Could have told you years ago when annexation of the Fairgrounds was first being discussed that this fight was going to happen.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090806_11_0_Fiorhi252149
I believe several posters brought this up at the time of annexation.
Mr. Perry has disappointed me on this. He used to seem like a reasonable guy, but this fair security issue is so cut and dried, it's hard to understand how the County can continue to make such a claim.
Moral of the story: Don't go to the Fair, and for God's sake, don't send your children. It's clear they won't be safe there.
If memory serves, when the city was accused of seizing the fairgrounds for the sole purpose of raising revenue, the main excuse offered was the city spent too much money sending cops to cover problems at the fairgrounds. (Never mind that the Murphy's managed to kill Bell's off about the same time - relieving much of the police's "burden" - but I digress...)
The sales pitch was - annexing the fairgrounds and imposing the city sales tax on all fairground events would allow (and require) police coverage. So now that the city is collecting those taxes it wants to say, 'Oh, no - the Sheriff's department has always covered security during the fair so that's how things should continue to be' ?
Sorry, I don't really get that and I haven't and won't attend any event at the fairgrounds - except gun shows. (A man's got to know his limitations...)
Quote from: Delmo Gillete on August 06, 2009, 11:14:48 PM
If memory serves, when the city was accused of seizing the fairgrounds for the sole purpose of raising revenue, the main excuse offered was the city spent too much money sending cops to cover problems at the fairgrounds. (Never mind that the Murphy's managed to kill Bell's off about the same time - relieving much of the police's "burden" - but I digress...)
The sales pitch was - annexing the fairgrounds and imposing the city sales tax on all fairground events would allow (and require) police coverage. So now that the city is collecting those taxes it wants to say, 'Oh, no - the Sheriff's department has always covered security during the fair so that's how things should continue to be' ?
Sorry, I don't really get that and I haven't and won't attend any event at the fairgrounds - except gun shows. (A man's got to know his limitations...)
I've never heard the argument "the city spent too much money sending cops to cover problems at the fairgrounds." When the fairgrounds belonged to the county, the city had no jurisdiction at the fairgrounds, so there would be no reason to respond to the fairgrounds. The sheriff's office handled all law enforcement duties within the fairgrounds.
The city did have to deal with all the problems outside the fairgrounds created by the fair, always did and always will at no cost to the fair.
I'm with the city here, I see no reason for city police to be security for the fair, never did. If the Sheriffs office did that before annexation, there's no reason they can't now.
The county is not out any revenue from the fairgrounds and still maintains ownership of the facility and any potential profit from the state fair goes to the county. If the county doesn't want to provide security themselves (via the county Sheriff's office) they should pay for the service as part of the cost of putting on the fair.
The sheriff provided the security each year. Now he says he will provide the same service if he is paid $300,000 for the eleven days.
Did his budget go down $300,000?
This makes no sense at all. I don't suppose the flap over the jail helped either.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 07, 2009, 10:19:21 AM
This makes no sense at all. I don't suppose the flap over the jail helped either.
I will tell you what else this isn't going to help, the Stanley Glanz reelection campaign. Between this and the jail issue I certainly won't ever vote for him again, and I have in the past.
I am sick of the crap that comes out of the county. All the Bells/Murphy issues; Bells getting booted, Murphy Brothers no bid contracts, Murphy "contributions" to the County Commissioners, Big Splash failing safety tests, Big Splash rent checks going uncashed (and that comes back up with the problems this week at Big Splash), then you have the stupid remarks from the county over city annexation of the fairgrounds, the jail and now this?
I know and like Karen Keith, and I hope she can change things at the county level for the better, but the problems with the county seem more fundamental than just getting different people elected. There needs to be a change in how Tulsa county is run, the current form of government is broken. The state needs to allow large counties to be run differently.
Karen Keith wants to know what citizens are expecting from county government and she wants to affect change where she can. She's always been willing to listen to my suggestions and those of others. Make use of this resource we've got at county level. I don't know Commissioner's Smaligo and Perry, but they seem somewhat open as well. I just can't understand Perry's total obstinance on this issue. I see ZERO fiscal reason why the TSD can't or won't patrol the fair.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 07, 2009, 11:12:48 AM
Karen Keith wants to know what citizens are expecting from county government and she wants to affect change where she can. She's always been willing to listen to my suggestions and those of others. Make use of this resource we've got at county level. I don't know Commissioner's Smaligo and Perry, but they seem somewhat open as well. I just can't understand Perry's total obstinance on this issue. I see ZERO fiscal reason why the TSD can't or won't patrol the fair.
Smaligo took campaign money from the Murphy's and voted with Miller against Bells and led the jail stupidity with Glanz. He is certainly part of the problem. With Perry (and Glanz) all over this, he needs to go too.
By the rule of the thumb and codes the annexing of areas by municipalities require the same benefits to be extended to the annexed area as are provided to the residents of the annexing party. Research the previous annexing of areas by Tulsa and the requirement that are affixed to such action. The cost of security was an issue the was brought up before the annexing of the fairground based on the sales tax revenue that was being lost in its operation.
The city must provide by area not by the leased areas the security that is available to other sections of the city. The sheriff is right on track asking to be considered as any other private security provider if the city is unable to fulfill its obligation to provide security. The millions of dollars that is collected in sales taxes on sales as projected will surely offset the request of $300,000 to provide complete security. Lay down Rover and quit growling.
Quote from: shadows on August 07, 2009, 02:17:37 PM
By the rule of the thumb and codes the annexing of areas by municipalities require the same benefits to be extended to the annexed area as are provided to the residents of the annexing party. Research the previous annexing of areas by Tulsa and the requirement that are affixed to such action. The cost of security was an issue the was brought up before the annexing of the fairground based on the sales tax revenue that was being lost in its operation.
The city must provide by area not by the leased areas the security that is available to other sections of the city. The sheriff is right on track asking to be considered as any other private security provider if the city is unable to fulfill its obligation to provide security. The millions of dollars that is collected in sales taxes on sales as projected will surely offset the request of $300,000 to provide complete security. Lay down Rover and quit growling.
That's ridiculous, the city is providing police protection to the area, if there is a call at the fairground they have said that they will come. But the fair is an event in need of security, and as with any other event, should pay for that security. It's the county's event no matter if it's in the city or not, as such, the county should pay for security, just like they pay for ice. Do you think the city has to supply the ice to the fair since it's in the city now?
It tops the most ridicules of assertions that the only obligation of the city is to use it as a revenue collecting division of the city without the responsibility of maintaining the area under supervision afforded to annexed areas. By trying to correlate furnishing of ice to the obligatory duties of any municipality that annex's, even further decreases the tunnel vision being used in the instant case.
Tell the councilor who lives in Dawson that was a thriving community until the city annexed it and let die, that the city will no longer furnish security but will continue to collect taxes.
Saw the Police Chief on the news last night. He was saying that they'll respond to emergencies just as they would anywhere else in Tulsa, but the fair is just another Special Event. Right now, if you want to have a Special Event, you have to provide your own security.
He said BOK Center hires security (cops, in this case), and so does everybody else. It all made sense to me at the time. I'm also having a hard time understanding Perry's argument that the Fair will lose money. They had to pay the deputies before, and they have to now. They may not get a free windfall, but that's not the same as a loss.
Parents will find little comfort in the knowledge that there's provisions for catching the person who just knifed their kid, after the fact.
And, remember, it's was TSO who assured all the games are legit, too.
No good reason to go unless you've got a fat pig.
Their emphasis upon safety is underwhelming.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 07, 2009, 11:12:48 AM
Karen Keith wants to know what citizens are expecting from county government and she wants to affect change where she can. She's always been willing to listen to my suggestions and those of others. Make use of this resource we've got at county level. I don't know Commissioner's Smaligo and Perry, but they seem somewhat open as well. I just can't understand Perry's total obstinance on this issue. I see ZERO fiscal reason why the TSD can't or won't patrol the fair.
Spoken like a true campaign manager.
...wait a minute, weren't you her campaign manager?
Quote from: Wrinkle on August 07, 2009, 03:54:52 PM
Spoken like a true campaign manager.
...wait a minute, weren't you her campaign manager?
No Wrinkle just a volunteer and just speaking the truth. If you wish to view leaders who truly do want to make a difference with cynicism then you are missing out on a great opportunity to affect change.
The original Tulsa State Fair was established as an service attributed to the displaying of product of the citizens on the grounds provided by the citizens and was never intended to be commercialized in a category as a Special Event arena not withstand a for-profit venture. The city (chartered by the state) annexed the grounds, established by the Oklahoma Construction; to be used for non-profit ventures. Thus as you indicate when such is used for profit those who are receivers of the profit should provide the security as the county did before the annexing. It was by agreed authority of the fair boards that the city police department was authorized to answer emergencies on the fair grounds. The recent event which was reduced to mob control may have many reoccurrences requiring a designated party to secure the people's owned grounds. Our problem stems from the spin-off of multiplying bureaucracies that want to pass on their obligations to others to protect their own bloated salaries. "Known; protect our own turf."
Quote from: Conan71 on August 07, 2009, 04:17:35 PM
No Wrinkle just a volunteer and just speaking the truth. If you wish to view leaders who truly do want to make a difference with cynicism then you are missing out on a great opportunity to affect change.
I'll apologize, that was sorta tacky. It was supposed to be funnier than it reads. But, did think you had a bigger role there. You did sound/read like a cheerleader, though. Just pickin' up on it.
I'm sure KK is a fine person, have no reason to believe otherwise. But, intentions and real-life politics are not only very different, they have a way of getting one to join the club. Her affiliation with BD doesn't help.
As for change at the County, I've pretty much written it off as a lost cause. Until the state decides another structure is needed, rather than one where commissioners spend most their time trying to avoid each other, nothing's going to change there. And, it's not just big counties.
Thought I'd add that I do believe Glantz may get himself into trouble over this, and I voted for him. Won't again so long as he presses this and the jail deal.