The County says that they will not pay their share of the downtown assesment:
QuoteTulsa County officials made it known Monday that they don't think their constituents should have to pay to build a downtown ballpark.
In a 5-3 vote, the county Budget Board — which is made up of the county's eight elected officials — voted to ask Tulsa city councilors to exclude 11 county-owned properties from Tulsa Stadium Improvement District assessment fees that will be dedicated to the ballpark project in the Greenwood District.
The amount being challenged is about $102,000, or two-thirds of the $155,000 the county is scheduled to begin paying in fiscal year 2010.
"We felt like there was not a direct benefit to our taxpayers," said County Commissioner and Budget Board Chairman John Smaligo.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090317_16_A1_TulsaC288290
Smaglio insisted that the decision has nothing to do with the fight over the jail.
Quote"We felt like there was not a direct benefit to our taxpayers," said County Commissioner and Budget Board Chairman John Smaligo.
Seeing as how probably 70% of their constituencies live in the City of Tulsa, how so?
I suppose I'm ok with it all, as long as the County never takes any sales taxes out of a downtown Tulsa.
Smaligo is beginning to piss me off.
I imagine it has as much to do with the city taxing Expo as anything else.
The county would have to use property tax revenues to pay its portion of the assessment fees, meaning residents countywide would be tagged with the bill, Smaligo said.
The first thing that should be pointed out is that this proves all Tulsa County property tax payers will be paying for the assessment just as I have said in all my past posts and a majority in here argued against. They argued that only downtown property owners would pay...an increase due to assessment on County and even City owned property within the IDL must be passed on to the taxpayers as a whole, it is not divided up by address, zip, etc. So yes, again, everyone will be paying for this new ballpark assessment.
"We've seen a benefit to the county coffers," Taylor said, because downtown property values have increased since the ballpark's construction was announced.
The increases, the mayor added, mean more property tax revenue for the county "without having to raise people's property tax rates."
The second thing to be asked is where is the benefit in the county coffers? Mayor Taylor elludes to the increase in property values and therefore there must be a property tax must increase? There has been no word from the County Assessor's office (who by the way has already stated is not in favor of this assessment and can not translate a presumed increase in property values to the tax roles just cause someone says so) that in fact property values have increased as a result of the ballpark.
The most recent downtown properties that have been purchased are those immediately around the ballpark. These were sold at prices that were at or below the asking price before the ballpark was announced. Had those previous property owners known what was to come right after, Im sure they'd have increased the sales price.
Of the 5 large City owned parcels downtown that are being marketed by Jones Lang LaSalle, not one has sold, let alone for its asking price or below even.
Truth of the matter is, there is no factual data to support the Mayor's claim that the property prices in downtown (that have actually sold) have increased as a result of the ballpark. Speculation and therefore "asking price" has but not sold parcel price. Sorry Mayor, just cause you say it doesn't make it so.
Everyone should keep in mind that the State, Federal, County, City and Churches are the largest land owners in the IDL. Federal, State and Churches are exempt from the BID assessment, as are homesteads.
In fiscal year 2008, the county paid $14,811 in assessments covering eight properties under the Downtown Improvements District. In fiscal year 2010, the year the Tulsa Stadium Improvement takes effect, that figure is slated to jump to $154,660 on 11 properties the county owns in the assessment district, according to figures provided by the Tulsa County Fiscal Office. The Tulsa Jail would see the largest increase in its annual assessment — nearly 6,000 percent from $1,714 to $101,102.
For whatever reason, the Tulsa World and the City have yet to provide these same facts on City owned property within the IDL, I'm sure the numbers will be just as high if not much higher.
This increase can easily become a significant burden on IDL small businesses. Take for example the small business that has occupied the same building for years (sometimes decades), operating out of a portion of it, unable to get the increased needed revenue or financing to renovate and lease or expand operations to fill the entire building. These people were paying an assessment that they could cover before and still make ends meet and make money. Now comes the BID assessment and raises their property taxes by lets say the nearly 6000% like the jail. How many will be forced out of business or left struggling? How many vacant buildings will be left on the outskirts of the IDL as a result? This is a possibility, is that what the intention was or to have a thriving downtown?
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 17, 2009, 09:12:40 AM
I imagine it has as much to do with the city taxing Expo as anything else.
I agree.
A pitfall of the City declaring war on the County for sure. The Bells deal may have been an underhanded travesty, and the City (and a few councilors) didn't have to be all knee-jerk about it. But this thing has gone too far.
When the City was hurting a few years ago, it looked the City and County could work together. That all seems "off" now.
Someone needs to find out where the big people pants are stored.
Actually Neptune, you're pretty right on - based on 2000 data there were 393,049 City of Tulsa residents and 563,299 within Tulsa County (which would include some portions of Jenks, Sand Springs, Sapulpa, Owasso, Broken Arrow, Bixby, etc.) Thats a 70/30 ratio.
But since the high of 2000, it is estimated that the City of Tulsa has been losing residents to the outlying suburbs with a 2007 estimate of 370,000 City of Tulsa and 585,068 in Tulsa County, a 63/37 ratio.
http://www.city-data.com/us-cities/The-South/Tulsa-Population-Profile.html
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/Community/Planning/CompPlan/documents/Dec11Demographicspresentation.pdf
But the arguement here isnt about who pays but how they were forced to pay for something they neither voted for nor recommended. Mayor Taylor and the ballpark donors did their best to say over and over that this BID assessment would only be paid by those within the IDL...they just forgot to say that in fact everyone's property taxes would be going up to pay for it as well and that is where the problem is. Nothing is ever straight foward, transparent, open or by the will of the people anymore.
So...according to DowntownNow...the County is being forced to pay $140,000 more in taxes and they have 585,000 people in the county.
The higher taxes work out to about two cents more in taxes per resident per month.
The ballpark is worth that much to me...but that is just my two cents worth.
Quote from: Neptune on March 17, 2009, 09:04:11 AM
Seeing as how probably 70% of their constituencies live in the City of Tulsa, how so?
I suppose I'm ok with it all, as long as the County never takes any sales taxes out of a downtown Tulsa.
Smaligo is beginning to piss me off.
But they
do assess sales tax on down town businesses and they
will assess sales tax on goods sold at the baseball stadium or from any businesses that go in around it. I suspect that county proceeds from this development would exceed $154,00 per year. In addition these new properties will produce ad veloram tax that the county will collect.
If they tell us no, maybe we can tell them no
Recycle...you're missing my points here.
- Taylor opted not to put a tax vote to the poeple because she knew she'd never get it passed, comes up with the idea to create a BID assessment by extension of the existing and soon to end Main Mall assessment
- Taylor and Donors said repeatedly throughout the process and to Council that Tulsa taxpayers would not be paying "one penny" towards this assessment - true on the surface but not when you get to the meat of the matter - can't just be forthright and honest about it?
- Was any consideration given to the effect this would have on the existing downtown businesses?
- Is there any concrete, factual data to support Taylor's assumptions as detailed in the article?
- The argument is not about how much and who pays, its about how was it presented and were the people that will be paying even "one penny" given a chance to support/oppose? The answer is no, this was taxation without representation...thats the arguement here.
I'm in favor of a ballpark built with Donor funds if thats what they want to do for the benefit of the City. I'm not in favor of trampling over established law to do it. There are protections against taxation without representation. Perhaps this is why the case before the courts on behalf of some downtown property owners is still in play and hasnt been dismissed. It has gone so far that property owners in favor of the ballpark, namely the donors themselves, have stepped in with attorneys to block the case from moving forward. If it had no merit, why are they worried? Are they afraid of summary judgement? Because I've heard thats been offered but Dorwart was unwilling.
If you really want something to consider Michael, you should worry that if that case is found worthy and the assessment is struck down, how much are you willing to pay out of your personal pocket beyond 'your two cents" to make sure the ballpark gets completed?
If you want to take it your way Michael then let's say this. In the case of the County Jail, Taylor/City argue that while there may have been no contractual terms establishing the continued cooperation and set fees that should be carried over, there was verbal assurance that it would be at the end of the term. Fine, Taylor/Donors made verbal assurances to the people outside the IDL that they wouldn't be spending "one penny" on this stadium, so exempt all the County and City owned lands, structures and see where that gets ya.
[/list]
One more reason the County is probably being pissy: the Drillers occupying the new ballpark also means the county loses revenue from the current Drillers' Stadium.
Floyd, I doubt they are pissy about that given that the City has recently annexed the fairgrounds. Unless of course the Ballpark Trust seeks a tax abatement for that area as has been suggested by some of those in the know.
Whether the Drillers move or stay (from one existing ballpark to another, just outside the fairgrounds) the County would see the same revenue from its operations. One might argue that with a new stadium the Drillers will have greater ticket, concessions and gear sales that are all taxable...but thats a big if, theres no proven statistics or study to support that or ensure such. Today in a ballfield that is paid for, the Drillers cant fill seats, have to give tickets away and offer pour nights on beer to get people in the stands.
With a new stadium tickets will more than likely be increased as events have been with the BOKCenter arena (i.e. Talons and Oilers tickets). Food will be more expensive likely. Parking will have to be paid for (where plenty was free and close by before). The increased costs to have a day in the sun will likely cut into the amount of traffic the stadium produces...did anyone do a study on that? No...they did a study to determine the economic impact based on a best case, good guess formula with no hard data to back it up. There was no due diligence done to see if there was support from Tulsa citizens to determine if they will pay increased fares for tix, food, etc.
Does everyone want to see a shiny new big ballpark? Of course they do...do they want to pay for it, to the tune of $60mil? The likely answer is no...or it would have been put to a vote and all this would be behind us.
Quote from: DowntownNow on March 17, 2009, 12:50:29 PM
Of course they do...do they want to pay for it, to the tune of $60mil?
You are not telling the truth.
The landowners inside the inner disersal loop are only paying one million dollars a year for 25 years. The private donations of 30 million and the Drillers rent equal the remaining 5 million dollars.
One million dollars a year total from all the landowners inside a three square mile area. The same area where we have now already spent 200 million dollars in improvements in the last five years. We as a county and city have spent all that money in one small part of our county (equal to less than 2% of the area) and now ask only those property owners to pay a little extra as well.
I paid a lot of taxes and will continue to pay for years to come for all this to happen. Now the property owners who benefit the most are asked to help pay a little more to keep the momentum going. That sounds fair to me.
As I've said before: businesses don't pay taxes, their customers do.
An increase in anything downtown simply gets passed on to the patrons who go downtown. Prices charged to the customer go up because the cost of business goes up. It makes no difference what the cost is, it is simply passed on. The city charging more to do business downtown is a tax increase, plain and simple.
Let the County pay their IDL Tax like everyone else. And, let the Jail Authority charge per prisoner, IF it is warranted (along with County prisoners paying the daily charge to the Authority as well). We DID vote to supply the County/Authority with revenue dedicated to jail operations specifically. If they can't operate it for what we already give them, then there's some questions to be answered.
I found it particularly odd that a person I know was recently a tenant of said facility and couldn't eat their meals because they didn't provide their own plate and fork.
Also, are you aware each prisoner is charged that $50/day fee for their fines, so the County is already double-dipping.
Something stinks all around here. Politics is just that. But, not doing what we expect, have been charged for and told they are doing is another thing all together.
Quote from: Wilbur on March 17, 2009, 01:16:09 PM
As I've said before: businesses don't pay taxes, their customers do.
An increase in anything downtown simply gets passed on to the patrons who go downtown. Prices charged to the customer go up because the cost of business goes up. It makes no difference what the cost is, it is simply passed on. The city charging more to do business downtown is a tax increase, plain and simple.
First as far as everybody getting property taxes raised in the county to pay for the park that wasn't voted on. That is crap. Now on only increasing tax downtown that sounds more doable.
We have too many "it only works this way" comments on this board on complex issues (esp when it comes to taxes).
This is an overly simplistic statement that is not accurate. We assume now that a certain portion of each product sold downtown has the tax already in the cost of the item. When you raise taxes (non sales tax) the owner (that is making a profit) has options. They can either 1) increase their price the same to cover 100% of the tax 2) keep the price same and eat the lower profit margin or 3) increase a the price to cover a % less than 100% but more than 0%.
Would I pass on increases in cost to consumers, Yes. Yes I would. Would I pass on 100% of the cost, maybe maybe not. It all depends on the market and what makes the business the most money. If you raise your prices 10% you might lose 12% of your business. If you raise your prices 5% you might lose 2% of your business. It isn't some simplistic I pay 20% more so I make you pay 20% more equation. There is probably some optimal profit point somewhere in the middle (hopefully)
It sounds like the people who are paying for it are those that use the services and upgrades done to downtown (with the larger IDL). That makes sense to me. However, when you try to claim that consumers are the ones that pay the tax bill. That isn't right. Newer businesses that are just starting to make a profit have to fight even more.
Again missing my point Michael, or choosing to ignore them completely in an attempt to distract with a meanial number, so allow me to 'recyle' it for you. The point isn't if its $10, $1,000, $1mil , $25 mil or $60mil...its the fact that this assessment was passed without regard to the taxpayer for input as prescribed under law. My guess is the overwhelming majority of IDL property owners, had this been put to a vote, would have voted against such an assessment. But we will never know that since Taylor found a means (questionable at best and ultimately to be determined by the Courts it appears) to assess each and every one of them without due process or debate.
Gomez and the ballpark supporters touted that there were 53% of downtown property owners in favor of this. That was completely incorrect since no survey was ever conducted to legitimize that figure. In fact, I would submit that only 53% of IDL property owners by square footage were in favor when you consider those in favor were the City, Williams Cos and other large portfolio owners such as Kanbar - not individual property owners. Even at meetings held to discuss this BID Assessment at downtown locations there was never a cumulative representation of 53% of the individual property owners present. It took only the largest, select few that were in favor (and in some cases sponsoring or donating to the effort of the ballpark and in particular its surrounding development as well as seeking a seat on the Trust as large donors) to garner a misrepresented 53% proportion.
Now lets take your argument on the $1 million to be paid by landowners within the IDL for 25 years...the duration of which is subject to terms and considerations contained within the ballpark bonds agreement and financing, Driller operations and lease agreement, etc. To date no figure has been provided, no list determined that quantifies the services to be provided to the entire downtown IDL. How do we know $1 mil will in fact cover the required services to reach every part of the IDL? Without a figure and contract in place (which should have been done first and then back into the budget for a ballpark if thats the way its ultimately financed), how do we know $1 mil is all its going to take? I can assure you that any failure to meet the basic level of services that has been enjoyed by a small segment of the IDL nearest the Main Mall over the years will cause a furor since that is what was promised. But one of the most significant details that could have a chance of appeasing the masses has yet to be detailed and provided. But we can expedite the ballpark permits, the Trust indenture, the bond financing, the land purchases and break groun in a hurry never before seen in Tulsa...everything else can sit idly by because it is of no real interest to the players eh?
Your argument about recently spending $200mil in the downtown IDL is laughable at best. Its no secret that downtown and its infrastructure was neglected for decades. Supporters of downtown development have been crying that for years, were you under a rock? While Tulsa sprawled East, West and South, downtown saw little to no investment in its infrastructure while the rest of the areas enjoyed spending on theirs. Even our own City Hall was neglected, it was the last place anyone thought anyone wanted to be. Downtown required an address of its infrastructure (particularly roads) if it was to be vibrant again but the majority of those improvement projects have taken place around the BOKCenter arena and Inner Business Core. Where has the spending been for areas along the periphery of the IDL? Travel some of those roads near the Borden Milk plant in Brady, areas along Gunboat Park, East End, behind the DoubleTree.
You are saying that we are now asking those IDL property owners to do their part and pay a little more for all the work our tax dollars have provided them in recent years...Sorry to break it to you, but other parts of the City and their needs were already being addressed long before by those same property owners and the taxes they have been paying year after year just like you. I'd be careful...before you know it they'll start demanding you to pay that 'lil bit more' for the improvements you have seen in your area. Your statement is a slap in the face to all those within the IDL that year after year have paid their taxes and already the 'lil bit more' for the downtown Main Mall that's ripped up and redesigned time and again.
Care to tell me how specifically (and back it up with factual data if you can) that suggests a land owner on the Southern edge of the IDL is benefiting from this ballpark? And dont jump in with the administration's answer of "increased property values" - at least without provided a documented case study that in fact that has occurred.
Michael, you act as though these people have never paid a dime of taxes in their life and should be grateful to you for what they are getting now after suffering years of City neglect when it came to infrastructure improvements. What a hipocrite...now that sounds fair to me.
Quote from: DowntownNow on March 17, 2009, 12:50:29 PM
Floyd, I doubt they are pissy about that given that the City has recently annexed the fairgrounds.
D'oh! Forgot all about that.
You sure do stretch the truth, DowntownNow.
First of all, you have no proof that the majority of downtown property owners are opposed to the new funding formula. Show some proof or stop making up facts about who is for and against. At the public meetings, the people who spoke for far outweighed the ones against.
There is a new group writing the bid specifications for maintaining the entire downtown. The old formula was not fair and resulted in only property owners near Bartlett Square getting great maintenence. They paid as much as 300 times more per square foot and naturally expected the majority of the effort. Now, everybody pays the same fee and everybody should expect the same level of service.
Whine all you want about how the list of services and bids not being completely finished and I will counter with the fact that the charge hasn't started yet. Your complaint is poorly timed now. Starting crying early is like crying wolf.
My laughable argument of 200 million in investment is only countered by your statements that some parts of downtown haven't been fixed yet. Your examples include the backside of a hotel used for parking. I am sorry, I don't feel compelled to improve that particular location until after some other things are done...like the ballpark. If you think we should develop behind the Doubletree hotel before we build in the Greenwood district, I would say you are clearly in the minority of other Tulsans.
I would pay a little more for improvements in my part of town. It is not a slap in the face to admit that. I want a better town and am willing to pay a little more. You clearly feel that if anyone is willing to do that , they must have never paid taxes before. I think you have no idea what you are saying, but instead throwing in a red herring to act outraged.
My neighborhood has paid our fair share to improve all parts of town. I have never felt like I was jealous of others being funded or that others were worse off than me. I watch the capital improvements list forever and is is clearly geographically influenced.
I don't know the level of increased property value and neither do you. I know some property owners near the BOKCenter and the new ballpark and they are all expecting the assessor to raise their taxes this year. They know their property is going up in value and there ain't nothing you can say otherwise with any credibility.
Yes, all these owners have been paying taxes and many parts of Tulsa have been neglected. In the last five years, we have leadership that is able to get bond issues passed to fix up our whole county and another fair way to add even more to our center.
How can a land owner on the south edge of downtown benefit from the new arena, new roads, new sidewalks, new signage and lighting and new ballpark? Easy, find a way to use your property to it's highest use.
There are 25,000 people downtown tonight between Elton John-Billy Joel and St. Patrick's parties. Many of those people will come in and leave right past their property. If they want to keep their investment dormant and dark on a night like this, no one can help them.
It was a valiant effort at a rebuttal, but again Michael, you miss about every point and/or fail to comprehend the points I am making. So far in 3 posts you've failed to counter one of my original points effectively. So lets try this again.
I never claimed to have proof, my exact comment was "My guess is the overwhelming majority of IDL property owners, had this been put to a vote, would have voted against such an assessment." This is based on asking Gomez himself where his 53% figure came from. This was based on the Council, during the Trust indenture approval, asking whether this was based on square footage or individual property owners. Those supporters that you say outweighed those against the BID assessment were mostly City employees, ballpark donors and their representatives. Not many mentioned living or owning property within the IDL - with the exception of Williams Companies and the representative from Kanbar Properties, Victor Wandruss I believe. Those that were against, were not afraid to tell you where their property was and how it was going to affect them. In your argument, you yourself have failed to offer any so-called proof that there was in fact 53% of downtown IDL property owners in agreement on the BID assessment, neither has any City official or ballpark supporter that used that number.
As far as the public meetings go, several downtown property owners I have spoken with never knew about those meetings involving Councilor Gomez and the ballpark donors until they were over with. The other City Councilors did not even know about these meetings lol. It's easy to have a strong show of support when people that might be opposed don't even know about the meetings.
You state that the old formula was unfair like it was a recently realized brilliant revelation...not so in the slightest. Since the first discussions regarding the new assessment, the talk has been to establish a set flat rate per square foot for all property within the IDL and to afford the same level of services in all areas regardless of location or proximity to the ballpark. If you knew anything or read anything in the media you, like most everyone else, already knew that the old formula was based on the proximity to the Main Mall/Bartlett Square area since that is what the original 30 year old assessment was created to provide for. The reason properties closer to the Main Mall paid a higher level of assessment was because they enjoyed a greater amount of services than those further out. Yes, today if the assessment holds up in court, everyone within the IDL should enjoy the same level of service, but again you fail to address my point. What is that level of service? Is $1mil going to cover the services that are demanded? Why was this need that was promoted to the IDL property owners as an offering not planned, priced and contracted before anything else to ensure the level of service and price? Make all the vague arguments you want, but failure to actually argue a point that's made is pointless and shows an inability to do such.
I'll argue that the charge begins in July. The ballpark has already started construction but to date, no services or the price which is to be paid for same has been provided. The provision of services was every bit as important as the ballpark itself, and more so to those property owners that are located further from the ballpark, in order to derive some 'benefit' as directed under state law if the assessment is upheld. It was so important that it was made a part of the Trust indenture. No one's crying wolf, I'm simply demanding answers and engaging debate in light of the fact that everything has been rushed to start on the ballpark but one key element has sat on the backburner.
If you're an educated man and I seem to think you are, you would have read my comment and examples of neglected and needed infrastructure improvements to include not the parking lot behind the downtown DoubleTree (as that is owned by the City/TDA) but the street (11th, between Denver and Houston). I was, after all, talking infrastructure improvements, not property improvements. You may not feel the need to improve that area yourself but I'm sure anyone operating a business or utilizing that street for business/residential purposes would certainly appreciate it. Along there you have access to OSU-Medical, Central Park, Renaissance Uptown, OSU Clinic, two apartment complexes, and access to other businesses and residential along Houston. Frankly speaking, I don't think anyone cares what you feel compelled to repair or not reapir, you don't live or work there. The City itself has been seeking qualified re-developers for property along this street; improvements would go a long way to realizing that.
So Michael, tell me why that area is any less deserving of redevelopment potential than the Greenwood area? It is after all an abutting corridor to Riverfront areas utilizing Houston and in close proximity to OSU-Medical that could benefit from support services, office/retail. You continue to counter that the property owners within the IDL should count themselves damned lucky that the City has seen fit at your expense to make infrastructure improvements. You still fail to account for the fact that IDL property owners have paid just as much tax in years passed and only until recently have seen any notable infrastructure improvements. You fail to account for the geographical location of those improvements with regards to the outer lying areas of the IDL. Taxpayers within the IDL that are seeing infrastructure improvements in the areas that effect them are simply getting their well deserved and very delayed share of the pie for all their tax contributions that you and others in outer parts of Tulsa have been able to reap the benefit of already.
You state "My neighborhood has paid our fair share to improve all parts of town," well guess what... so have all the downtown IDL property taxpayers. If you feel downtown property owners that are seeing infrastructure improvements today should pay more, then why weren't you or aren't you being asked to pay more? Why is all of Tulsa not being asked to pay more for the improvements that have been made and are continuing to be made?
Your previous post stated "I paid a lot of taxes and will continue to pay for years to come for all this to happen. Now the property owners who benefit the most are asked to help pay a little more to keep the momentum going." Sorry, if they were asked, there would have been a vote put to the people. They were not asked, they were forced into it. Again, your argument is weak and without substance.
I don't claim to know the amount of increased property value. I argue that there has been no substantiated proof offered to say there has been an increase in all IDL property values as the Mayor has suggested is the benefit afforded all IDL property owners as a result of the ballpark. I've got news for you, just about every year the county assessor increases property assessments. This is based on several factors but an assessed value does not qualify as a standard indicator of land value in the real estate market. Real estate appraisers and speculators do not judge a property's value based on the assessed value. It is derived from market conditions and recent sales history of comparable property among other things, none of which is assessed value. You say you know property owners and that they know their property values are increasing...how? Have they recently sold their property? Have they paid for an appraisal based on comparable sales data? I watch the sales reports, what property besides those recently purchased around the ballpark site by the Kaiser Foundation for the Trust (and after the start of the ballpark construction has taken place) and have closed that would provide you some insight into realized and increased value?
You argue "How can a land owner on the south edge of downtown benefit from the new arena, new roads, new sidewalks, new signage and lighting and new ballpark? Easy, find a way to use your property to it's highest use." Where is all that signage in the East Village? Where are the new sidewalks in East Village or Gunboat? Where is all this new lighting in the outlying areas? What if people want to utilize their property in the way they do now, for their own quiet enjoyment as guaranteed under law? Who are you to tell them how utilize it if they are happy and content?
If one must improve their property to realize a benefit from the ballpark's construction then it stands to reason that it really isn't the ballpark benefiting the property and increasing its value, but the improvements that are made by the property owner now isn't it? Your own failed argument makes my point.
You argue that "There are 25,000 people downtown tonight between Elton John-Billy Joel and St. Patrick's parties. Many of those people will come in and leave right past their property. If they want to keep their investment dormant and dark on a night like this, no one can help them." The majority you refer to will utilize downtown accesses coming from the BA to Denver Ave, Hwy 75 to the 7th Street Exit, I-244 to the 7th St Exit, I-244 to the Detroit/Cincinnati Exit. The majority will not drive by East Village, Gunboat, Business Core, etc., so again your argument is flawed. A vast majority of downtown property caters to business conducted during workday hours such as professional services, not the night time entertainment crowd. They derive no benefit from keeping their lights on at night for those attending a concert or event. This doesn't mean they are dormant, they are utilized for a specific and often times already 'best' purpose. By your logic every office within the downtown IDL should convert to serve 24 hours...again, flawed.
I respectfully disagree with most of your points.
I think that the majority of property owners, business owners, and downtown residents are happy with the improvements downtown and the new ballpark being built. You think otherwise. Neither of us can prove our position, but Councilor Gomez met with more than half of the owners by parcel size and they overwhelmingly support the action. I agree that using parcel size was a little misleading, but that same parcel size is going to be the formula for funding.
I guess I don't understand your comments about the level of service that the funding will provide. Your statements are that the levels should be set before we ever proposed funding. I think that is unrealistic. The current provider (DTU) provides a myriad and continually changing services. All that is going to change, but a number of people are meeting to help decide what can be accomplished.
Clearly, there won't be enough money to do everything everybody wants done. Do they sweep the streets in front of the BoKCenter twice as often as they do in front of Boston Avenue Church? We expect trash cans on the sidewalks on the main mall, do we then expect them in front of your condo complex? Someone plans festivals for the area...do we expect to need to have festivals near Home Depot if we do one at fifth and Main?
I don't disagree that the area of downtown near the Doubletree Hotel needs some love. We should make efforts to connect our downtown to our river (best man-made with our best natural resource) and Houston street seems a logical connection. Now that some of the uncertainty of the hospital's future has been secured, maybe we will seem some focus. The overall improvement of downtown will clearly help the hotel as well.
You just seem angry that one pocket of downtown hasn't received government fix up yet. I counter that with my experience in the part of town where I live. The U.S. fish and wildlife took a parcel on 21st street in east Tulsa near my home and built a cheap metal building and surrounded it with chainlink and barbwire fence. There are no sidewalks on the streets and the city built detention ponds and trails, but have not added any improvements like benches or playgrounds. Our grocery store closed and there was no committee formed with city leaders to find a replacement.
Where you live, you are within a short walk from an iconic arena, new sidewalks and rebuilt roads, and hopefully soon, a new ballpark. My east Tulsa dollars helped pay for all that. I am not angry, but excited that the downtown is going to again become a destination for all. You would rather focus on the facts that your immediate surroundings haven't been done yet and are willing to fight the downtown improvements in court to show your anger.
I agree with your points about neglect in the east village. Some of that is due to the property owners being difficult to work with and wanting unrealistic prices for their land. The ballpark was going to go there, but I heard that the property owners suddenly changed their demands so much that the ballpark folk were forced to look elsewhere. Are you saying that you would have embraced the ballpark if only it had been moved six blocks further south?
There are some plans being made to help the east side of downtown. You might have seen the drawings of a proposed new park being built there. The sixth street improvement plans go all the way from the east village to TU. When that happens, the east village will thrive. Don't hate the greenwood area just because they got the improvement first.
Finally, let me say that I think the ballpark is going to be a magical wand that helps downtown Tulsa. It is going to bring the one missing component of our central living back, children. Thousands and thousands of kids who never get to downtown Tulsa will now see what a cool area it is and many of those will want to live, work and play nearby when they are adults. It may take a while for that to show up on the properties in the far edges of the downtown, but it will happen.
My advice, stop whining about how we used to fund things and make sure that you get your share of services with the new formula. Drop your lawsuit before you lose and work towards making downtown the vibrant reason you moved there in the first place. Embrace the changes and come out to the ballpark when it opens.
Well, thanks Michael, for enlightening me on several things...if any of your assertions were right but I'll address those ina bit. You still fail to miss the most basic point of my argument - the faulty process by which all of this was proposed, marketed and executed. But I do appreciate you finally admitting to one of my claims - that the way in which Gomez and the ballpark donors represented the 53% of those approving the BID assessment was MISLEADING.
I make the argument against the faulty process because I believe in fairness, representation and transparency in government, three things that seem very much amiss in all of this. I make the argument because to date, nothing has shown us that by investing the multi-millions in public tax dollars that we have truly generated any large scale new development or economic growth in the area.
The iconic arena was supposed to be the powerhouse that drove new and sustained economic growth after investing close to $200 million (not including infrastructure)...it has failed to do so. I'm not saying we don't see revenue from events and some increased revenue from restaurants/entertainment on those nights but there has been none of the promised massive amounts of redevelopment in or around it that were to justify the original premise to build it. The revenue currently generated doesnt even scratch the amount of public investment. I also know that such a public facility is not designed and built with the intention of ever reaping what we paid into it back out based on its operations alone.
But the intent again was to be a driver. When that has failed they now say, "well we havent pumped enough public money into downtown so lets try it again"...rather than rely on and incentivize outside investment and redevelopment. And when its decided to do that, they fail to put it to a vote of the people whether they want to make the investment on another publicly funded driver but instead force it upon them. I think its quite evident that there was a lack of support for such a publicly funded project when the Mayor chose to by-pass a vote.
You admit Gomez met with a majority based on parcel size that overwhelmingly showed support for this project. Those owners by parcel size are many of the same folks represented on the Trust. Those owners are the overwhelming minority in terms of individual parcel owners within the IDL. Those minority and supporting property owners own property in the closer vicinity of the new ballpark, far closer than those on the periphery of the IDL.
By your logic then, the way this country holds elections is wrong, votes should only include the minority (by population) of those with a certain level of wealth and leave the others without a voice. Any representation without a full accounting of all and their position is just wrong. It defies the spirit of our government, even on a local level.
You still miss my point on the funding and level of services. Does it make sense to sell a product for a certain price and not say what that product is at the time of purchase? That is essentially what was done here. Throughout the process, I understood that all the services DTU provided at the heart of the Main Mall where the property owners (closest by proximity) paid 4.5cents would be provided to all areas of downtown who are now being asked to pay a flat 6.5cents. You are now saying that wont be the case. So the outer lying areas will not receive the same benefit of services that the closest ones will? Yet they have been forced to pay the exact same amount in assessment. Again, by your logic the Arena may constitute a twice a week street sweeping but hypothetically lets say a building or parcel of equal size further away and not a large public area will get only once a week service, if any at all? Again, you are making my very point for me.
You now say that clearly there wont be enough money to do what everyone wants done but that is something that should have been planned and discussed at length so people can make decisions for themselves and provide input BEFORE passage or work started on the ballpark. Perhaps it necessitated a scaling back of teh ballpark's design and construction, perhaps more philanthropic investment to support a designated level of service. Everyone else's concerns within the IDL that are being forced to pay for this take a back seat to the ballpark. If everyone is forced to pay the same amout of assessment then the expectation should be that they enjoy the same level of service throughout. The Trust and donors have even said publicly that this is not necessarily about the ballpark but the surrounding development. So back to one of my original arguments, we are publicly subsiding the donors game to play real estate developer essentially.
You make a number of faulty assertions. I do not live in the area I was using as an example, though I am very familiar with it and a majority of downtown. I am also not a party to the lawsuit, but do support it in terms of the points I have made here.
I'm aware of the reason for the move of the ballpark location and I can support where it is going and have, but I do not supported the process or the means by which it is being funded and who has been steering the ship on it. I have never said I would only support a ballpark 6 blocks south of the East Village but again you fail to read my posts. I have always said I am in favor of a ballpark that is created using truly philanthropic funds. The donors said they would provide financial support so that downtown Tulsa can grow. How can it grow when they dont have the trust in the private sector to do jthe very thing they say the creation of this $40 million ballpark is supposed to encourage? Its the BOKCenter all over again. They also say that they must control the Trust to ensure that the ballpark is built as efficiently and as quickly as possible...that to me shows a lack of faith in the people of Tulsa, as if no one else is capable and therefore "let us lead little people."
This will be my last comment on this topic as I've wasted enough time but I want to point out one last thing. You said "Finally, let me say that I think the ballpark is going to be a magical wand that helps downtown Tulsa." Funny, that was exactly the same thing that was said about the BOKCenter Arena years ago. Seems we need more and more magic wands to see if we can actually bring about some magic.
Quote from: DowntownNow on March 18, 2009, 11:08:42 AM
"Finally, let me say that I think the ballpark is going to be a magical wand that helps downtown Tulsa." Funny, that was exactly the same thing that was said about the BOKCenter Arena years ago. Seems we need more and more magic wands to see if we can actually bring about some magic.
I don't know if the ballpark would've been built without the BOK center already showing that DT would work for entertainment so well. Not sure about a "magic wand" but I can't imagine the BOK hurt TBAG's chances.
Quote from: DowntownNow on March 18, 2009, 11:08:42 AM
This will be my last comment on this topic as I've wasted enough time but I want to point out one last thing. You said "Finally, let me say that I think the ballpark is going to be a magical wand that helps downtown Tulsa." Funny, that was exactly the same thing that was said about the BOKCenter Arena years ago. Seems we need more and more magic wands to see if we can actually bring about some magic.
I just want to compliment you on your incredibly Orwellian moniker.
I think the BoKcenter is working. We now have new downtown restaurants open at night and even the building across the street has been purchased with plans to make it an entertainment venue.
The arena has been open only six months and the credit market and the national economy fell apart at the exact same time. Now is a difficult time to borrow a bunch of money to build.
Last night was a special night for downtown. Dozens of my friends went to the show and spent hours and dollars downtown on a Tuesday night. Last night proved downtown works.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 18, 2009, 11:58:04 AM
Last night was a special night for downtown. Dozens of my friends went to the show and spent hours and dollars downtown on a Tuesday night. Last night proved downtown works.
Me and my party didn't end up helping out the rest of downtown (aside from American Parking), but not for lack of desire. Folks had to work until just before the show and get to bed once it was over.
Had it been a Friday or Saturday, we probably would have ended up spending a bunch of money in downtown bars and restaurants. Tuesday, not so much.
new twist...
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090319_298_0_TulsaC467180
Sheriff says he won't pay bill from city
By KEVIN CANFIELD World Staff Writer
Published: 3/19/2009
Tulsa County Sheriff Stanley Glanz says he won't pay a $500,000 bill from the city that unexpectedly landed on his desk earlier this month. "They're going to have a hard time collecting this extra half-million dollars," Glanz said. "But I haven't talked to anybody over there, so I don't know if it was a mistake or not." The $546,613 bill is for services provided by the city from July 2008 through March 2009 under the Public Safety Services Agreement. The agreement covers such things as radio and dispatch service, consolidated warrants and record keeping.
The city calculated the bill by subtracting what the Sheriff's Office has paid for those services the last nine months ($635,400) from what the city determined those services to be worth ($1,182,013). Glanz said he was caught off guard by the bill because he has been operating under an agreement he signed — but the city has yet to return — that calls for the Sheriff's Office to pay $936,326 for the entire fiscal year, which ends June 30.
City Spokesman John Durkee said the city sent a draft agreement to the Sheriff's Office last year that included the $936,326 figure, but that Glanz did not sign and return it until about September — months after it was to take effect. "In the meantime, the city figured out that the amount set forth for maintenance of the criminal records for the county was grossly understated," Durkee said. "The city sent the county a letter in December that the amount for that particular service was being increased to reflect current costs (and would go) from $126,000 to $661,400. "We have sent two or three invoices to the county under the new calculation, and they have only paid off the draft agreement."
Glanz said that since the city's bill reflects only services provide through March, he expects to be hit with additional fees for the final three months of the fiscal year, bringing the total bill to $1.576 million.
That is the same figure the city has proposed the Sheriff's Office pay under next year's draft agreement. It's simply an unworkable number, Glanz said. "I can't spend this money for a system that there is no ceiling on when I can go out and buy a stand-alone system for a lot less money and pay the personnel costs," Glanz said. "They've put me in a situation where I have to look for ...a criminal information system that I can share with a lot of the law enforcement agencies in the county."
Records provided by the Sheriff's Office indicate the fee it pays to the city under the Public Safety Services Agreement has increased substantially over the last three years. In fiscal year 2007, the Sheriff's Office paid $492,828. In 2008, the bill went up $354,372, or 72 percent, to $847,200. If the $1.576 million price tag holds for this year and next, it would represent a $728,800, or 86 percent, increase from 2008.
The city and county are operating without signed agreements on two major public safety issues. In addition to the unsigned Public Safety Services Agreement, which expired June 30, the city and county have yet to reach an agreement on a new city/county jail agreement.
The main point of contention has been whether the city should be required to pay a direct fee to house its inmates in the Tulsa Jail.Since Dec. 1, the Sheriff's Office has been billing the city $54.13 per inmate per day to hold its inmates in the jail. Through February, the bill had reached $267,997. The city has yet to pay any of the bill, county officials said Thursday.
A mediation session has been scheduled for Wednesday to try to resolve the jail dispute, which is in litigation.
Point of order here...
How is is possible that the City of Tulsa can directly tax Tulsa County?
Under our state law, can one government entity indeed tax another? Because if that is the case, surely Tulsa can solve all its budget problems by taxing the state, county, and school districts at an exceptionally high rate, or simply create new taxes on county properties.
I suppose McCulloch v. Maryland only covers states trying to tax the Federal government, but has this never been really considered before?
I don't know about one government taxing another. That is a good question.
These are not taxes, but fees they are disputing. A tax is based on a dollar value, a percentage of the dollar value of what you earn, own or spend. A fee is based on something else. In the city case, it is based on the square footage of the property. In the county case here, it is based on per inmate per day.
The jail is being paid for with taxes. We citizens agreed to pay a part of a penny on all purchases to fund the jail operations. That fee covers all the expenses and according to the Tulsa World, was so much that the jail showed a profit last year.
The sheriff is proposing a new fee anyway. Making a profit wasn't enough. He wants to get more money as retaliation to the city annexxing the fairgrounds and the city going after the county sales tax to pay for new roads.
How about another point of order here:
Neither the city nor the county is looking out for the best interests of the tax payer. Both sides are being childish.
Point of order here....
Wilbur's head.
I think the city is going to have to recognize that the county will in all likelihood continue to exist. The county needs to be knocked down a couple pegs, they aren't that important.
When is 4-to-fix up again? I'm ready to vote it down.
2011 I think.
4-to-fix has a limited chance of passing and dwindling
Quote from: sgrizzle on March 24, 2009, 01:23:58 PM
4-to-fix has a limited chance of passing and dwindling
If the county keeps peeing in my cheerios, the best they can hope for is for people like me not to show up for that vote. ;D
I thought 'four-to-fix' was taken over as part of the street package. A new 'four-to-fix' would be a new increase.
Did I understand that right when they were selling the street package?
Can we just combine the city and county already and get on with the 21st century?
Right....BA, Ohlasso, Sand Sprung and Jinx wouldn't stand for it.....
Quote from: Wilbur on March 24, 2009, 04:56:17 PM
I thought 'four-to-fix' was taken over as part of the street package. A new 'four-to-fix' would be a new increase.
Did I understand that right when they were selling the street package?
Technically the city is starting a tax of the same value as 4-to-fix on the day after the existing tax expires. That way the county can't call theirs an extension.
Technically all of them are "new" taxes, it's just perception.
Quote from: FOTD on March 24, 2009, 05:07:19 PM
Can we just combine the city and county already and get on with the 21st century?
Right....BA, Ohlasso, Sand Sprung and Jinx wouldn't stand for it.....
AMEN!
Dang. I almost had positive karma!
Wouldn't the COUNTY benefit more from a thriving downtown than the City?
If downtown takes off, and property values triple (b/c of the ballpark, the arena, invigorated private development, an influx of new investment in adjacent neighborhoods, etc, etc), it's the county that will benefit. Sure, the city will get a portion of the increased sales taxes, but I bet that's nothing compared to what the county will get from the increased property taxes.
I'm certainly no economist. Just sayin'...
"Oh, the farmer and the cowman should be friends..."