Well here it comes again, better but still no Cigar.
City Councilor Eagleton has recommended that there be a Board established to look into building the "Bridge", in south Tulsa, connecting Tulsa and the other side of the River"...
The proposed location for the bridge would be in line with the requests put forward by the STCC (South Tulsa Citizens Coalition)..
This is actually a good proposal.. However, Councilor Eagleton suggests, that this could be financed by a retail district created around the proposed site location.. And furthermore, the profit made from the "Bridge", could be used to cover cost overruns from the "Arena"...
I want to know the speed at which this fellow feels he could put this all together..
Is this not overextending the Capabilities of the City of Tulsa..? How does he feel this could be done in time to pay for the Arena overruns..?
From Today's World.
Councilor proposes toll-bridge stake
By P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
5/10/2006
Other city councilors are skeptical of a venture with Jenks or Bixby.
The City Council will hear public input Thursday to decide whether the city should join with south Tulsa suburbs to build a toll bridge across the Arkansas River at Riverside Parkway.
Councilor John Eagleton is proposing that the city enter into agreements with Jenks and possibly Bixby to build a bridge. He said a retail zone should be created around the bridge, where increased sales-tax revenues could be used to fund infrastructure improvements.
Eagleton said the city should be working with sister cities "to do what is best for both Tulsa the city and Tulsa the county."
During a Tuesday council committee meeting, Eagleton said that if there is a council consensus to move forward on his idea, he wants the council to "encourage the mayor to act upon it."
He said the mayor is the appropriate person to negotiate for the city, and he has "no intention on trampling on the mayor's turf."
Councilor Bill Martinson suggested that Eagleton check Mayor Kathy Taylor's level of interest before proceeding.
"I don't know that there is really a whole lot of pressure anywhere in Tulsa to get this bridge built," Martinson said. "The
mayor has a lot on her plate right now. I think we've done without the bridge for a while and might be able to do without the bridge for a little while longer."
Eagleton said he has talked to the mayor three times and that "I believe she is very interested in the idea."
Taylor said later Tuesday that she is willing to hear from Eagleton or anyone else who has an idea regarding the bridge.
"I'm always up for innovative ideas, but there are things that need to be analyzed in Councilor Eagleton's idea," the mayor said. "This city has an amazing number of issues that we need to tackle immediately, so I applaud him for being creative and trying to put some solutions together."
The city of Jenks signed a 75-year agreement with Infrastructure Ventures Inc. in February to build and operate a toll bridge between 121st and 131st streets in the vicinity of Yale Avenue and Yale Place.
The South Tulsa Citizens Coalition opposes a bridge on Yale Avenue and has filed a lawsuit against Jenks and Infrastructure Ventures. The lawsuit is pending in Tulsa County District Court.
Eagleton said he opposes locating the bridge near Yale Avenue.
"There are enough citizens in Tulsa that object to a bridge on South Yale; that it is a nonstarter for us, . . . something as a council I don't believe we should support," he said.
Eagleton also said the bridge should not be private.
In a memo to councilors, he suggested using the proceeds from the toll bridge first to pay for the bridge and then to pay for cost overruns on the arena, if any. Recent bids on a major construction package for the arena came in at $32 million more than estimates.
Councilor Dennis Troyer said he wants to leave the bridge issue alone.
"We have a lot going on with the budget," he said. "I don't have the time to sit around with this. After June or July, I'd look at it, but I don't want to be bothered with it right now."
The council approved a resolution last year opposing a bridge at Yale Avenue until all the infrastructure is in place.
In February, the council discussed but did not act on another resolution supporting a bridge at Riverside Parkway if it would be built by a governmental entity or a public trust.
Picture of the proposed Development.
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Bridge.jpg)
From Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070309_1_A9_hOnei73577%22)
quote:
Tulsa County District Judge Gordon McAllister said Thursday that he will rule in the next couple of weeks on a lawsuit filed by a neighborhood coalition that is seeking to block the construction of a toll bridge.
McAllister made that decision during a closed conference in his chambers with attorneys representing the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition and the defendants -- the Arkansas River Bridge Authority, the city of Jenks and Infrastructure Ventures Inc.
Kevin Hoskins, an attorney for the Citizens Coalition, said he believes that one of the strongest arguments among the 11 counts filed in the effort to stop the bridge is whether the 75-year bridge agreement can be considered a franchise, which would warrant a public vote.
The agreement, which sparked the lawsuit, is between Infrastructure Ventures and the Bridge Authority, which represents Jenks and Bixby.
Proponents of the bridge insist that the agreement is not a franchise because Infrastructure Ventures would not own the bridge, although the company would fund, construct
and operate it.
Jenks City Attorney Stephen Oakley said the Bridge Authority would control the bridge span from Jenks to Tulsa. Jenks would own the approach to the bridge on the Tulsa side.
The toll bridge would connect Yale Avenue in Tulsa to Yale Place in Jenks between 121st and 131st streets.
Hoskins said the defendants had resorted to being "hypertechnical" in an effort to "wiggle out of a franchise" and avoid a public vote.
"If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it doesn't matter what you call it. It's still a duck," he said.
Oakley said the cost of building the bridge is increasing with every day of delay in the process of winning approval.
The judge's ruling might be appealed, as well, he said.
"It's as good of news as possible to be getting a ruling and move on," he said.
Citizens Coalition spokesman Michael Covey said: "I think it's the right way to go; we're going to get a ruling. It's clear that the citizens will prevail, and it should go to a vote of the people."
We want a TOLL-FREE bridge. Or, no bridge.
If it takes a TIF, or Kimberly-Clark paying for the whole thing to do that, fine.
Otherwise, leave it on the Master Plan schedule until a time when the County/Cities can build it as a TOLL-FREE bridge.
I dont want to pay for a bridge that I will never use. I have to reason to go over that bridge. I have never even been to the other side of the river where it will span.
I really dont understand the big problem with this bridge as a toll-bridge. Is it that some people dont want it at all and other people want to make tax payers pay for it?
If you are worried about the tolls, dont use it. When the business fails the city/county whoever can buy the bridge from the company for cheap Im sure.
If you dont want a bridge there, why not? 121st Street and Yale in that area will soon be major routes of traffic anyway. Argue about the 1 or 200 new homes that are going up there every other year if you are worried about the area getting busy.
For Wrinkle it seems to boil down to "I dont want to pay tolls on a bridge - so no one else should either!" If you dont want to use it, dont.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I dont want to pay for a bridge that I will never use.
Umm, I doubt I will ever use the new loop up north, but that doesn't mean that my tax $$ shouln't be used to complete that project.
There is no reason for the south Tulsa bridge to be a Toll bridge (especially a private toll bridge). If it becomes a toll bridge - I propose we make the 11st,21st, 51st, 71st, & 91st all Toll Bridges.. Then we can all pay for maintance for the bridges we do use.
If I private company would pay to complete the North Loop, I would be happy to make that a toll road too.
Not to mention a bridge to make it easier for Jenks (Bixby?) residence to get to Tulsa isnt very comparable to a highway that will provide potential jobs via industrial development. If you think tolls are expensive, see what an industry pays in taxes sometime!
Hell, with the condition of bridges in this state maybe everyone should be required to get a pike pass and pay every time they use one... heck, if we did that maybe they would even score above "F" on the annual inspections.
Good point just the same.
Infrastructure extends beyond your own little personal bubble. That is the whole deal with infrastructure, is that it is complex to the point that the common man shouldn't need to worry about it. If our metro area planned anything like smarter urban areas do, this bridge would have already been authorized, funded, and built a few years ago. Not just that, but all the feeder streets around the area would be widened to handle the load that would be created by having a bridge there. I don't know if the general public is even smart enough to be able to vote about infrastructure needs simply due to short sighted views such as "I dont go there and never would". Maybe not, but that doesnt mean that there wouldn't be an overall benefit to the metro area as a whole to improve quality of life, connection between communities, and creating an overall increase in efficiency by putting in a bridge and improving the local infrastructure. I'm not just talking about 121st and Yale specifically, but similar improvements overall. But that fact that Jenks is drooling to get the rights to profit off a bridge should tell you that it is feasible, and a good investment as a public project free for all to benefit from.
So instead of desperate rich people crossing the river there, the average yokel could also cross and visit the subsequent commercial developments on each side.
I see a lot of jealousy in people in regards to areas of town they dont live in. Ive seen some people on here gripe about Brookside stealing all the money and getting streetscaping. Well, take a look at the streets around us. Some of them look like they have been carpetbombed. Others look like third world countries. Well, we have to start SOMEWHERE if we are going to improve the streets. Do you realize if Brookside gets their streets done nicely now, they're probably in the back of the line for a while? Which means other areas will be updated eventually leaving Brookside to be some of the worst streets in town?
What about the hatred towards South Tulsa? You want your hippie bike paths and mass transit so we can be different from that South Tulsa suburban scum, but how do we pay for those projects? I doubt we could do it without the tax dollars from all of those South Tulsan residents. Well, some of the tax money comes from the oil money midtown... but Oil is bad because it fuels cars, and Al Gore said that driving too much is bad...
Face the facts: Rich people, however much you despise them or are jealous, are the bread and butter of any plan for public improvements. Rich people might not seem very fair in paying some schmuck $6 an hour, but they play a huge part in building millions of dollars in sidewalks for that schmuck to get himself to work on in an efficient manner. It all evens out more than you think (I know it isn't perfectly even) - But here's the deal. If you want to attract a tax base, which is codeword for affluent rich residents and spenders of cash, you have to kiss their butts. Things that make life easier on the rich are what drives a better tax base to the community. You give the rich doctor who lives in Glenpool a quicker way to work in Tulsa, and he might speak better of his life to his pal in Dallas. That could bring another productive member of society from Dallas to Tulsa, not to mention a good addition to our tax base. It sounds bad to people who are jealous of the rich and despise them with their monocles and top hats and what not, but you must KISS THEIR BUTTS to earn their tax base, to hopefully improve upon the entire picture of public projects such as education, mass transit, sufficient police force, etc.
All of the people gripeing about urbanism who wish they lived in San Francisco need to realize that SF has some huge corporations and huge money earners living there that fit the bill for people to ride on trams and get free condoms and beer or whatever the heck they give away socially there.
You can't create your urban utopia by telling the upper class to stick it. Sorry for the rant, but the general theme of many people on this forum is that they want urbanism on one hand, but they hate the wealthy on the other.
You could never drive on a south tulsa bridge, but it could still do wonders for your visions for civic improvements that effect you, as in investment.
Wow, great post.
You've convinced me. Put it to a vote and I'd vote to have the city build a bridge there.
I still like user taxes, but good points about community as a whole and it all evening out.
More at
Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070314_1_A9_hBill16415%22)
quote:
City Councilor Bill Christiansen will roll out a plan Friday that calls for a proposed south Tulsa toll bridge to be built publicly, with Tulsa and Jenks reaping the revenues instead of a private company.
A news conference to provide more details will be held at 1:30 p.m. Friday in Room 201 of City Hall.
"I think the south Tulsa bridge needs to happen," Christiansen said Tuesday during a luncheon of the Republican Women's Club of Tulsa County.
He said a study indicates that over the next 75 years, a south Tulsa toll bridge is projected to net $900 million in revenues.
"That's a lot of money that would go a long way to help the city of Tulsa fund infrastructure needs and would be directly tied to economic development along the river and quality of life in Tulsa," Christiansen said.
The councilor said the bridge location would be proposed to connect at Riverside Drive. A current proposed toll bridge across the Arkansas River would connect Yale Avenue in Tulsa to Yale Place in Jenks between 121st and 131st streets.
"I'm pleading with the Republican Party to get behind the fact that the south Tulsa bridge, when built, needs to be a public bridge where the citizens of Tulsa and Jenks share in that revenue," Christiansen said.
He said a public trust would be formed that could issue revenue bonds to fund the construction of the toll bridge
So they still want a toll bridge. Not really good news. The only thing they are doing is saying the city will put up the money and build the thing, and then take the profits instead of the original plan of a private company building it and taking the toll money. I guess that is an improvement.
I'm guessing the city of Tulsa wants to take out a "loan" on that future revenue, so now they are behind the toll bridge as a quick money grab. They'll waste future revenue by borrowing the projected tolls, paying it back in the future with interest, to build the bridge and perhaps fill some other pressing budget matters (like the arena). So in 5 years we'd have a toll bridge that is just paying back budget overruns from 2006 that we financed into the future.
I'm still pretty new and clueless about how some of this stuff works. Couldn't a TIF district help pay for the bridge as a non-toll road by allocating the tax revenues from all the commercial and retail that will pop up when the road is opened? There won't be nearly as much development in the near future if it is just a toll bridge, IMO.
You know, if $900 million worth of traffic is hypothetically using this bridge in the future, how many other people are going to say "I'll just cross at Memorial instead?" to avoid paying a toll.. - So now we'll have to make Memorial and 96th street 12 lanes wide? Or we can just leave them how they are, turn them into huge traffic jam nightmares that FORCE people to use the toll bridge?
How much is it going to cost to cross the friggin river anyway? What do toll bridges in other cities typically charge?
Toll bridges, toll highways, what next? Toll streetlamps? I wish this city (and State for that matter) could take care of its infrastructure issues.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
More at
Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070314_1_A9_hBill16415%22)
quote:
City Councilor Bill Christiansen will roll out a plan Friday that calls for a proposed south Tulsa toll bridge to be built publicly, with Tulsa and Jenks reaping the revenues instead of a private company.
A news conference to provide more details will be held at 1:30 p.m. Friday in Room 201 of City Hall.
"I think the south Tulsa bridge needs to happen," Christiansen said Tuesday during a luncheon of the Republican Women's Club of Tulsa County.
He said a study indicates that over the next 75 years, a south Tulsa toll bridge is projected to net $900 million in revenues.
"That's a lot of money that would go a long way to help the city of Tulsa fund infrastructure needs and would be directly tied to economic development along the river and quality of life in Tulsa," Christiansen said.
The councilor said the bridge location would be proposed to connect at Riverside Drive. A current proposed toll bridge across the Arkansas River would connect Yale Avenue in Tulsa to Yale Place in Jenks between 121st and 131st streets.
"I'm pleading with the Republican Party to get behind the fact that the south Tulsa bridge, when built, needs to be a public bridge where the citizens of Tulsa and Jenks share in that revenue," Christiansen said.
He said a public trust would be formed that could issue revenue bonds to fund the construction of the toll bridge
Great News... I don't believe there are many opposed to it... if it is built in the right location....
And... the City makes the profit rather than Black Horse or whatever IVI.... alias Cinnabar....alias etc. is now calling itself.
Tulsa/Jenks getting profits = good
Private entity not owning public infrastructure = good
Connected at riverside = good
Still a toll = I'm okay with it
<<<-----
I like a good troll bridge.
We still have other problems in our existing infrastructure in more highly travelled areas like 81st street from Delaware to Mingo, 91st St. from Delaware to 169. Let's take care of more pressing priorities for more heavily travelled use first. I seriously doubt congestion on 81st and 91st streets have a whole lot to due with this bridge not existing now.
If I understand this correctly, we have to put the money out up front and pay ourselves back incrementally, and use part of it to re-pay BOK center over-runs. YT's take on it is pretty good, IMO.
The prediction in $900 million revenue over 75 years is even more speculative than our legislator's estimate of the windfall a lottery would provide to the state's public schools. More "potential" revenue streams are nothing more than high interest credit cards we give our government.
I think with the current budget status of the city, even doing a feasibility study is a luxury at this point. You are talking about a bridge that will essentially service about 5% of the total traffic in the county. All to cut a few minutes of inconvenience out of lives and save a little fuel for a small portion of the county population.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
<<<-----
I like a good troll bridge.
We still have other problems in our existing infrastructure in more highly travelled areas like 81st street from Delaware to Mingo, 91st St. from Delaware to 169. Let's take care of more pressing priorities for more heavily travelled use first. I seriously doubt congestion on 81st and 91st streets have a whole lot to due with this bridge not existing now.
If I understand this correctly, we have to put the money out up front and pay ourselves back incrementally, and use part of it to re-pay BOK center over-runs. YT's take on it is pretty good, IMO.
The prediction in $900 million revenue over 75 years is even more speculative than our legislator's estimate of the windfall a lottery would provide to the state's public schools. More "potential" revenue streams are nothing more than high interest credit cards we give our government.
I think with the current budget status of the city, even doing a feasibility study is a luxury at this point. You are talking about a bridge that will essentially service about 5% of the total traffic in the county. All to cut a few minutes of inconvenience out of lives and save a little fuel for a small portion of the county population.
81st at delaware and mingo are both under construction fyi.
the main point of the bridge is servicing not only existing people, but areas not yet built. Housing construction is active on both sides and tulsa would like those people to come to riverside and justify public and private development and pay our sales tax.
Well aware of the construction at those two intersections- way overdue. 91st & Yale was just finished, about 10 to 15 years after it was needed. But what about the two lane roads connecting those broad intersections in south Tulsa with other broad intersections? Still creates bottle-necks.
Let's take care of infrastructure issues where people already live and suffer from congestion first, not where developers are anticipating building something in the future. Tulsa has always been about 20 years behind the times on creating efficient infrastructure. If we were caught up on other areas, I'd say: "Sure let's get the jump on this projected development." but we aren't.
I'm not a fan of OKC, but one thing I noticed is up on the northern part of the city, they already have four lane divided roads where there is still no residential development, those roads have been there for years. In fact, I can't think of well-developed areas of OKC which don't have four lane roads. IOW- they thought ahead on infrastructure.
Other part that is giving me the hee-bee-gee-bees is counselors frothing at the mouth over "projected" revenue streams which might be used to pay for other items we've already squandered money on or might in the future, based on nothing other than pure speculation as to how many people will use it and future traffic flow.
I'm curious about this aspect:
"The city of Jenks signed a 75-year agreement with Infrastructure Ventures Inc. in February to build and operate a toll bridge between 121st and 131st streets in the vicinity of Yale Avenue and Yale Place."...Tulsa World
I suspect the life-span of a bridge would be right around 75 years or less, leaving the taxpayers holding the bag for a bridge replacement. Not that I'll be around 75 years from now, though.
And another thing that bothers me - is there any requirement for pedestrian and cyclist access to the proposed bridge? As private property, the toll bridge operators can bar any traffic they like.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
<<<-----
We still have other problems in our existing infrastructure in more highly travelled areas like 81st street from Delaware to Mingo, 91st St. from Delaware to 169. Let's take care of more pressing priorities for more heavily travelled use first. I seriously doubt congestion on 81st and 91st streets have a whole lot to due with this bridge not existing now.
This is true, I really couldn't care less about this particular bridge. It just pressed my buttons and got me riled up about our infrastructure problems. Clearly the demand is there, and planners had already designated that as the spot where future traffic will flow through. It makes perfect sense with Bixby Jenks and Glenpool expanding, and traffic in South Tulsa down Yale, Riverside, and 121st street all converging in the same general vicinity.
But yes, getting today's problems solved is also important, yes, even more important, than this. I do think that if we had the money right now to build a free bridge, it would be an investment that paid off nicely in the increased tax revenue activity it would spur around it.
What can Tulsa do to catch up? I've often wondered if they could draw up a master "fix all the roads" plan, projected the cost, and pitched a tax program to "get everything caught up". Hell, a few of you smart guys on here should figure out how much we could fix and improve with the money they wanted for The Channels. You could repave a lot of jacked up roads and do just about all of the projects identified as needed for the future with that large amount of money.
I personally would gladly pay a 4/10th of a cent tax for infrastructure as opposed to what the Channels offered (A very specific upper class oriented subsidy for private developers)
Get everything caught up, then reconfigure a plan to MAINTAIN everything in good condition. The extra money spent on sales tax would be saved by not busting up my car every time I try to drive through parts of town that look like war-torn France in WWII.
Your idea makes too much sense, Young Tulsan, and thus unfortunately it's unlikely to be considered until it will cost even more. Fixing Tulsa's infrastructure is needed a lot worse than an arena (or even an updated convention center which is at least economically viable). Compared to much of the nonsense being worked on by city and/or county officials (annex the fairgrounds, trade Bell's for a parking lot, a stupid toll bridge that costs the city millions over the long term built on park land for the benefit of suburbs, etc.) this idea qualifies as "out of the box" thinking, although what you are talking about is really just tending to basic necessities. Expect stiff opposition, it's more profitable to move slow so there's just enough work to keep the local contractors busy. Who knows, maybe someone will soon have the gall to suggest that adequate police protection is more important than develpoing thr river!
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
Infrastructure extends beyond your own little personal bubble. That is the whole deal with infrastructure, is that it is complex to the point that the common man shouldn't need to worry about it. If our metro area planned anything like smarter urban areas do, this bridge would have already been authorized, funded, and built a few years ago. Not just that, but all the feeder streets around the area would be widened to handle the load that would be created by having a bridge there. I don't know if the general public is even smart enough to be able to vote about infrastructure needs simply due to short sighted views such as "I dont go there and never would". Maybe not, but that doesnt mean that there wouldn't be an overall benefit to the metro area as a whole to improve quality of life, connection between communities, and creating an overall increase in efficiency by putting in a bridge and improving the local infrastructure. I'm not just talking about 121st and Yale specifically, but similar improvements overall. But that fact that Jenks is drooling to get the rights to profit off a bridge should tell you that it is feasible, and a good investment as a public project free for all to benefit from.
So instead of desperate rich people crossing the river there, the average yokel could also cross and visit the subsequent commercial developments on each side.
I see a lot of jealousy in people in regards to areas of town they dont live in. Ive seen some people on here gripe about Brookside stealing all the money and getting streetscaping. Well, take a look at the streets around us. Some of them look like they have been carpetbombed. Others look like third world countries. Well, we have to start SOMEWHERE if we are going to improve the streets. Do you realize if Brookside gets their streets done nicely now, they're probably in the back of the line for a while? Which means other areas will be updated eventually leaving Brookside to be some of the worst streets in town?
What about the hatred towards South Tulsa? You want your hippie bike paths and mass transit so we can be different from that South Tulsa suburban scum, but how do we pay for those projects? I doubt we could do it without the tax dollars from all of those South Tulsan residents. Well, some of the tax money comes from the oil money midtown... but Oil is bad because it fuels cars, and Al Gore said that driving too much is bad...
Face the facts: Rich people, however much you despise them or are jealous, are the bread and butter of any plan for public improvements. Rich people might not seem very fair in paying some schmuck $6 an hour, but they play a huge part in building millions of dollars in sidewalks for that schmuck to get himself to work on in an efficient manner. It all evens out more than you think (I know it isn't perfectly even) - But here's the deal. If you want to attract a tax base, which is codeword for affluent rich residents and spenders of cash, you have to kiss their butts. Things that make life easier on the rich are what drives a better tax base to the community. You give the rich doctor who lives in Glenpool a quicker way to work in Tulsa, and he might speak better of his life to his pal in Dallas. That could bring another productive member of society from Dallas to Tulsa, not to mention a good addition to our tax base. It sounds bad to people who are jealous of the rich and despise them with their monocles and top hats and what not, but you must KISS THEIR BUTTS to earn their tax base, to hopefully improve upon the entire picture of public projects such as education, mass transit, sufficient police force, etc.
All of the people gripeing about urbanism who wish they lived in San Francisco need to realize that SF has some huge corporations and huge money earners living there that fit the bill for people to ride on trams and get free condoms and beer or whatever the heck they give away socially there.
You can't create your urban utopia by telling the upper class to stick it. Sorry for the rant, but the general theme of many people on this forum is that they want urbanism on one hand, but they hate the wealthy on the other.
You could never drive on a south tulsa bridge, but it could still do wonders for your visions for civic improvements that effect you, as in investment.
When that doctor lives in Bixby, his property tax on his million dollar house doesn't really help Tulsa. I don't see any reason that citizens of Tulsa should be encouraging a road that will only lead to further sprawl, more unecessary infrastructure, etc. Increase the density of Tulsa, then we can spend more dollars per mile. If they want the bridge, fine, but make it a toll road.
I could care less about "hippie bike paths". I have no hatred for south Tulsa, in fact, I think it's got some of the most geographically beautiful parts of the city. And I don't have an elitist attitude towards south Tulsans. But I do believe in managing the growth of a city, and when we encourage people to live in Bixby with a bridge that makes it easier, then we will start to see our tax dollars head that way, too. Hello, donut effect.
I could care less about "hippie bike paths". I have no hatred for south Tulsa, in fact, I think it's got some of the most geographically beautiful parts of the city. And I don't have an elitist attitude towards south Tulsans. But I do believe in managing the growth of a city, and when we encourage people to live in Bixby with a bridge that makes it easier, then we will start to see our tax dollars head that way, too. Hello, donut effect.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news but the Burbs are going to continue to grow at a greater rate than the Metro Area...
You do not reverse this mindset that the "Baby Boomers" have of a house in the Country away from the hustle and bustle of the City..Simply by as you say " managing the growth".. That train left the station long ago and far away...
If the IVI... Blackhog.... whatever plan is not followed.... One of the more desirable routes is chosen and used.... You will make it easier for this bunch to make it to Tulsa and spend cash... The County is not going to give the City any of the property tax dollars any old way.
Tulsa and Jenks split the dough and play catch up on the infrastructure.
In a more solvent fashion than the current budget allows.
And we all live happily ever after...
[}:)]
True dat.
Since nobody's come up with a good bridge solution, I recommend the bridge just go away.
Did we forget no bridge remains an option?
Maybe if someone were to suggest $0.25 Toll, making only 1/4 of the $800 Million (that's still $200M, a little less than the arena)
And, only if it does go to the public.
I still remain on the TOLL-FREE side of the issue. That or no bridge.
I actually like the idea of it being a publicly owned toll. A toll will possibly put a bit of a damper on the sprawl issue. But if lots of people do use it, then THEY will be paying for the bridge and later for more infrastructure improvements in the rest of the city.
BINGO! We have a winner!
YoungTulsan - How sure are you that the area south of Interstate 44 generates more tax revenue than the area north of Interstate 44? In addition, how sure are you that the area south of Interstate 44 isn't costing the city more revenue than it's giving in? I think you're making a brave assumption considering where Williams, Hillcrest, BOK, Sinclair, Sunoco, Cherokee Industrial Park, Southroads, etc. are located.
[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
YoungTulsan - How sure are you that the area south of Interstate 44 generates more tax revenue than the area north of Interstate 44? In addition, how sure are you that the area south of Interstate 44 isn't costing the city more revenue than it's giving in? I think you're making a brave assumption considering where Williams, Hillcrest, BOK, Sinclair, Sunoco, Cherokee Industrial Park, Southroads, etc. are located.
[;)]
where do you think all the people that work at those locations live? where are the property taxes assessed? I am pretty sure the locations where those people live generate more taxes than the properties of businesses where they work. oh and BTW Sunoco is really just a shell company, they moved most of their people to Houston.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
YoungTulsan - How sure are you that the area south of Interstate 44 generates more tax revenue than the area north of Interstate 44? In addition, how sure are you that the area south of Interstate 44 isn't costing the city more revenue than it's giving in? I think you're making a brave assumption considering where Williams, Hillcrest, BOK, Sinclair, Sunoco, Cherokee Industrial Park, Southroads, etc. are located.
[;)]
where do you think all the people that work at those locations live? where are the property taxes assessed? I am pretty sure the locations where those people live generate more taxes than the properties of businesses where they work. oh and BTW Sunoco is really just a shell company, they moved most of their people to Houston.
They live...north of the interstate, south of the interstate, Broken Arrow, Owasso, Jenks, Bixy, Sand Springs...everywhere.
Developer, "New Group", opposed to alternative Delaware alignment.
From Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070405_1_A14_hThen88770%22)
quote:
The neighborhood group opposes a proposal by a city councilor and a residents' coalition to relocate the embattled span.
A city councilor and neighborhood coalition's proposal to move a south Tulsa toll bridge alignment from Yale Avenue to Delaware Avenue has provoked the genesis of a second neighborhood group that isn't too excited about the new proposal.
Bob David, developer of the new Wind River addition at Delaware Avenue and 121st Street, addressed about 70 people Wednesday evening at the Hardesty Regional Library.
The residents and builders in Wind River and the adjacent Waterstone addition also heard from Terry Young, a former Tulsa mayor and county commissioner as well as a partner in Infrastructure Ventures Inc., the company that proposes to build and operate a toll bridge under a 75-year agreement with Jenks and the Arkansas River Bridge Authority.
Young said City Councilor Bill Christiansen's rendering of an Arkansas River bridge connecting to Delaware Avenue without having to acquire and remove any houses in Wind River is a fish story that isn't even possible.
"The theme of this is: It's the elevation, stupid," Young said.
He went over Infrastructure
Ventures' engineering drawings, which illustrate the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' requirements for building within floodplains.
To do so, it would be necessary to acquire and remove at least 14 luxury homes in Wind River and possibly an additional nine homes for a combined cost of about $9.2 million, Young said.
Additional costs associated with a Delaware Avenue connection would be the construction of a flood wall to stabilize the river bank, which is only about 65 feet from the Wind River addition.
The area's low elevation would require a significant amount of dirt fill, as well, Young said.
For the bridge to be one foot above the elevation of the levee, as is required, the roadway would have to be built up by 12 feet, which would make it loom over Wind River.
"That's the reason the bridge is where it is" in the major street and highway plan, Young said.
David said decisions about the proposed bridge should not be made by one city councilor and the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition, a group that has a pending lawsuit against Jenks and Infrastructure Ventures in an effort to stop the bridge's construction.
David encouraged those attending to contact all city councilors as well as the mayor to make their voices heard.
"They have been dodging this deal for a long time," he said. "They need to deal with this."
Wind River resident Phil VanTrease said connecting a bridge to Delaware Avenue would make no sense from either an economic or engineering standpoint.
"I'd definitely be against it, to put it mildly," he said.
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2007/cousinpark5.jpg)
Haha, looks like the STCC didn't do their homework before getting out a map and a sharpie and saying we want a bridge THERE...
They should just give up.
I give up on the issue as well, let them have their toll bridge. My previous posts were just rants about how we can't pay for infrastructure, which I get steamed about when I hear about a TOLL anything.
I like that west alignment. It allows for an extension of Delaware (Riverside) which could go all the way to 131st, and connection to Yale.
So let me get this straight, the STCC/Christiansen alignment will destroy a bunch of homes and put an elevated roadway which "looms over" Wind River...while the Yale alignment (from the master road plan) destroys no homes and will come back down to existing street elevation by the time it hits the north side of the river, and will not be near an existing subdivision. How can anyone not see the logic of the Yale alignment? Don't you think the street planners considered all of this when they placed it at Yale so many years ago? Am I missing something here?
quote:
Originally posted by nonimbys
So let me get this straight, the STCC/Christiansen alignment will destroy a bunch of homes and put an elevated roadway which "looms over" Wind River...while the Yale alignment (from the master road plan) destroys no homes and will come back down to existing street elevation by the time it hits the north side of the river, and will not be near an existing subdivision. How can anyone not see the logic of the Yale alignment? Don't you think the street planners considered all of this when they placed it at Yale so many years ago? Am I missing something here?
It was originally planned on Riverside, only a few years ago was it changed to Yale. Nice try.
Naturally, Bob David is out to protect his 'investment', even though planning a project like his could've only occurred once he felt sure of the outcome, ya know, like it a done deal.
Must be upsetting when things don't go the way you planned them.
As for the $9.6 Million, we can just condemn the property, it's easy as pie.
The elevation issue is a red herring, too.
I haven't been down on that corner lately, can't remember how many houses are down there. But, if the Delaware alignment is going to be clearly visible from "Wind River", it might make their case stronger than that of STCC since a Yale alignment would be a bit farther from current housing additions.
Not that I really care, I do like the alternate west alignment though. Might solve the issue for both STCC's and "Wind River".
Double A – Everything I have read on the issue has told me the following: The "original" alignment was actually to have an east-west bridge which would connect 121st across the river. Some industrial projects that Jenks let happen years ago (the power plant among others) made that bridge un-doable. After that the alignment was changed to Yale Ave to Yale Place (since the Kimberly Clark plant made a straight shot un-doable). I have never seen anything that had the riverside alignment as an official "on the books" path. But perhaps I missed something. Either way (and I am no engineer) it would seem to me to make the most sense to have a bridge "land" at an intersection.
Wrinkle – I don't know Bob David (I did meet him once) but I would think that were I a developer I would want to know what the city plans were for the roads/streets around my development before I broke ground, so I don't see why we should condemn (no pun intended) him for that. On the elevation, how is that a red herring?
MichaelC – I drive by that area from time to time and since becoming interested in this issue I have looked around and there are currently no homes at 121st and Yale, there is a nursery on the SE corner and I think that is it. Also, what West alignment are you talking about? In the paper they had one in the middle (between the two alllignments) but that seems to be the worst for the people of Tulsa as it cuts right through the park. I like parks.
It seems to me that the only reason the STCC folks don't like the Yale alignment is because they don't want more traffic up Yale. Here is an idea: Don't buy a house that backs up to an arterial road. I am pretty sure that Yale has been there for quite some time.
I'm not a fan of STCC either. These are folks that moved way out to the far South because they could build what they wanted, and "get away from it all". Well, they didn't move far enough. They're still in the City of Tulsa, and now they're going to resist all development that might interfere with their fine country living.
That being said, I'd also be fine with no bridge at all there. Depends on how this all plays out, I like the original private plan with the County, but if this becomes public, I in no way feel that the City of Tulsa needs to subsidize a substantial portion of the construction of this bridge. Infrastructure may eventually lead Tulsa to a position where it needs to build that bridge, right now it mostly benefits the burbs.
quote:
Originally posted by nonimbys
Here is an idea: Don't buy a house that backs up to an arterial road. I am pretty sure that Yale has been there for quite some time.
Seems like the Wind River folks might have heeded that advice also. Only 65 ft from a river levee and backing up to Riverside?
A couple of insights. The park loses some of its land with either of the proposed IVI crossings. Not what the estate had in mind but they prefer the yale alignment.
Most importantly, Bob David has a couple of partners in Wind River. Any idea who? One is none other than Bobby Lorton. The World neglects to disclaim that in their stories about the bridge controversy. Another close ally is River Parks Authority. They have some sort of donation to the RPA for every house sold to fund more paths in the area. No doubt promises were made and the pressure is on to make sure the bridge goes where they want it.
I made a proposal on another thread that I would like input on. Why don't we encourage the IVI folks to build the low water dam too? They could take a % of increased tax revenues that Jenks is supposed to get from all the resulting development. It could be packaged with the bridge.
Any response?
I'm for no bridge.
At least until a time when the County considers it priority enough to ask for public funding and a TOLL-FREE BRIDGE, give the City of Tulsa a reason to participate and put Jenks/Bixby in roles consistant with their participation.
There currently is nothing on the south end besides a thick bank of heavy industry along the river. Beyond that are 40-acre+ ranches.
As it is, it's benefit is soley developers who see only potential development south of the river, and south of the industrial zone, none of which helps Tulsa in any way.
Seems government has forgotten its role.
When it is built, it should align at Yale Av. (on both ends). Since the County managed to give Yale Ave ROW to Kimberly-Clark, the next best alignment is Pittsburg Avenue ("Yale Pl").
Then, users for the next 75 years will have only to go one mile out of their way each time. And, I suppose, there's some DOT statistic about accidents on curved vs straight bridge approaches, and resulting fatalities. Anyone cared to figure that cost?
From Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070410_1_A1_imgsr26046%22)
quote:
Ruling advances proposed south Tulsa-Jenks link
Proponents of a toll bridge connecting Jenks to Tulsa won a significant legal victory Monday when a judge ruled in favor of a Tulsa-based company seeking to build and operate the bridge.
Tulsa County District Judge Gordon McAllister denied the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition's motion for summary judgment on nine of 11 counts that challenged the legality of a 75-year agreement that Jenks and the Arkansas River Bridge Authority made with Infrastructure Ventures Inc.
The ruling means that Infrastructure Ventures and the bridge authority may move forward with plans for a bridge connecting Yale Avenue in Tulsa to Yale Place in Jenks, between 121st and 131st streets.
"We are absolutely elated, but we are not surprised," Infrastructure Ventures President Bill Bacon said in a prepared statement. "We have strongly believed in our
position from the beginning of this project four and a half years ago, and -- for the second time -- the court has agreed."
McAllister ruled that because Infrastructure Ventures' agreement is with the bridge authority and not the city of Jenks, it is not a franchise and therefore did not require a public vote as was argued by the citizens group. The bridge authority was formed by Jenks and Bixby.
A spokesman for the citizens coalition, Michael Covey, said the group would meet in the next couple of days to decide whether to file an appeal to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
"We're obviously disappointed in the judge's ruling," Covey said. "We'll regroup and see what makes the most sense. I am certainly not going to rule out the possibility of appealing this matter."
Covey said he believes that the coalition had very strong arguments against the legality of the toll bridge agreement.
"Why wouldn't a municipality just go form an authority to do everything?" he asked. "That way they can get around laws that were put in place to protect the public."
The other two counts in the lawsuit relate to eminent domain and are premature for determination until condemnation proceedings occur, the judge said in his ruling.
If the coalition decides not to appeal, Covey said, Infrastructure Ventures has received the green light to build the bridge unless the city of Tulsa decides to contest whether property owned by Tulsa can be con demned to build it.
"That probably is the first decision the city of Tulsa needs to make," Covey said. "But that decision probably will not be made until we decide to file an appeal or not."
Bacon said that almost every large bridge, road or turnpike project in Tulsa County has been controversial.
"But as we look around, we find that all of these projects, once built, ultimately proved to be invaluable contributors to improving the quality of life in our communities," he said.
Bacon said he is confident that the ruling would be upheld on appeal.
As part of his ruling, McAllister said Jenks and the bridge authority have the authority to construct or maintain a toll road in Tulsa County. He also found that the Competitive Bidding Act is inapplicable.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2007/cousinpark5.jpg)
Christiansen has said the bridge alignment here, credited to STCC is someone's guess based on a hand drawing. He is supporting the CoT alignment that destroys no homes. One of those spokesman "standing up for Wind River" is a member of IVI.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Christiansen has said the bridge alignment here, credited to STCC is someone's guess based on a hand drawing. He is supporting the CoT alignment that destroys no homes. One of those spokesman "standing up for Wind River" is a member of IVI.
You absolutely opposed to the IVI alignment? It doesn't appear to destroy homes, at least none on the Tulsa side. If fact, IVI alignment, out of the three "proposals", appears to be the farthest from existing homes.
It seems to me that the IVI alignment also has the least impact on the park. From the article with the family that donated the land I understand that they want the park to "interact" with the river, that is to look like undisturbed river land. The CoT path would seem to put a road between the river and the park and, since I am sure it would have some type of elevation to it, would cut off any river view from the park as well. I think you have to admit that (despite your opinion of IVI) the IVI alignment has the least impact on all parties. No?
The way this has all dragged on, I'm not sure who is opposed to the IVI alignment, or for what reasons. Not sure sgrizzle is opposed to IVI, or their proposal. Just don't know.
The IVI alignment IMO, has always made more sense than the STCC's proposal, mostly on the basis that the river is much closer to 121st and Delaware. The river is basically across delaware from housing additions. There's no telling how much flood control, drainage, levees, fill for the river, it's going to take to build STCC's proposal. It is likely to be more expensive. And we could very well see damage years later, when IVI is simply no longer responsible for water control.
The IVI proposal accesses 121st and Yale, which is around a quarter mile from the river. There are no residences between 121st/Yale, and the river.
If you've been down that way, you probably noticed that drainage is a serious problem, a lot of those fields stay wet good portions of the year. Don't know how much flooding is a problem, I know it's serious enough to close down Sheridan from time to time. It needs to be considered IMO, especially if you want to start jacking with the shoreline at 121st and Delaware.
I'm opposed to IVI in general. Too many people who are financially involved are using their political and personal influence. It's conflict of interest on crack.
I like the CoT alignment better than IVI's due to traffic flow. My main concern with the IVI alignment is that traffic will automatically go east on 121st and bixby gets all the benefits.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I'm opposed to IVI in general. Too many people who are financially involved are using their political and personal influence. It's conflict of interest on crack.
Exactly.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I like the CoT alignment better than IVI's due to traffic flow. My main concern with the IVI alignment is that traffic will automatically go east on 121st and bixby gets all the benefits.
So, you're talking about the flow of primarily
retail traffic, correct?
I can certainly see being opposed to any bridge altogether under the concept that Yale Place, on the Bixby/Jenks side of the river is basically uninhabited. There are a few rather large homes, but not enough to build a bridge for IMO. I don't see there being much traffic initially.
Also, State HWY 67 between Glenpool and Bixby (less than 3 miles from the proposed bridge) is largely undeveloped. Prime for commercial, if there were a larger population base with better access.
After the bridge is built all of that land becomes more valuable as residential and commercial because there will be significantly better access across the river. Any bridge, more or less benefits the burbs. Automatically IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
So, you're talking about the flow of primarily retail traffic, correct?
I think at least half of all South Tulsa traffic is retail.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I think at least half of all South Tulsa traffic is retail.
Certainly. Maybe something like 90%, depending on where exactly in South Tulsa you are.
Given that there's very little population directly south on Yale Place, I'm trying to envision where these people are supposedly coming from. Obviously if you're driving around far South Tulsa, if you're wanting to get farther South and you're in the area, you'll use the bridge. It avoids Bixby and Jenks. HWY 67 is easily accessed, you cross the bridge you're pretty much out of town and on your way.
Coming into Tulsa, to me, is much more difficult to peg. If it's retail, given retail options, future retail options, and current access to the area, I'm having a hard time grasping what people from what general area will use the bridge.
For example, will someone drive in from South Memorial in Bixby, go 4+ miles out of the way, to avoid maybe 3 stop lights on their way to Bixby's Lowes? That doesn't make much sense to me, IMO, more or less, North Bixby/Woodland Hills access via Yale Bridge from most points in South Bixby, Luther, Haskell, is unlikely. Slightly more likely to be used as access to Tulsa and Jenks, coming in from that general area.
Another likely scenario would be for someone to come from Glenpool, Kiefer, and Okmulgee; use HWY 67/Yale Bridge, and avoid basically all traffic. Yale Bridge would be a bypass of most of Bixby. However, this goes for South Tulsa/Jenks as well, there is already very good access to the area if one really wants to pay tolls (Creek Turnpike). And, Glenpool is adding it's own Wal-Mart (probably other retail as well), AND finally if you're coming in from South 75, once you hit Glenpool you're only about 8 miles away from the future "Tulsa Hills".
So, the retail traffic argument is something that I'm having trouble with. Which obviously, gives me trouble in regards to whether or not a 1/2 mile diversion of the bridge, would make a difference.
I'm slightly surprised, maybe no one has ever been down there, but I'm slightly surprised that no one is really talking about what this will do for access for future residential and commercial in Jenks/Bixby/Glenpool. If IVI is half as evil as some on this board say they are: The place to look is in who owns commercial property directly north, or any property within about 5 miles south of this bridge.
Poll:
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6331
I'm on the fence. I'm ok with IVI's proposal, the CoT's "West Alignment", and No bridge at all. For various reasons.
How the hell did this topic end up in Politics and not Development?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
How the hell did this topic end up in Politics and not Development?
The short answer: The Toll Bridge, Tulsa World, Lorton, IVI, STCC, the County...all of them were pounded into bugdust by pundits, bloggers, politicians, and forum members, about a year ago. This was a nasty politically angled debate, at one time.
It's calmer for now, but there's no telling when it will get nasty again.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
How the hell did this topic end up in Politics and not Development?
The short answer: The Toll Bridge, Tulsa World, Lorton, IVI, STCC, the County...all of them were pounded into bugdust by pundits, bloggers, politicians, and forum members, about a year ago. This was a nasty politically angled debate, at one time.
It's calmer for now, but there's no telling when it will get nasty again.
Good to know. I have a good friend who is on the board of the citizens council against the bridge, but I live in midtown so I could give a rip...
Tulsa City Council has already passed a resolution against the bridge, which ostensibly means the City will not be selling the required property for the Tulsa end of the bridge to be built, at any location.
It remains a dead issue in spite of the Court ruling, at least until something changes there. And, when it appears something might happen in that regard, you can bet the temperature will raise substantially.
I seriously doubt Tulsan's are going to be interested in spending the $60 Million on approach improvements IVI says will be needed for their $33 Million bridge.
And, in all practicallity, why should we?
The bridge provides Tulsa nothing.
It only raises property values for parcels way south of the river, in Jenks and Bixby. And, devalues affected properties on the Tulsa side.
There's no reason for Tulsa to spend a cent.
quote:
Originally posted by ricecake
I have a question for those with a legal background or with a good handle on the law.
1. The Arkansas River Bridge Authority has entered into a sole source contract with IVI. (Tulsa World 04/10/06)
2. The state attorney general's office says that the Tulsa Authority for the Recovery of Energy cannot negotiate sole-source contracts. (Tulsa World 04/12/06)
What's the difference here?
I came here to post the exact same question. It appears to be selective rationalization.
And, we'll have to review those 40-year water contracts, too.
quote:
"I think there is no doubt a bridge is needed to bring people into our community." -Mayor Taylor
from Taylor talks about issues she's facing (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070411_1_A1_imgsr46283%22)
I disagree, there's plenty of doubt a bridge is needed. Besides, it won't bring people into Tulsa, it allows unchecked sprawl to the south, and outside the City Limits, which provides nothing for Tulsa. All new development south of the river benefits only Jenks and Bixby, but, in particular, the developers who own land down there and want only to incease its' value.
I thought the bridge was two way.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I thought the bridge was two way.
The traffic is but the revenue gains aren't.
Perhaps we could charge a higher toll for those cars leaving Tulsa and free tickets to the zoo for those entering.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Tulsa City Council has already passed a resolution against the bridge, which ostensibly means the City will not be selling the required property for the Tulsa end of the bridge to be built, at any location.
It remains a dead issue in spite of the Court ruling, at least until something changes there. And, when it appears something might happen in that regard, you can bet the temperature will raise substantially.
I seriously doubt Tulsan's are going to be interested in spending the $60 Million on approach improvements IVI says will be needed for their $33 Million bridge.
And, in all practicallity, why should we?
The bridge provides Tulsa nothing.
It only raises property values for parcels way south of the river, in Jenks and Bixby. And, devalues affected properties on the Tulsa side.
There's no reason for Tulsa to spend a cent.
Bingo.
I don't see any reason for Tulsa to spend $60mm on infrastructure improvements for a project like this until the rest of long-overdue infrastructure improvements are completed between 81st & 101st and the river and Memorial.
Let IVI fund everything on this if they want it so bad.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I thought the bridge was two way.
IVI has contracted to have the Tulsa-bound lane be ruled by trolls.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I thought the bridge was two way.
IVI has contracted to have the Tulsa-bound lane be ruled by trolls.
Where do I sign up?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
QuoteOriginally posted by recyclemichael
Perhaps we could charge a higher toll for those cars leaving Tulsa and free tickets to the zoo for those entering.
In New Orleans, there's a highway that is toll free leaving downtown (heading north I think, I always get mixed up with directions in New Orleans), but it's a toll bridge coming into downtown.
A one way toll is possible.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
QuoteOriginally posted by recyclemichael
Perhaps we could charge a higher toll for those cars leaving Tulsa and free tickets to the zoo for those entering.
In New Orleans, there's a highway that is toll free leaving downtown (heading north I think, I always get mixed up with directions in New Orleans), but it's a toll bridge coming into downtown.
A one way toll is possible.
IVI would have to approve that and would keep the tolls. Maybe they would use added tolls to punish. [:)]
FWIW, no toll is possible as well. As is, no bridge, the best solution for now.
I'm just going to bring this up since it somewhat a moral obligation on my part. In addition, bridges, generically, often define a city, provide asthetic energy and becomes a lifeblood. As such, they often get a little higher priority than low level developer-grade construction, doing it on the cheap as best they can (ya know, to boost profits, ROI and cash flow). They're community anchors.
Even though our own State and local governments have done almost as poorly in this regard, perhaps, at the point it really is needed, a 'real' bridge should be considered. Like most other 'public benefit' projects, something that not only does the job, but provides a pleasing presence, like a good neighbor, making it something you wondered how you did without before.
I'm not looking for a Golden Gate, but good design isn't a twist of fate. Otherwise, IVI could just as well be building our arena now, that is, if function were the only criteria.
The 41st Street bridge has been on the books longer than this bridge. Hell, the South bridge wasn't even planned to be needed or built for about 15 years from now, that would at least give Tulsa some time to play catch up on the roughly $4 billion backlog of needed, unfunded, infrastructure improvements in the city.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
How the hell did this topic end up in Politics and not Development?
ip.... I thought you were an all knowing.... Proud Son of A Republican Party...!
Either you were not living here when Bob Dick first brought this proposition to the people......or........politics is something you consume Nationally..
or as you have stated.... " I live in midtown so I could give a rip."
Whatever the reason may be.... I'm glad to hear that midtown will not be affected by any shift in infrastructure that the "Bridge by IVI" will bring to Tulsa.
Here is a drawing Chris Medlock did at the time this was first brought up... I am not much of a Medlock fan.... but for a while he had some contacts that put him "in the know" of things.. (http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/SouthYalePolitico.jpg)
Yeah, I think local politics are of little importance in light of the bigger picture, so to speak.
Local politics is too...well...local for me. Too many GOBs for me to think anything can be done apart from their blessing.
Westcott is a personal friend and I pick his brain from time to time, but that's about as deep as I go with local stuff.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
QuoteOriginally posted by recyclemichael
Perhaps we could charge a higher toll for those cars leaving Tulsa and free tickets to the zoo for those entering.
In New Orleans, there's a highway that is toll free leaving downtown (heading north I think, I always get mixed up with directions in New Orleans), but it's a toll bridge coming into downtown.
A one way toll is possible.
IVI would have to approve that and would keep the tolls. Maybe they would use added tolls to punish. [:)]
I think the toll should be free with a receipt for something bought within the City of Tulsa. If you have a receipt it is stamped at a toll booth and you travel through for free otherwise you pay a high toll.
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
QuoteOriginally posted by recyclemichael
Perhaps we could charge a higher toll for those cars leaving Tulsa and free tickets to the zoo for those entering.
In New Orleans, there's a highway that is toll free leaving downtown (heading north I think, I always get mixed up with directions in New Orleans), but it's a toll bridge coming into downtown.
A one way toll is possible.
IVI would have to approve that and would keep the tolls. Maybe they would use added tolls to punish. [:)]
I think the toll should be free with a receipt for something bought within the City of Tulsa. If you have a receipt it is stamped at a toll booth and you travel through for free otherwise you pay a high toll.
By Gawd! Two new jobs just created!
I still maintain we should include construction of the Jenks low water dam by IVI as part of the deal.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
How the hell did this topic end up in Politics and not Development?
ip.... I thought you were an all knowing.... Proud Son of A Republican Party...!
Either you were not living here when Bob Dick first brought this proposition to the people......or........politics is something you consume Nationally..
or as you have stated.... " I live in midtown so I could give a rip."
Whatever the reason may be.... I'm glad to hear that midtown will not be affected by any shift in infrastructure that the "Bridge by IVI" will bring to Tulsa.
Here is a drawing Chris Medlock did at the time this was first brought up... I am not much of a Medlock fan.... but for a while he had some contacts that put him "in the know" of things..
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/SouthYalePolitico.jpg)
Sheesh, It's been awhile since I saw that. About the only thing Medlock left out of that was Bob Dick being tied to the Kansas City syndicate. [}:)][}:)]
Tulsa World 4/15
A financial analysis estimating that a proposed south Tulsa toll bridge would net $800 million over 75 years should no longer be relied upon, a corporate officer with an investment banking firm said last week.
Robert K. Dalton, vice chairman of the municipal division for George K. Baum & Co., said his firm was not paid for preparing the report.
"I don't know the origins of the report or the results, and I prefer that our firm's name not be used in conjunction with such old material," Dalton said.
Dalton said he believes the company's former vice president of transportation finance, Dan Dean, wrote the report in 2005.
Dalton said he retrieved a draft e-mail dated October 2005 from the firm that asks the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition, which opposes the bridge, to stop using the report.
He said he instructed Dean to send the e-mail but cannot confirm that it was ever sent.
Citizens Coalition spokesman Michael Covey said the group never received any such e-mail.
Dean, who was contacted at a Merrill Lynch office in Chicago on Tuesday, at first said he didn't remember for whom he wrote the report. He later said he thought his company was supposed to send something to the Citizens Coalition but doesn't know whether it ever did.
The financial analysis predicted that Tulsa-based Infrastructure Ventures Inc., which would build and operate the bridge, would net $658 million over the life of a 75-year agreement, while its governmental partner would receive a share of about $133 million. Infrastructure Ventures has said those numbers are inflated.
The coalition has relied on the report to further its argument that the toll bridge should be built by governmental entities so that the revenues would be invested back into public infrastructure and not go into the pockets of a private company.
Tulsa City Councilor Bill Christiansen also relied on the report in his proposal for Tulsa to partner with Jenks to build the bridge and omit Infrastructure Ventures from the equation.
Christiansen held a press conference with the Citizens Coalition to announce the proposal last month.
A reporter for The Bond Buyer, a daily newspaper that covers the municipal bond industry, picked up the story, saying the councilor was floating a plan that would derail a public-private partnership.
IVI partner Terry Young, a former Tulsa mayor, said IVI always considered the report to be inaccurate but never at tempted to make an issue of it in the media until the report reached a national publication at a time when they are at "near-final negotiations" for the financing of the bridge.
"That changes the complexion," he said. "We have terms generally satisfactory to the lender and us, and suddenly this story appears in The Bond Buyer. Before noon that day, we received a call from New York wanting to know what that was all about."
Jenks Mayor Vic Vreeland said he's never considered Christiansen's proposal legitimate.
"If you're wanting to partner with someone, wouldn't you talk to them before they read it in the newspaper?" Vreeland asked.
Christiansen said he hasn't approached Jenks because he didn't want it to appear as if he were trying to interfere with the district court case launched by the Citizens Coalition. A judge on Monday ruled in IVI's favor in the case.
The Citizens Coalition has not decided whether it will appeal.
Christiansen said he still wants to continue to attempt by whatever legal means is available to prevent IVI from building the bridge, so that Tulsa can participate in the net revenue. He said he can't speak for the rest of the city council.
Young said several factors have changed that could affect revenues. Traffic projections for bridge use are now down from 7,500 to 6,000 vehicles per day. Interest rates have also changed.
"There's no way in the world to project what, over 75 years, will be the net income or profit," Young said.
He said IVI has made a few projections, but the company does not consider them public information.
"Anything we reveal would be a violation of a confidentiality agreement," Young said.
Young said the project would be 100 percent privately financed with all the risk falling on the shoulders of IVI.
"It doesn't rely on any tax dollars," he said.
Covey said the numbers in the financial report were based on the information available at the time, and that the new traffic counts and interest rates wouldn't change the bottom line very much.
"The easy way to put an end to all this is (for IVI) to provide their numbers to the public, which they are not willing to do. If they want to dispute those figures, then put your finances out in the open," Covey said.
quote:
Robert K. Dalton, vice chairman of the municipal division for George K. Baum & Co., said his firm was not paid for preparing the report.
Of course, he doesn't wish his firm to suffer consequences of unpaid professional opinions.
Can't really blame him.
Maybe we should quit using consultants who use dart boards to predict our financial windfalls.
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/181265/2/istockphoto_181265_dart_board.jpg)
A small update on the project...
Courtesy of P.J.Lassek...
I say we build a fence around the Border of Tulsa City Limits.
"The Bridge Stops Here" (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070610_1_A17_hButa78026%22)
[}:)]
I have lost track of what round this will be for the Prize Fight for the "Bridge from there to Somewhere"
In this round we have a new contender vs. the weathered current champ IVI.....
So let the fun and games begin....
$$...DING.....!$$ (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070828_1_A1_hShew68115%22)
^
From Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070828_1_A1_hShew68115%22)
quote:
Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor is suggesting that Tulsa -- rather than a private company -- build a proposed toll bridge in south Tulsa County to reap some of its revenues.
In an Aug. 23 letter to Bixby's and Jenks' mayors, Taylor states that if Tulsa built the bridge, its revenues would be sufficient to pay for its construction as well as cover Tulsa's infrastructure needs, pay off the debt of Jenks' Oklahoma Aquarium and reimburse the private developer's costs to this point.
By using public financing, the city could construct the bridge at a lower cost than the private sector could, she said.
But Jenks Mayor Vic Vreeland sent Taylor a letter on Monday, questioning whether her proposal is an attempt to interfere with the Arkansas River Bridge Authority's existing contract with Infrastructure Ventures Inc. to build the bridge.
Infrastructure Ventures has a 75-year contract with the authority, which represents Jenks and Bixby, to build and operate a toll bridge that would connect Yale Place in Jenks with Yale Avenue and 121st Street in
Gilcrease Museum
Tulsa.
"I am surprised that you did not send this proposal to representatives of IVI," Vreeland wrote.
In a telephone interview Monday, Taylor said she has no relationship with Infrastructure Ventures and is only looking for a solution that would help give Jenks and Bixby the bridge they want and pay for needed infrastructure on Tulsa's side of the bridge.
Bixby Mayor Ray Bowen did not return telephone calls to the Tulsa World.
A financial analysis predicted that Infrastructure Ventures would net $658 million over the 75-year agreement to build and operate the bridge and that the bridge authority would receive a share of about $133 million.
Howard Kelsey, vice president of IVI, said Monday that he is comfortable with the contract with the authority.
"Whether anyone sees the need to contact us, I don't know," he said. "I have quit trying to analyze other people's reasons and motives for what they do and don't do."
In her letter, Taylor noted that Tulsa-owned property is needed to connect Tulsa to Jenks. She also said that "it would be irresponsible to move forward with building the bridge as currently proposed" without Tulsa's receiving funds to pay for $66 million worth of street improvements to handle the increased traffic north of the bridge.
Vreeland's letter states that the current roadway system will be adequate to handle the bridge traffic for several years without improvements.
Delaying the construction of the bridge for 10 years to wait for public financing would make the project "more expensive, not less expensive as you implied," Vreeland wrote.
"To move forward with building the bridge as you have proposed is irresponsible, not the other way around," he wrote.
Taylor said it would not take 10 years to obtain financing, but it would have to wait for an update on a financial analysis.
She will not say whether she supports putting the toll bridge at 121st Street and Yale Avenue -- a location that has been contentious among area residents -- or at an alternative alignment at Delaware Avenue.
Tulsa City Councilor Bill Christiansen, who called on Taylor in May to take a public stand on where the bridge should be built and who should build it, praised Taylor for officially saying what she "fundamentally expects out of the bridge deal."
Christiansen opposes the bridge at 121st Street but supports Tulsa's building a bridge that connects Jenks to Tulsa at Delaware Avenue.
"I do think she is protecting the interest of the taxpayers," he said.
Christiansen said he thinks the mayor's letter is clear that "IVI needs to be out of the deal."
"The pie just isn't big enough" he said. "Tulsa is really the big dog on the block and needs to reap the benefit of the toll bridge when there is net revenue."
Taylor said she thinks her proposal is a good solution.
"If it isn't the right solution, I'd be happy to have continued dialogue," she said.
The South Tulsa Citizens Coalition has fought the bridge proposal since it became public in 2005.
The coalition lost a Tulsa County District Court battle challenging the deal's legality and is appealing the outcome to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
Is jenks having mayoral elections anytime soon?
Just hoping.
Me too. Wish I could vote there.
I have always reffered to Jenks as Jinx and ever since Oral plopped down there in the late 1960's looked at it as a community on the edge of darkness. Were it not for that high school football team it would be only the antique retail center of the midwest. Now, it's Tulsa's thorn.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Me too. Wish I could vote there.
I have always reffered to Jenks as Jinx and ever since Oral plopped down there in the late 1960's looked at it as a community on the edge of darkness. Were it not for that high school football team it would be only the antique retail center of the midwest. Now, it's Tulsa's thorn.
Hey, bright guy, ORU is in Tulsa, not Jenks
Well, it may have our zip, but for years they told the world they were located in Jenks Oklahoma. I think we wanted to distance ourselves from that 700 foot idol thing anyway.
So, we let it go.
You are correct. ORU is in Tulsa not Jenks. You don't need to build a bridge to get from here to there either.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Well, it may have our zip, but for years they told the world they were located in Jenks Oklahoma. I think we wanted to distance ourselves from that 700 foot idol thing anyway.
So, we let it go.
You are correct. ORU is in Tulsa not Jenks. You don't need to build a bridge to get from here to there either.
When did "they" say that? You are full of it yet again.
I have heard as long as I can recall that Oral and his "Six Flags over God" was at:
7777 S Lewis Ave, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Find anything that says Jenks. Anything.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Well, it may have our zip, but for years they told the world they were located in Jenks Oklahoma. I think we wanted to distance ourselves from that 700 foot idol thing anyway.
So, we let it go.
You are correct. ORU is in Tulsa not Jenks. You don't need to build a bridge to get from here to there either.
When did "they" say that? You are full of it yet again.
I have heard as long as I can recall that Oral and his "Six Flags over God" was at:
7777 S Lewis Ave, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Find anything that says Jenks. Anything.
Well, he's right about that Swake. It may have been before your time but there was a concerted effort by ORU to identify with Jenks. I think it was back in the late 70's. They even caused a lot of controversy by suggesting that Jenks change its name at one time because they felt most people were moving there because of the University. Led to the phrase, Jenks, America.
Otherwise he may still be full of it.[;)]
The University did suggest the name be changed to "Riverside" and Jenks leadership suggested in response that the University change it's name to Jenks University.
"Jenks America" predates all of this and goes way way back.
quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025
The University did suggest the name be changed to "Riverside" and Jenks leadership suggested in response that the University change it's name to Jenks University.
"Jenks America" predates all of this and goes way way back.
That was one of the greatest political transactions of all time.
It was more than a 'suggestion' by Oral himself, hoping to exercise his power over the region at the time.
The Jenks resolution fired one back across the river in spectacular fashion.
Didn't this whole south Yale bridge deal begin because no local government could come up with funding for a bridge?
Now, Mayor Taylor wants the City to do it?
If anyone should, it would seem to be a County Bond issue, but the City could do the same.
In either case, when needed, it should be FREE.
I figure that'd be 15-20 years from now at best.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Didn't this whole south Yale bridge deal begin because no local government could come up with funding for a bridge?
Now, Mayor Taylor wants the City to do it?
If anyone should, it would seem to be a County Bond issue, but the City could do the same.
In either case, when needed, it should be FREE.
I figure that'd be 15-20 years from now at best.
No local gov't has the funding to build a free bridge and neither IVI, Bixby or Jenks is willing to let Tulsa get any money for it, not even for a stop sign.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Didn't this whole south Yale bridge deal begin because no local government could come up with funding for a bridge?
Now, Mayor Taylor wants the City to do it?
If anyone should, it would seem to be a County Bond issue, but the City could do the same.
In either case, when needed, it should be FREE.
I figure that'd be 15-20 years from now at best.
No local gov't has the funding to build a free bridge and neither IVI, Bixby or Jenks is willing to let Tulsa get any money for it, not even for a stop sign.
We have to remember that neither IVI, Bixby or Jenks is in control. And, a bond issue would provide funding, when and if voted upon by those really involved.
I was also wondering how the Aquarium and its' developer entered into the mix:
quote:
"pay off the debt of Jenks' Oklahoma Aquarium and reimburse the private developer's costs to this point."
We gave them $12 Million to pay off the original debt in Vision2025.
It's not like they don't charge admission.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
I was also wondering how the Aquarium and its' developer entered into the mix:
quote:
"pay off the debt of Jenks' Oklahoma Aquarium and reimburse the private developer's costs to this point."
We gave them $12 Million to pay off the original debt in Vision2025.
It's not like they don't charge admission.
Very good question.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
I was also wondering how the Aquarium and its' developer entered into the mix:
quote:
"pay off the debt of Jenks' Oklahoma Aquarium and reimburse the private developer's costs to this point."
We gave them $12 Million to pay off the original debt in Vision2025.
It's not like they don't charge admission.
Very good question.
Actually, I think the 'private developer's costs' part of this refers to IVI, which is even a worse idea.
Why would the CITY of Tulsa be paying money for a JENKS asset to begin with?
I would rather see a bridge cross the river at 41st......How bout 25 cents each way....I think it would sure help Tulsa alot more than the other toll bridge......
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
I would rather see a bridge cross the river at 41st......How bout 25 cents each way....I think it would sure help Tulsa alot more than the other toll bridge......
I agree the 41st bridge should be a priority.
But, I think it also should be free. A City Bond Issue for that would be appropriate, where a City Bond Issue for a Jenks/Bixby bridge would not.