away from being the always critical anti-tax icon to a more flexible, partnering force for progress. One who instigates conservative ideas rather than one who destroys others ideas. Someone the donors can work with.
IOW, if he wants to be mayor he better pay attention to more moderate views and curry some favor with the "oligarchy". This vote allows him to support what he perceives as taxpayer demands for roads while understanding it probably won't pass. It may not even make it to the ballot which would put him diametrically opposite of the mayor, which is delicious for him.
I probably listen to too much MSNBC.
The "Plan" appears to be only to NOT have a streets issue on the November 4th ballot. They don't want 60K+ voters out on this, opting instead for a <20K turnout during a special election. That way, the Mayor's inflated plan has a better chance of passage.
All I can figure is they saw that neither package would pass if it occurred in November. That, and perhaps a hot local issue might counter State/National issues in a negative way (from their perspective).
Low voter turnout is desireable to get unfavorable issues passed.
Stop it early, Mayor.
Let it go. Vote no.
Remind me please. Did either of the packages contain elements related to alternative modes or reducing demand? Or were they both pointed at fixing the already grossly unsustainable network of inflated roads and potentially adding to the network we can't keep up with in the first place?
Without serious consideration toward establishing better streets containing good sidewalks, trees, crosswalks, bikelanes and/or working towards better land use policies that encourage infill (using the infrastructure we've already got) and alternative and far more sustainable modes of transportation, there's no way I'll piss away 12 years to maintaining the status quo. I'd much rather commit to a shorter term fixing some of the worst roads all the while continuing our Comp Plan discussion which will hopefully lead to a new direction (at least for some part of the City) for our infrastructure investments.
Has anyone bothered to look at the earmarks of what they're calling the 12 year "streets" plan? Or have you noticed the rebate giving to sr. citizens and low income tulsans if it passes?
I agree the streets need attention. But with such a major expenditure I want to see a 100% street focused agenda with no vote buying aspect. Time to quit playing Tulsan's as dumb and dumber.
Epic Fail, . . . your table is ready . . .
quote:
Originally posted by MakunBacon
Has anyone bothered to look at the earmarks of what they're calling the 12 year "streets" plan? Or have you noticed the rebate giving to sr. citizens and low income tulsans if it passes?
I agree the streets need attention. But with such a major expenditure I want to see a 100% street focused agenda with no vote buying aspect. Time to quit playing Tulsan's as dumb and dumber.
Heh, they are starting to pull a River Tax/V-2025 bribe. How long till they announce $5mm in park improvements or ED inititatives in north Tulsa attached to this?
Anyone? Bueler? Anyone? Bueler?