Thought I would go a head and put up the current list and possibly start a conversation about the different projects.
I think this whole thing can quite easily become a mess. Will be interesting to see how the process plays out. I do like what I am hearing about how Obama wants every cities list to be online, each project online with details about its time schedule, costs, progress updates, etc. I think that kind of transparency would be miraculous if he actually does it. Here is hoping. Will be interesting to contrast and compare what other cities are getting and doing.
(http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/6223/tulsarecovery1ahn0.jpg)
(http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/2762/tulsarecovery2and3.jpg)
I wonder what the 41 mill for urban rail is for exactly? Also, if your wanting to immediately employ local people and inject money into the local economy,,, wouldnt say building hospitals and clinics employ more than a road or dam? Also the "hybrid lift vans" though they may be good to have wont exactly put money into the local economy. Though, if we were going to have to do any of those things anyway, the money we would otherwise spend with local taxes to do that, those city taxes could now be used for other things instead.
just beware of "black hole" items. The Energy efficent facilities improvements is a black hole. These items need to be very exact on their purpose, otherwise you will get a meglomaniac mayor redirect the funds for **** like "economic stimulous" to appease her political contributors.
Of course, inteller is the guy who is against everything. For those who are new to our forum, he is a great conversation starter because he is so over the top and always wrong. If we didn't have a guy like him, we would need to invent one.
He picks out an item on the list that is less 0.17% of the list and attacks it.
Sorry, just because the details were not printed by the World yet doesn't mean there are not details. And by the way, spending a little bit of money to make our buildings more efficient is a great use of stimulus money, in my opinion.
Drop the dang dams. There is very little stimulus effect there and a big opportunity to muck up the river. Lots more important needs. Drop the dams.
Why are there $40 million in two line items for "electronic health records."
I can only hope that someone realizes that spending our way out of debt makes no sense and that all this crap fails.
I am iffy on the dams. If it were my choice I would leave those off. Not because I don't want them, would really, really like the dams actually, but I don't think they truly fit the purpose of what the "economic recovery" plan is trying to do. (Would really like my kitchen to be finished too, but since things are slow for me I am wondering if I should spend some on buying say a large printer that can print on canvas so I can expand my business and diversify my income sources. The initial cost paying for itself then making me money on top of that. Or spend money on updating my old website so its more competitive, printing up brochures and more business cards, etc.)
First and foremost each project should quickly employ people locally. Should also be an investment that will either pay for itself over time or stimulate enough economic growth equal to the cost of maintaining what is built or is something that we would HAVE to build or do otherwise. The goal is to spend money now and actually be able to cut later, be more efficient and cost effective later. We don't want anything that will permanently grow the government unless it is something that will actually cost us less over time (say adequate health care up front for poor people so they will not cost us more when we have to pay for them when they or their children are very sick and more expensive later). More clinics may seem like more continued cost, but if done right and for the right people, its been shown that they can actually reduce costs to us over all. Getting medical care costs down both personally and society wide, is going to be one of those things we are going to have to work on regardless so that our economy can be more efficient and competitive.
I also think that energy efficiency is something that is worthy of investment now. Its an expense now that will employ people. (especially if they buy stuff made in the USA) and over time can reduce the cost of government. We ARE going to have to make long term cuts so if we reduce energy costs, that's one small step. Energy efficiency does pay for itself over time. You get both things you want, short term stimulus, lasting, long term reductions that will in time pay more than the initial investment.
Get the economy rolling again, then cut government expenditures.
Looking at the list again... the library expansion imo does not fit. Will be an immediate stimulus, but long term cost is over any long term benefit that I can see, and cant really say its a must have. We are going to have to cut government in the future, that includes libraries.
Deepening McEllen Kerr, from what I know that needs to be done anyway and that would not be any more of a cost to the government later than it is now, and could actually set us up for improved use and traffic of the waterway. Short term investment, long term benefit over any long term cost.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
I can only hope that someone realizes that spending our way out of debt makes no sense and that all this crap fails.
What we should be wary of are "gifts" that end up bleeding our budget.
Of course my favorite example is energy-hungry municipal light fixtures that are "given" to us by one entity or another but we pay for it over and over again when the electric bill keeps coming.
Im sure there are many other examples (beside my favorite subject matter).
There is a reason roses have thorns.
That's a good analysis, Artist. This may turn out to be a chance for organizations to try and get their dream projects fulfilled when in fact they are not in the "stimulus" category or even in the basic needs arena. We can't keep up with the monitoring and maintaining of the dams, bridges, roads and public buildings that we have now. Building more of them has little widespread economic effect.
In the past I have supported a river project that included the living river concept. That would truly do more than create stagnant, unusable ponds. It was a compromise that was workable. But throwing these dams in without having proved that they will improve the ecology of the river or stimulate job growth and with no plan for ongoing maintenance & repair is foolhardy. The people leading the charge are only interested in creating an environment for retail shopping/housing along the banks and aren't really factoring in the real cost of operations: dredging, pollution cleanup and control, maintenance and potential failure.
There is a fairly simple solution for creating a useful, attractive, manageable river suitable for development along its banks without ecological damage. It will never surface with the current leadership.
Just drop the dams and other strawberry frappe' ideas off the list and stick to meat/potatoes.
I wonder if "Flood Cotrol Infrastructure Improvments" refers to the Pearl District retention pond "lake" system. I think that would certainly stimulate ecomonic growth and development close to downtown.
As a rule, I agree with Friedman, but I think that his column today is spot on. We need to balance between quick fixes, and long term strategies:
quote:
Tax Cuts for Teachers
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: January 10, 2009
Over the next couple of years, two very big countries, America and China, will give birth to something very important. They're each going to give birth to close to $1 trillion worth of economic stimulus — in the form of tax cuts, infrastructure, highways, mass transit and new energy systems. But a lot is riding on these two babies. If China and America each give birth to a pig — a big, energy-devouring, climate-spoiling stimulus hog — our kids are done for. It will be the burden of their lifetimes. If they each give birth to a gazelle — a lean, energy-efficient and innovation-friendly stimulus — it will be the opportunity of their lifetimes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/opinion/11friedman.html?ref=opinion
Best line: "If we spend $1 trillion on a stimulus and just get better highways and bridges — and not a new Google, Apple, Intel or Microsoft — your kids will thank you for making it so much easier for them to commute to the unemployment office or mediocre jobs."
Boulder Bridge was listed as a project under the streets tax that we just PASSED. What in the blue hell is it doing on this list? Do they think they can just fund it with some other money then do god knows what with our sales tax money?
Seeing Boulder Bridge specifically listed there also makes me suspicious about the other $200 million in "roadway segments". Would the "economic stimulus" be in the form of rescinding the sales tax we just passed?
"pork before the barrel"
no kidding. I think the boulder bridge thing is a crock. And I didn't vote for no "design study" or "engineering work" They are supposed to be tearing that thing down already. When I voted for the streets, I voted to get that damn bridge REBUILT!
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
Boulder Bridge was listed as a project under the streets tax that we just PASSED. What in the blue hell is it doing on this list? Do they think they can just fund it with some other money then do god knows what with our sales tax money?
Seeing Boulder Bridge specifically listed there also makes me suspicious about the other $200 million in "roadway segments". Would the "economic stimulus" be in the form of rescinding the sales tax we just passed?
Does the local road package have something in it that says if everything gets funded early, then the tax ends early? We could then do the second round even sooner. And, or we wouldn't be having to pay as much interest on the bonds. Not sure, still an amateur with this stuff lol. Plus I am sure there is the usual fine print which states that with public hearings and council approval projects can be changed, added or deleted as needed.
Gilcrease Expressway?
I bet this wouldn't happen before I was dead. If gilcrease construction starts, first round is on me.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
no kidding. I think the boulder bridge thing is a crock. And I didn't vote for no "design study" or "engineering work" They are supposed to be tearing that thing down already. When I voted for the streets, I voted to get that damn bridge REBUILT!
The project was listed as "Bridge Replacement". I don't know how they could come back and say they really just budgeted to conduct a study on the bridge's impact on the three-toed sloth.
one thing I heard at the UED meeting was that only street projects where all of the ROW had been acquired can be submitted because that is how ODOT works and the money flows from the feds through them to the cities.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
no kidding. I think the boulder bridge thing is a crock. And I didn't vote for no "design study" or "engineering work" They are supposed to be tearing that thing down already. When I voted for the streets, I voted to get that damn bridge REBUILT!
The project was listed as "Bridge Replacement". I don't know how they could come back and say they really just budgeted to conduct a study on the bridge's impact on the three-toed sloth.
The amount they budgeted towards the bridge was pretty slim to start with and I've heard they want to do more to accommodate pedestrian traffic separate of auto traffic so this may be to upgrade the design a bit.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
As a rule, I agree with Friedman, but I think that his column today is spot on. We need to balance between quick fixes, and long term strategies:
quote:
Tax Cuts for Teachers
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: January 10, 2009
Over the next couple of years, two very big countries, America and China, will give birth to something very important. They're each going to give birth to close to $1 trillion worth of economic stimulus — in the form of tax cuts, infrastructure, highways, mass transit and new energy systems. But a lot is riding on these two babies. If China and America each give birth to a pig — a big, energy-devouring, climate-spoiling stimulus hog — our kids are done for. It will be the burden of their lifetimes. If they each give birth to a gazelle — a lean, energy-efficient and innovation-friendly stimulus — it will be the opportunity of their lifetimes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/opinion/11friedman.html?ref=opinion
Best line: "If we spend $1 trillion on a stimulus and just get better highways and bridges — and not a new Google, Apple, Intel or Microsoft — your kids will thank you for making it so much easier for them to commute to the unemployment office or mediocre jobs."
Thank you for posting that article-- it brings up some great points that are highly relevant to Tulsa, namely the
fix the streets cry of local citizens. While I agree that Tulsa's streets are poor condition, I think more must be done to fix the streets besides just actually fixing them. What I mean is get to the root of the problem by asking the right questions: why are the streets in such poor condition in the first place? Why did the population in Tulsa city proper decrease by 11,000 residents from 2000 to 2007, while the metro area increased by almost 40,000 residents? I think the above article helps to answer these questions. Generally speaking, streets and physical infrastructure are not Tulsa's problem, in and of themselves. Rather, they are manifestations of Tulsa's real problem, which is lack of investment in the city core. Of course, we have made some great improvements in city core investment in the past five years or so. It's worth noting that both the public and private sectors have placed considerable investment in the city core. Unfortunately, the fate of our city streets was sealed long ago, as the Tulsa metro landscape sprawled further and further out of town. The good news is that the recent investments seem to be slowly increasing demand for residential, office, and retail space in the city core. Specifically, Downtown Tulsa seems poised to finally turn the corner. Public investments such as the BOk Ctr, Convention Ctr. remodel, new baseball stadium, and OSU-Tulsa tech research facility will pay off in the long run. Private investments in the Blue Dome, Brady, Greenwood, and new arena-area Districts complement and should vastly outpace the public investments in the long run.
In short, we have to continue to add value to the idea of living in Tulsa. I think Mr. Friedman would agree that American communities in general must continue to add value to the very things that give communities' economies a competitive advantage-- their unique lifestyle. We have to invest in our local blue chips: higher education, business infrastructure, arts, culture, and recreation-- things that make people want to live in town. Otherwise, people will keep asking for new roads, new bridges, and new utility lines that go to their out-of-town home, so they can get what the need from the city and get the hell out!
Stop the Boondoggles, Six-Lane Highways, MPOs: James S. Russell
Commentary by James S. Russell
Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) -- In a narrow swath along Manhattan's Hudson River, stone walls and beautiful arched bridges set off with trees disguise a buried railroad and entwine a six-lane highway.
This is Riverside Park, and it's an infrastructure masterpiece.
Congress and President Obama shouldn't commit themselves to spending billions for "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects before examining every inch of the park, which was built during the Depression.
Regrettably, we can't create its contemporary equivalent today. Great ossified bureaucracies make it all but impossible to unite highways, rails, transit and appealing walkways.
I fear that "shovel ready" means boondoggles like the E- 470 beltway, a six-lane, 46-mile arc through empty high-desert grasslands dotted with new subdivisions east of Denver. Cars cruise the wide-open toll road at 80 miles per hour.
Touted as essential to the metro area's growth, this land developers' delight hasn't lightened loads on more centrally located highways. It's just rearranged growth patterns, scattering splotches of development over an unimaginably large landscape. New residents depend on long beltway commutes by car.
We can't do better now, the lobbying legions say, we need to start the bulldozers fast. Translation: No bridge to nowhere will be left behind.
What's wrong with America's way of building transportation has long been known. We segregate roads, mass transit, railways and air. Each has its own pot of money. It's no one's job to assemble a transportation system that offers the right travel mode for the task at hand.
Obscure MPOs
Aside from the odious earmarks, most transportation funding decisions are made by Metropolitan Planning Organizations. Never heard of MPOs? They're supposed to set priorities based on real needs, though instead they operate in obscurity and allow the political horse-trading to go on unimpeded by real oversight.
So much is made of the nation's neglect of infrastructure, yet the U.S. actually is spending record sums on it.
We don't make progress because the nation fails to lay out new communities so they can be efficiently served by means other than the auto. A start would be to group people-intensive colleges and commercial centers as hubs along corridors served by transit and walkable streets.
While the bureaucracies (state and federal) get overhauled, officials can easily cross off much on the wish lists, like all those beltways that are really land-development schemes posing as congestion relief. (Charlotte, North Carolina, killed an outer- beltway plan some years ago and has done fine, thank you.)
Next, knock out the fourth, fifth and sixth expressway lanes. When roads get that big, there's enough demand to support high-quality transit. The six rail tracks that tunnel into New York's Penn Station haul as many people as 45 freeway lanes.
Walkable Downtowns
What should Obama support? Lots of innovation has been trickling up from municipalities. Beltway suburbs like Bellevue, Washington, turned their parking-lot acres into high-value suburban downtowns. Focused on transit, they're appealing as places to walk, shop, work and live.
Some metro areas are aligning roads and rails (both freight and passenger) in corridors to support these emerging urban hubs. The San Francisco Bay Area could use some cash to finally finish a rapid-transit extension linking Oakland and the East Bay to San Jose and Silicon Valley. Without additional aid, underfunded and overburdened big cities will soon have to stop long-planned, often-deferred projects like New York's Second Avenue Subway.
Little Parks
Express bus lanes and bikeways sharing "green streets" with cars can reduce auto dependency. In the best cases, each mode is physically separated from the others by planted buffers. These little Riverside Parks aren't just pretty. They make pedestrian crossings safer and sop up storm water -- essential in an increasingly flood-prone era.
Dollars spent that get Americans out of cars will ease traffic, save money, reduce pollution, slow global warming and make us less vulnerable to volatile oil oligarchs.
Road projects do little more than rearrange the traffic jams. Look for freeway spectaculars among the proposals, like the 23-lane extravaganza touted for Atlanta's suburbs. Mark them "D" -- for delusional.
(James S. Russell is Bloomberg's U.S. architecture critic. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this column: James S. Russell in New York at jamesrussell@earthlink.net.
Last Updated: January 22, 2009 00:01 EST
--- I can't help it, every time I see discussion related to the Gilcrease Exprwy I wonder...why? Is this new highway really necessary? I don't see it relieving any traffic congestion...we're already expanding I-44 for that right and we have the Creek as a by pass. I just can't help but think that this project serves very few and we're committing tons to it over time.
How much of 'road improvements - 74 segments' is going to build new capacity? When we complain and complain about our existing roadways I hope that the overwhelming majority is going to fixing our streets above and beyond what we just voted for.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
no kidding. I think the boulder bridge thing is a crock. And I didn't vote for no "design study" or "engineering work" They are supposed to be tearing that thing down already. When I voted for the streets, I voted to get that damn bridge REBUILT!
The project was listed as "Bridge Replacement". I don't know how they could come back and say they really just budgeted to conduct a study on the bridge's impact on the three-toed sloth.
But they had to put in decorative lights first.
Dont you know what a priority that is? [:o)]
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
As a rule, I agree with Friedman, but I think that his column today is spot on. We need to balance between quick fixes, and long term strategies:
quote:
Tax Cuts for Teachers
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: January 10, 2009
Over the next couple of years, two very big countries, America and China, will give birth to something very important. They're each going to give birth to close to $1 trillion worth of economic stimulus — in the form of tax cuts, infrastructure, highways, mass transit and new energy systems. But a lot is riding on these two babies. If China and America each give birth to a pig — a big, energy-devouring, climate-spoiling stimulus hog — our kids are done for. It will be the burden of their lifetimes. If they each give birth to a gazelle — a lean, energy-efficient and innovation-friendly stimulus — it will be the opportunity of their lifetimes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/opinion/11friedman.html?ref=opinion
Best line: "If we spend $1 trillion on a stimulus and just get better highways and bridges — and not a new Google, Apple, Intel or Microsoft — your kids will thank you for making it so much easier for them to commute to the unemployment office or mediocre jobs."
Thank you for posting that article-- it brings up some great points that are highly relevant to Tulsa, namely the fix the streets cry of local citizens. While I agree that Tulsa's streets are poor condition, I think more must be done to fix the streets besides just actually fixing them. What I mean is get to the root of the problem by asking the right questions: why are the streets in such poor condition in the first place? Why did the population in Tulsa city proper decrease by 11,000 residents from 2000 to 2007, while the metro area increased by almost 40,000 residents? I think the above article helps to answer these questions. Generally speaking, streets and physical infrastructure are not Tulsa's problem, in and of themselves. Rather, they are manifestations of Tulsa's real problem, which is lack of investment in the city core. Of course, we have made some great improvements in city core investment in the past five years or so. It's worth noting that both the public and private sectors have placed considerable investment in the city core. Unfortunately, the fate of our city streets was sealed long ago, as the Tulsa metro landscape sprawled further and further out of town. The good news is that the recent investments seem to be slowly increasing demand for residential, office, and retail space in the city core. Specifically, Downtown Tulsa seems poised to finally turn the corner. Public investments such as the BOk Ctr, Convention Ctr. remodel, new baseball stadium, and OSU-Tulsa tech research facility will pay off in the long run. Private investments in the Blue Dome, Brady, Greenwood, and new arena-area Districts complement and should vastly outpace the public investments in the long run.
In short, we have to continue to add value to the idea of living in Tulsa. I think Mr. Friedman would agree that American communities in general must continue to add value to the very things that give communities' economies a competitive advantage-- their unique lifestyle. We have to invest in our local blue chips: higher education, business infrastructure, arts, culture, and recreation-- things that make people want to live in town. Otherwise, people will keep asking for new roads, new bridges, and new utility lines that go to their out-of-town home, so they can get what the need from the city and get the hell out!
I agree. I would also like for us to reconsider how we design our streets. I would like to see us expand the role of streets beyond just utilities for moving cars. Streets should be seen as spaces that connect our public. They are common spaces that permit the movement of people in various modes. I would like our policy makers understand that if we can redesign our streets and encourage land use patterns around the streets that promote other modes, wear and tear will be greatly reduced while potentially increasing quality of life.
Only 166 billion of the bill will be to states now.
The rest has now been earmarked as expected, so we probably need to pick just one of these projects from the list and focus on that.
Wonderful list of earmarks:
Digital TV coupons
Almost a quarter of a Billion for Sod (grass).
Almost half a Billion for something called "National Treasures" (I really didn't think that movie was that great).
One billion for block grants.
1.3 trillion will be needed, we now have 166 Billion, but the average citizen won't understand this.
Pitiful!
Think of the thousands employed to watch grass grow.
I'm not a fan of the stimulus and am somewhat skeptical of the Tulsa projects.
I wish there would have been money to help Tulsa fund projects to deal with our Ozone problem being that there is a constantly increasing struggle just to meet attainment standards, much less resolve the problem.
Double AA:
Per pollution, we will be on the dirty air list ion the near future. Not because our pollution is getting worse (it has actually improved marginally), but because standards are being raised. As I understand it, our inclusion on the new list under the new standards is almost a foregone conclusion (not an pollution expert, I stand to be corrected).
- - -
Also, as a point of order, this is funds requested for proposed projects. I do not believe any of this money has been approved or allocated for our projects yet. Again, please correct me if I am wrong.
- - -
Tulsa's air improved again last year with every regional monitor showing declines of at least two points.
Unfortunately for Tulsa and hundreds of other American cities, the new standard dropped significantly and now Tulsa has failed to meet the lower standard. The old standard was 84 parts per billion and the new standard is 75 parts per billion. Most of the Tulsa monitors are around 80.
The governor will probably have to declare us in non-compliance this summer and the EPA will declare us so in 2010.
The rules are being contested, so anything is possible and if we have a great 2009 season, it is possible that EPA won't designate us non-compliant.
I don't know how stimulus money could be spent to improve air quality, but I am sure that road projects can sometimes back up traffic and cause worse air. The alternative transportation options could lead to less cars on the street which would really help.
Maybe giant fans that blow the air to Springfield, MO? [:P]
We could just buy helicopters to hover over the monitors on really bad days.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
We could just buy helicopters to hover over the monitors on really bad days.
Just make sure that they are black helicopters.
There will probably never be a "good enough" when it comes to air quality.
An honest question: Will the Sinclair refinery's improvements to put out less emissions be enough to drop the ozone substantially?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Double AA:
Per pollution, we will be on the dirty air list ion the near future. Not because our pollution is getting worse (it has actually improved marginally), but because standards are being raised. As I understand it, our inclusion on the new list under the new standards is almost a foregone conclusion (not an pollution expert, I stand to be corrected).
- - -
Like I said:
there is a constantly increasing struggle just to meet attainment standards, much less resolve the problem.
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
We could just buy helicopters to hover over the monitors on really bad days.
Just make sure that they are black helicopters.
Our luck all that would do is cycle more of the polluted air through the monitoring equipment so they would pick up more pollutants.
Don't know how much of a contributor it is to our air "quality". But it seems to me that in Tulsa there are a lot more old cars and trucks that just chug smoke out of their tailpipes. Do other states have some sort of monitoring requirements? It almost seems like you should be able to call the police and have these people ticketed or the car taken off the road until its fixed. Having cars that don't pollute so much wouldn't be any more of a hardship here than in any other state. I remember when I was in Florida a while back going down the highways and suddenly realizing something... there were hardly ANY old cars and definitely none chugging out smoke. Here, its almost a challenge being in traffic and avoiding being behind a vehicle that's putting smoke into your car. And have ya ever noticed those are the prissiest people to try and pass lol? They probably wonder why everyone tries to get around and in front of them. Its because you can't see or breathe when your behind them lol.
I have also heard that lawnmowers of all things, are a good sized contributor to air pollution. Are there low emission lawn mowers? Other than electric or old fashioned push mowers. Could there be a law passed in which stores would only sell low emission lawn mowers, if they exist?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
An honest question: Will the Sinclair refinery's improvements to put out less emissions be enough to drop the ozone substantially?
Is Sinclair actually doing that planned billion dollar upgrade or still just talking about it? Sunoco was going to do a major upgrade too, but now it's canceled and they may be trying to sell.
I don't know the answer to your question, but if you take a trip down recent memory lane, Sinclair certainly has criminally polluted Tulsa (//%22http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/December/06_enrd_832.html%22) in the not to distant past. Since they were willing to play shell games with waste water disposal, who knows what kind of shell games they might have been playing with emissions and other types of waste disposal.
Interesting how a president who pushed so much for energy allows a state to use his stimulus money for only two cheap cost projects..
quote:
Originally posted by TurismoDreamin
Interesting how a president who pushed so much for energy allows a state to use his stimulus money for only two cheap cost projects..
"allows"?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I remember when I was in Florida a while back going down the highways and suddenly realizing something... there were hardly ANY old cars and definitely none chugging out smoke.
I have also heard that lawnmowers of all things, are a good sized contributor to air pollution. Are there low emission lawn mowers?
A contributing factor to few old cars in FL is the salty air. It's maybe not so bad in central FL but I wouldn't buy anything made of metal that spent much time near the coasts.
Lawnmowers: They are less polluting than they used to be. I believe the industry is taking steps to reduce emissons. Carburetors have fixed "adjustments" to prevent owners from trying to make them run better. 2 Stroke engines (chain saws, weedeaters, hedge trimmers, etc) use a lot less oil in the fuel/oil mix than a decade or so ago.
I wouldn't expect to see computer controls, fuel injection, gas tank vapor recirculaton, catalytic converters and the sort on small push or self-propelled mowers. It may happen on smaller garden tractors and larger lawn tractors.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by TurismoDreamin
Interesting how a president who pushed so much for energy allows a state to use his stimulus money for only two cheap cost projects..
"allows"?
Yes "allows". As long as there is poor oversight for this stimulus money, my use of the word "allows" still stands.
quote:
Originally posted by TurismoDreamin
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by TurismoDreamin
Interesting how a president who pushed so much for energy allows a state to use his stimulus money for only two cheap cost projects..
"allows"?
Yes "allows". As long as there is poor oversight for this stimulus money, my use of the word "allows" still stands.
No, it crawls. Unless you're willing to entirely give up a states right to oversee tax monies returned to them, then you should drop references that imply these are imperial grants. You also said "his" stimulus money. Ever read much Freud?
This holier than thou, reddest of red, energy state through its mayors, republican legislators, republican congressmen and democratic governor asked for these particular projects. Take it up with them instead of the executive branch of the federal government.
Anyone know a timetable for finally completing the Gilcrease Expy. Loop?
Quote from: SXSW on March 26, 2009, 01:09:38 PM
Anyone know a timetable for finally completing the Gilcrease Expy. Loop?
(http://www.wisebread.com/files/fruganomics/wisebread_imce/Hell_freezing_over.jpg)