To an astonished group of curious Tulsans attending the River Vision question and answer session Sunday, a red-faced foam-flecked mouthed Michael Bates needed to be calmed down following a bizarre outburst.
Unsatisfied with the panel's answer to a question, Bates escalated rapidly, standing just yards from the presenters and screaming. Hands still shaking from a caffeine rush of Cherry Coke, the blogger rushed the table demanding answers. Eventually, Lady Kathy needed to sit next to Mikey to calm him down.
Whether or not sometime Tulsanow lurker DSchutler will post his video of the embarassing freakout is yet to be seen.
The audience was tipped slightly in favor of the Visioneers. Dan Hicks was back with hand-crayoled signs, accompanied by some pot-bellied chicken-legged dude who paced around the whole time.
Any media there? If so, maybe they have video. I would enjoy seeing that tough guy act out.
Tim, I did raise my voice, and I wish I hadn't, although I don't believe it's fair to characterize me as screaming. Speaking in a loud voice, yes, but not screaming.
It infuriated me to hear politicians claiming they didn't make a promise when they clearly did, promising Tulsa County voters four years ago that if Vision 2025 passed they would build two low water dams and fix Zink Lake. But that's no excuse, and I am embarrassed for getting carried away.
Of course, I've seen it happen to you, too, Tim, both in person and on this forum (it got bad enough that you were banned for a time) -- sometimes your passion gets the best of you.
Vision 2025 ballot resolution no. 4 (//%22http://www.vision2025.info/includes/pages/downloads/uploads/04/file.pdf%22), approved by the County Commission on July 7, 2003, clearly lists the following projects:
quote:
Construct two low water dams on Arkansas River the locations of which will be determined in the Arkansas River Corridor Plan -- $5.6 million
Zink Lake Shoreline Beautification -- $1.8 million
Design and construct Zink Lake Upstream Catch Basin and silt removal -- $2.1 million
The list of projects is followed by this language:
quote:
While the cost estimates shown above are believed to be accurate, it must be recognized that the exact cost of each project may vary from the estimate shown. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, that all projects shall be completed as funds are made available. If the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, determines that all of the projects listed above will be completed with existing and projected funds and that excess funds will be available for additional projects, such excess funds shall be expended for caputal improvements for community enrichment (which does not include appropriation of any such funds to any other entity for such purpose), as determined by a public trust having Tulsa County, Oklahoma, [and all Tulsa County municipalities], as its beneficiaries.
Mayor Taylor came over to me to see the text of the ballot resolution to which I was referring. She had never seen that ballot resolution or the language in it that I've quoted above, acknowledging that the costs may be inaccurate and that commits the county to use Vision 2025 funds to complete the listed projects.
What particularly set me off was Randi Miller's claim that they couldn't possibly have promised to build low water dams as a part of Vision 2025, because the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan wasn't complete at the time.
The point I tried to make, but wasn't allowed to make, is that the ballot resolution clearly anticipates that the plan was still to come. Read it again: "Construct two low water dams on Arkansas River the locations of
which will be determined in the Arkansas River Corridor Plan." In other words, once we figure out where the dams should go, we will use Vision 2025 tax dollars to build two dams and fix Zink Lake.
It was interesting that Mayor Taylor (during the meeting) and (in a conversation before the meeting) Chamber CEO Mike O'Neal both said they'd been told, incorrectly, that the Vision 2025 money for the dams had mostly been spent on engineering and studies. I mentioned (in a calm voice this time) that Vision 2025 program manager Kirby Crowe had said that only $275,000 has been spent on environmental filings necessary for dam construction, and the remainder of the money for the dams and all the money for fixing Zink Lake was "unspent and protected." Kirby Crowe was in the room and indicated his agreement with my account of what he said.
I want to see water in the river happen, and we can do that without raising taxes if the County Commissioners will be honest and keep their promises from four years ago.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
Tim, I did raise my voice, and I wish I hadn't, although I don't believe it's fair to characterize me as screaming. Speaking in a loud voice, yes, but not screaming.
It infuriated me to hear politicians claiming they didn't make a promise when they clearly did, promising Tulsa County voters four years ago that if Vision 2025 passed they would build two low water dams and fix Zink Lake. But that's no excuse, and I am embarrassed for getting carried away.
Of course, I've seen it happen to you, too, Tim, both in person and on this forum (it got bad enough that you were banned for a time) -- sometimes your passion gets the best of you.
Vision 2025 ballot resolution no. 4 (//%22http://www.vision2025.info/includes/pages/downloads/uploads/04/file.pdf%22), approved by the County Commission on July 7, 2003, clearly lists the following projects:
quote:
Construct two low water dams on Arkansas River the locations of which will be determined in the Arkansas River Corridor Plan -- $5.6 million
Zink Lake Shoreline Beautification -- $1.8 million
Design and construct Zink Lake Upstream Catch Basin and silt removal -- $2.1 million
The list of projects is followed by this language:
quote:
While the cost estimates shown above are believed to be accurate, it must be recognized that the exact cost of each project may vary from the estimate shown. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, that all projects shall be completed as funds are made available. If the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, determines that all of the projects listed above will be completed with existing and projected funds and that excess funds will be available for additional projects, such excess funds shall be expended for caputal improvements for community enrichment (which does not include appropriation of any such funds to any other entity for such purpose), as determined by a public trust having Tulsa County, Oklahoma, [and all Tulsa County municipalities], as its beneficiaries.
Mayor Taylor came over to me to see the text of the ballot resolution to which I was referring. She had never seen that ballot resolution or the language in it that I've quoted above, acknowledging that the costs may be inaccurate and that commits the county to use Vision 2025 funds to complete the listed projects.
What particularly set me off was Randi Miller's claim that they couldn't possibly have promised to build low water dams as a part of Vision 2025, because the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan wasn't complete at the time.
The point I tried to make, but wasn't allowed to make, is that the ballot resolution clearly anticipates that the plan was still to come. Read it again: "Construct two low water dams on Arkansas River the locations of which will be determined in the Arkansas River Corridor Plan." In other words, once we figure out where the dams should go, we will use Vision 2025 tax dollars to build two dams and fix Zink Lake.
It was interesting that Mayor Taylor (during the meeting) and (in a conversation before the meeting) Chamber CEO Mike O'Neal both said they'd been told, incorrectly, that the Vision 2025 money for the dams had mostly been spent on engineering and studies. I mentioned (in a calm voice this time) that Vision 2025 program manager Kirby Crowe had said that only $275,000 has been spent on environmental filings necessary for dam construction, and the remainder of the money for the dams and all the money for fixing Zink Lake was "unspent and protected." Kirby Crowe was in the room and indicated his agreement with my account of what he said.
I want to see water in the river happen, and we can do that without raising taxes if the County Commissioners will be honest and keep their promises from four years ago.
Mr Bates, you are not telling the full truth and you know it.
Here is an acticle from before the vote on 2025.
Tulsa World, 7/23/03:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=030723_Ne_a1_reven
Quote:
Ballot proposition No. 4 includes $5.6 million that would be used as matching funds to build two low-water dams on the Arkansas River. The $5.6 million figure was based upon the best estimates the U.S. Corps of Engineers could give the Vision organizers, Dick said.
Here is a quote about the $5.4 million being for MATCHING funds. Your well loved Republican senator, James Inhofe has long said he would secure the matching funds and has never done so. The feds are not coming through, Inhofe has failed, largely due to Katrina, but he has failed to do what he said he would do.
And Mr Bates, I know you read this particular article, because YOU are quoted in it:
Quote:
Bates said he would rather have seen the tax package structured so that it would expire once the $885 million is raised, rather than for a finite period of time.
You are being disingenuous when you claim we were promised low water dams for $5.4 million. We were correctly told we were getting matching funds and it's your party, you being a official of the Republican party, that has failed to live up to what was promised.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
Of course, I've seen it happen to you, too, Tim, both in person and on this forum (it got bad enough that you were banned for a time) -- sometimes your passion gets the best of you.
Nope, not me. You have me entirely confused with someone else. I got there late and videod the end of your tirade. It was bad enough the Mayor had to implore you to stop yelling. I sure hope DSchutler posts the video.
Y'know, they do make decaf soda pop . . .
You may be right Swake that Bates and others knew that this was matching funds. That would be a total of 11.2 million for both dams and Zink improvements. That is not enough being quoted now for one dam.
Nonetheless, less than 50% of Tulsa addresses receive the Tulsa World. But 100% of the people who voted read what that ballot said. And it said the dams would be built with money from that initiative and for 5.6 million. Why was such a controversial, carefully drafted ballot so obviously be misleading?
I was at the meeting...
There were 80 plus people in the room and the crowd was about one third opponents, one third proponents and one third city/county/incog/chamber/media.
The people against did most of the speaking after a long presentation from Rich Brierre on the INCOG plan and new suggested improvements.
Michael Bates did get pretty passionate about making his point, but I would not describe it as "freaking out". There were some loud words between him and Commissioner Miller about the language in vision 2025, but the meeting moved on pretty quickly. When the Mayor stood up and asked the audience to be civil, Michael sat down and the meeting went on.
It was a bizarre day at the fairgrounds. The usual "NO" people were all there, Bates, Chris Medlock, Dan Hicks, etc. as well as many of their group of like-minded citizens. The bloggers all were there taking pictures and video as well as three television stations and a Tulsa World reporter and photographer.
Representatives from private sector investment were there and some vocal citizens who were clearly in favor of the river plan.
I learned a lot and there were some good questions asked. There was also some stupid arguments like Dan Hicks saying that he was repainting his little mock-up to reflect the fact that the river was brown, not blue like in the drawings. He just talked babble and kept holding his little model, like it was some sort of school project diorama.
One other couple kept bringing up the fact that a special election was going to cost money and tried to embarass Randi Miller because the Tulsa County Republican platform committee had voted last spring to oppose a river tax. The guy also twice tried to explain to the audience the difference between a democracy and a republic.
The meeting didn't discuss the river improvements much, instead focusing on vision 2025 language, street bond issues of the future, and why do temporary taxes seem permanent.
I am curious as to the tone of the next meetings being held by other commissioners. It is going to be an interesting week.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
You may be right Swake that Bates and others knew that this was matching funds. That would be a total of 11.2 million for both dams and Zink improvements. That is not enough being quoted now for one dam.
Nonetheless, less than 50% of Tulsa addresses receive the Tulsa World. But 100% of the people who voted read what that ballot said. And it said the dams would be built with money from that initiative and for 5.6 million. Why was such a controversial, carefully drafted ballot so obviously be misleading?
I recall KOTV and KTUL also reporting that these were matching funds and the issue was widely discussed on this forum and was on the 2025 web site. It was well publicized.
Candidates for office do not list all their positions on issues on the ballot. It's incumbent on the voter to become informed before entering the polling station. If you vote without being informed, that's your own fault.
The only double dealing here is by the no taxes crowd in trying to claim that we have already paid for dams. We have voted on a partial funding of the dams and our Republican congressional delegation has failed to get us the matching funds, failed us yet again.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
You may be right Swake that Bates and others knew that this was matching funds. That would be a total of 11.2 million for both dams and Zink improvements. That is not enough being quoted now for one dam.
Nonetheless, less than 50% of Tulsa addresses receive the Tulsa World. But 100% of the people who voted read what that ballot said. And it said the dams would be built with money from that initiative and for 5.6 million. Why was such a controversial, carefully drafted ballot so obviously be misleading?
I recall KOTV and KTUL also reporting that these were matching funds and the issue was widely discussed on this forum and was on the 2025 web site. It was well publicized.
Candidates for office do not list all their positions on issues on the ballot. It's incumbent on the voter to become informed before entering the polling station. If you vote without being informed, that's your own fault.
The only double dealing here is by the no taxes crowd in trying to claim that we have already paid for dams. We have voted on a partial funding of the dams and our Republican congressional delegation has failed to get us the matching funds, failed us yet again.
You can't throw this off that easy. No one expects candidates to list their issues. I have seen long paragraphs on ballots written to explain much smaller impact resolutions. There have been lawsuits and ballots overturned for less than what this one did.
The same goes with TV reporting. It is sketchy, often poorly written and as we all know can be biased. The ballot is the last place that defines just what the initiative is and the voter relies on it, not the media. Even so, 11.2 million won't get the job done, so what was their intent?
Do you really want to get in a battle with who can be more disingenuous, anti-tax republicans or suburban river supporters? This puts you on their level.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
You may be right Swake that Bates and others knew that this was matching funds. That would be a total of 11.2 million for both dams and Zink improvements. That is not enough being quoted now for one dam.
Nonetheless, less than 50% of Tulsa addresses receive the Tulsa World. But 100% of the people who voted read what that ballot said. And it said the dams would be built with money from that initiative and for 5.6 million. Why was such a controversial, carefully drafted ballot so obviously be misleading?
I recall KOTV and KTUL also reporting that these were matching funds and the issue was widely discussed on this forum and was on the 2025 web site. It was well publicized.
Candidates for office do not list all their positions on issues on the ballot. It's incumbent on the voter to become informed before entering the polling station. If you vote without being informed, that's your own fault.
The only double dealing here is by the no taxes crowd in trying to claim that we have already paid for dams. We have voted on a partial funding of the dams and our Republican congressional delegation has failed to get us the matching funds, failed us yet again.
You can't throw this off that easy. No one expects candidates to list their issues. I have seen long paragraphs on ballots written to explain much smaller impact resolutions. There have been lawsuits and ballots overturned for less than what this one did.
The same goes with TV reporting. It is sketchy, often poorly written and as we all know can be biased. The ballot is the last place that defines just what the initiative is and the voter relies on it, not the media. Even so, 11.2 million won't get the job done, so what was their intent?
Do you really want to get in a battle with who can be more disingenuous, anti-tax republicans or suburban river supporters? This puts you on their level.
Waterboy, you knew it was matching funds, I recall discussing this at length before you YOU on this forum. Hell, the channel idea was YOURS years ago. I know you want a navigable river, and it sounds nice, but how much would it add in cost?
Honestly, I was in a haze during that period, don't know what I knew and when I knew it! And by the time I arrived here... well lets just say I was not myself. Thanks for remembering one of my brain explosions.
Doesn't matter so much what I thought though, the ballot was what they voted on, and it was misleading. This is an effort by anti-tax people to further diminish the credibility of the plan promoters, I know that. But, I already question their credibility.
I disagree with the plan for other reasons so I'm not carrying either banner into the battle. Had anyone responded to my hard earned, first hand concerns instead of continuuing to tout this plan as "having public input" so it must be unassailable, I would be on the front lines. As it is, they made the plan, they need to defend it.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Honestly, I was in a haze during that period, don't know what I knew and when I knew it! And by the time I arrived here... well lets just say I was not myself. Thanks for remembering one of my brain explosions.
Doesn't matter so much what I thought though, the ballot was what they voted on, and it was misleading. This is an effort by anti-tax people to further diminish the credibility of the plan promoters, I know that. But, I already question their credibility.
I disagree with the plan for other reasons so I'm not carrying either banner into the battle. Had anyone responded to my hard earned, first hand concerns instead of continuuing to tout this plan as "having public input" so it must be unassailable, I would be on the front lines. As it is, they made the plan, they need to defend it
The channel idea was yours, and I thought you were nuts, my thought was that the cost of something like that would have to be off the charts, it looks like I was wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Honestly, I was in a haze during that period, don't know what I knew and when I knew it! And by the time I arrived here... well lets just say I was not myself. Thanks for remembering one of my brain explosions.
Doesn't matter so much what I thought though, the ballot was what they voted on, and it was misleading. This is an effort by anti-tax people to further diminish the credibility of the plan promoters, I know that. But, I already question their credibility.
I disagree with the plan for other reasons so I'm not carrying either banner into the battle. Had anyone responded to my hard earned, first hand concerns instead of continuuing to tout this plan as "having public input" so it must be unassailable, I would be on the front lines. As it is, they made the plan, they need to defend it
The channel idea was yours, and I thought you were nuts, my thought was that the cost of something like that would have to be off the charts, it looks like I was wrong.
We should distinguish that we aren't talking "Channels" which was the islands in the river plan but a concept I weakly promoted to channelize the river using wing dams (jetties) to do the natural dredging and then hardening the banks. It is eerily similar to the "living river" concept. I hope it is incorporated.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Honestly, I was in a haze during that period, don't know what I knew and when I knew it! And by the time I arrived here... well lets just say I was not myself. Thanks for remembering one of my brain explosions.
Doesn't matter so much what I thought though, the ballot was what they voted on, and it was misleading. This is an effort by anti-tax people to further diminish the credibility of the plan promoters, I know that. But, I already question their credibility.
I disagree with the plan for other reasons so I'm not carrying either banner into the battle. Had anyone responded to my hard earned, first hand concerns instead of continuuing to tout this plan as "having public input" so it must be unassailable, I would be on the front lines. As it is, they made the plan, they need to defend it
The channel idea was yours, and I thought you were nuts, my thought was that the cost of something like that would have to be off the charts, it looks like I was wrong.
We should distinguish that we aren't talking "Channels" which was the islands in the river plan but a concept I weakly promoted to channelize the river using wing dams (jetties) to do the natural dredging and then hardening the banks. It is eerily similar to the "living river" concept. I hope it is incorporated.
Yes, sorry, channelization of the riverbed, that was your idea, I recall you even had done drawings of the concept.
The Channels was very different and was never a good idea, well intentioned maybe, but not a good idea.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Honestly, I was in a haze during that period, don't know what I knew and when I knew it! And by the time I arrived here... well lets just say I was not myself. Thanks for remembering one of my brain explosions.
Doesn't matter so much what I thought though, the ballot was what they voted on, and it was misleading. This is an effort by anti-tax people to further diminish the credibility of the plan promoters, I know that. But, I already question their credibility.
I disagree with the plan for other reasons so I'm not carrying either banner into the battle. Had anyone responded to my hard earned, first hand concerns instead of continuuing to tout this plan as "having public input" so it must be unassailable, I would be on the front lines. As it is, they made the plan, they need to defend it
The channel idea was yours, and I thought you were nuts, my thought was that the cost of something like that would have to be off the charts, it looks like I was wrong.
We should distinguish that we aren't talking "Channels" which was the islands in the river plan but a concept I weakly promoted to channelize the river using wing dams (jetties) to do the natural dredging and then hardening the banks. It is eerily similar to the "living river" concept. I hope it is incorporated.
Yes, sorry, channelization of the riverbed, that was your idea, I recall you even had done drawings of the concept.
The Channels was very different and was never a good idea, well intentioned maybe, but not a good idea.
So convince me that these are people we can trust to shovel $300,000,000 into their control and they won't spend chunks of it somewhere else. Or that they would execute any plan close to its presented form without some public input.
I want to be persuaded.
People, if i am lying i am dying. Call it a tantrum or call a waaaambulance, if any reporter had done anything remotely similar to that they would have been fired. If anyone had done anything remotely - say 15% as 'passionate' - in front of Cheney or Inhofe, well that person would be paying a bondsman right about now.
But see that would be picking on men, and for the second time in a week the objects of the attack were womenfolk (and one really little guy up front). And to characterize the level of discource demonstrated as 'passionate,' and to suggest Miller presented herself in any manner as our Hero did, is really . . . interesting.
Anyway, I entered the cafeteria from the north entrance, and there was a trailer there with its 'black water' in a pipe. Do you know what was pouring from that pipe - and if I am lying I am dying - HUMAN FECES! Yards away from the kitchen. On the way in I quietly told one of the nice facilities people about it, but decided I would be a gentleman and not ask if our Commissioner and Mayor knew about it during the Q&A . . .
Anyhoo, KOTV has the last lil' bit of the spasm on their report . . . (//%22http://kotv.com/e-clips/?id=7518%22)
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
People, if i am lying i am dying. Call it a tantrum or call a waaaambulance, if any reporter had done anything remotely similar to that they would have been fired. If anyone had done anything remotely - say 15% as 'passionate' - in front of Cheney or Inhofe, well that person would be paying a bondsman right about now.
But see that would be picking on men, and for the second time in a week the objects of the attack were womenfolk (and one really little guy up front). And to characterize the level of discource demonstrated as 'passionate,' and to suggest Miller presented herself in any manner as our Hero did, is really . . . interesting.
Anyway, I entered the cafeteria from the north entrance, and there was a trailer there with its 'black water' in a pipe. Do you know what was pouring from that pipe - and if I am lying I am dying - HUMAN FECES! Yards away from the kitchen. On the way in I quietly told one of the nice facilities people about it, but decided I would be a gentleman and not ask if our Commissioner and Mayor knew about it during the Q&A . . .
Anyhoo, KOTV has the last lil' bit of the spasm on their report . . . (//%22http://kotv.com/e-clips/?id=7518%22)
Wow, just plain wow.
People, if i am lying i am dying. Call it a tantrum or call a waaaambulance, if any reporter had done anything remotely similar to that they would have been fired. If anyone had done anything remotely - say 15% as 'passionate' - in front of Cheney or Inhofe, well that person would be paying a bondsman right about now.
But see that would be picking on men, and for the second time in a week the objects of the attack were womenfolk (and one really little guy up front). And to characterize the level of discource demonstrated as 'passionate,' and to suggest Miller presented herself in any manner as our Hero did, is really . . . interesting.
Tell you what, if I were an ally I certainly would have stood and said something to distract Bates, give him a breather. This is why certain religious orders only travel in pairs - harder to argue with and the circular argument is maddening.
Anyway, I entered the cafeteria from the north entrance, and there was a trailer there with its 'black water' in a pipe. Do you know what was pouring from that pipe - and if I am lying I am dying - HUMAN FECES! Yards away from the kitchen. On the way in I quietly told one of the nice facilities people about it, but decided I would be a gentleman and not ask if our Commissioner and Mayor knew about it during the Q&A . . .
Anyhoo, KOTV has the last lil' bit of the spasm on their report . . . (//%22http://kotv.com/e-clips/?id=7518%22)
From the video clip, I'd say it is a bit more than "raising one's voice."
Anyone going to one of the Perry meetings? I'll bring a video camera.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
From the video clip, I'd say it is a bit more than "raising one's voice."
Anyone going to one of the Perry meetings? I'll bring a video camera.
He looked a little intimidating. No, threatening. Who was it that yelled at him to sit down?
It was just another citizen in the room who said "sit down".
I really wouldn't describe the entire conversation between Michael Bates as freaked or intimidating. He was loud and insistent on making his point, but was not threatening.
Maybe my interpretation is understated, but I have been to many a public hearing that went bad. I have attended meetings in north Tulsa with police and school officials and in east Tulsa discussing flood control that would make this meeting look like a group hug.
This was just one guy arguing loudly for a couple of minutes in a two hour meeting.
Sure, RM. You ought to at least give Lady Kathy some credit for standing up to the bully, instead of insinuating that Miller freaked out as bad as our Hero. I at least gave the boy credit for only escalating to that point, your description would entail he shouted like that for two minutes.
Like I said, if I were any kind of friend to Bates at all, any kind of advocate, ally, or associate I would have stepped in about thirty seconds before that teeny tiny clip. As it was, they let him humiliate himself.
Despite his assertions, I have never behaved that way in a public meeting.
The Mayor did quite well. She stood up and asked everybody to be respectful then asked Michael Bates to show her some documents that he had been referring to.
I know that Tim Hutzinger and Michael Bates have some negative history with each other.
It must be some sort of blogger battle.
http://www.batesline.com/
http://www.thetulsan.com/
She said about yelling, Michael. Randi Miller did not yell. You insinuated that Miller was as equally 'passionate' as when in fact it was Lady Kathy who had to stand up and get on up in his grill. If that other dude did not tell him to cool it I was ready to redirect (as I did when that clown was babbling on about the GOP platform).
I remember when PJ Lassek was giving a peanut's gallery hoo-rah in some City meeting or another, basically cheering Susan Neal on as she had to smack back Medlock. Ooooooohhhh that was BIG in them circles, proof positive that the EVILLLLL LIBRUL was out to get 'em.
The Mayor and Commissioner made get an apology only because the Caffeinated One made himself look bad. Where do Primeaux, Miller, or LaFortune go to get their apologies for his vicious attacks on them?
She said about yelling, Michael. Randi Miller did not yell. You insinuated that Miller was as equally 'passionate' as when in fact it was Lady Kathy who had to stand up and get on up in his grill. If that other dude did not tell him to cool it I was ready to redirect (as I did when that clown was babbling on about the GOP platform).
I remember when PJ Lassek was giving a peanut's gallery hoo-rah in some City meeting or another, basically cheering Susan Neal on as she had to smack back Medlock. Ooooooohhhh that was BIG in them circles, proof positive that the EVILLLLL LIBRUL was out to get 'em.
The Mayor and Commissioner made get an apology only because the Caffeinated One made himself look bad. Where do Primeaux, Miller, or LaFortune go to get their apologies for his vicious attacks on them? Oh. I must have been imagining that, too.
The website is much more than a blog, RM, and I know you only call it that to hurt me. It is okay. I can take it. [:(]
Having seen the video, yeah, I'd say that would fit the description of "intemperate."
Whoever loses their cool first loses the argument.
Let's get to the root of the matter. Is there anybody here that believes two low water dams and repairs to the Zink Dam could actually be done for 5.4 Million dollars? If so, may I please get some of what you are smoking? Any attempt to say otherwise is an attempt to scuttle the issue.
OBVIOUSLY, that was intended as matching seed money. Nobody in their right mind, including Michael Bates, could believe otherwise, unless they are purposefully ignoring logic. In fact, the money that that Vision $$ was supposed to match was removed from the 2007 WRDA bill after Inhofe lost his chairmanship of the Committee on the Environment and Public Works. Although I suspect that had less to do with it than with Dr. Coburn's one man crusade on earmarks.
Thank you, good Doctor. You can now go back to shooting illegal immigrants in the back.
I will weigh in on the original subject which was Mr. Bates' freakout:
I saw it on Channel Six...Good god, did he look foolish.
Of course, no one should be too surprised that Michael Bates needed to be the center of attention, and would somehow make a circus out of it. A similar technique his buddy Medlock employed while on the City Council. Interesting strategery. As RM said, Channel 6 also interviewed Dan Hicks, Mr. Zoo Creation exhibit himself. Yowza.
If those two are the face of the "No" vote, count me in as a "Yes". Nevermind that it is the right thing to do.
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
Let's get to the root of the matter. Is there anybody here that believes two low water dams and repairs to the Zink Dam could actually be done for 5.4 Million dollars? If so, may I please get some of what you are smoking? Any attempt to say otherwise is an attempt to scuttle the issue.
OBVIOUSLY, that was intended as matching seed money. Nobody in their right mind, including Michael Bates, could believe otherwise, unless they are purposefully ignoring logic. In fact, the money that that Vision $$ was supposed to match was removed from the 2007 WRDA bill after Inhofe lost his chairmanship of the Committee on the Environment and Public Works. Although I suspect that had less to do with it than with Dr. Coburn's one man crusade on earmarks.
Thank you, good Doctor. You can now go back to shooting illegal immigrants in the back.
I don't think anyone does, including Bates. That is also not to the root, nor the point Mr. Bates was trying to make.
That being:
1.) The County promised construction of two low water dams and whatever revisions were required to the Zink Lake dam, even if Federal Matching Funds failed to materialize. They pledged all projects of Vision2025 would be funded to whatever level was necessary with anticipated excess collections of Sales Tax proceeds before any new projects were considered.
and,
2.) Sales Tax revenue expectations are well above original estimates such that this funding can be quite easily attained.
I'm sure Mr. Bates would have prefered another way of stressing this point, but he is correct.
Personally, I'm against this plan for two other reasons:
1.) It's a County initiative, whereby all Authority (in fact, a NEW Authority) is passed from the City to the County. Tulsans should decide what to do on Tulsa's part of the river.
2.) It's a County SALES TAX. I'm opposed to any Sales Tax for the County again, ever. Cities need Sales Tax and any provided the County only reduces the margin available to the City for things like cops, streets, pools, etc.
On top of all that, we've now learned this will pass jurisdictional control of the South Yale Bridge project to the County, which I also oppose.
I would like to take this oppurtunity to state the Republicans are bad. Let's act like this is some sort of trend, and say that "People everywhere" are talking about Michael Bates and his "incident" at the River Tax meeting. Passion is a bad thing, at least when you are a Republican. Also, the economy is in the toilet thanks to George Bush. Tax revenue is at a record high thanks to the tax cuts, but screw that, let's repeal the tax cuts for those lousy rich people who are only gettings a "larger tax cut" due to the relativity of them making so much more. We have to make sure everyone knows they are getting a "bigger tax cut" even though the percentage is the same across the board. They only get a "bigger" cut because they MAKE more. And of course, it is not fair for anyone to make more than anyone else, right? Because we live in the USSR right? It is only fair for everyone to make the same amount of money right? Even if one person has no motivation, and the other person is overwhelmingly competent in his field and a genius to boot? Clearly. The discrepancy in income couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with PERFORMANCE could it? Yes, screw those lowsy Republicans who question the expansion of government revenue. To HELL with those crazy souls who think current projected revenues could more than easily take care of the tasks that proposed tax increases claim to be a requirement for. Projected revenues that didn't even take into account inflation. So while our revenues are matching or even exceeding the costs associated with the promised projected of the plan, due to inflation... We must of course recognize that any river development must have access to artists, and full recognizance to the fact that women need to have free abortions, and anyone who so dare sees fit will be able to have a sex change operation paid in full by the river tax commission, because it is your god given choice to cut your peter off and act like someone you are not because you grew up watching Will and Grace.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
The website is much more than a blog, RM, and I know you only call it that to hurt me. It is okay. I can take it. [:(]
I am a big fan of your website. I check it almost everyday and I love your panoramic pictures.
I didn't mean to offend you by calling it a blog. I didn't realize that was an insult.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
I would like to take this oppurtunity to state the Republicans are bad. Let's act like this is some sort of trend, and say that "People everywhere" are talking about Michael Bates and his "incident" at the River Tax meeting. Passion is a bad thing, at least when you are a Republican. Also, the economy is in the toilet thanks to George Bush. Tax revenue is at a record high thanks to the tax cuts, but screw that, let's repeal the tax cuts for those lousy rich people who are only gettings a "larger tax cut" due to the relativity of them making so much more. We have to make sure everyone knows they are getting a "bigger tax cut" even though the percentage is the same across the board. They only get a "bigger" cut because they MAKE more. And of course, it is not fair for anyone to make more than anyone else, right? Because we live in the USSR right? It is only fair for everyone to make the same amount of money right? Even if one person has no motivation, and the other person is overwhelmingly competent in his field and a genius to boot? Clearly. The discrepancy in income couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with PERFORMANCE could it? Yes, screw those lowsy Republicans who question the expansion of government revenue. To HELL with those crazy souls who think current projected revenues could more than easily take care of the tasks that proposed tax increases claim to be a requirement for. Projected revenues that didn't even take into account inflation. So while our revenues are matching or even exceeding the costs associated with the promised projected of the plan, due to inflation... We must of course recognize that any river development must have access to artists, and full recognizance to the fact that women need to have free abortions, and anyone who so dare sees fit will be able to have a sex change operation paid in full by the river tax commission, because it is your god given choice to cut your peter off and act like someone you are not because you grew up watching Will and Grace.
Wha??? Okay, I agree that people seem to be ambivalent about passion and thinkers. They are more often lambasted than appreciated. If you think too much, see all sides of an argument and attempt to sort out the issues, well...you're indecisive, weak and a flip-flopper.
If you immerse yourself into a cause, learning as much as you can about it and attempt to stand up for what you believe is right, just and correct, well...you're a yelling, screaming, fanatic that is out of touch.
Its all part of an emphasis on conformity within popularly defined boundaries. To me watching Parliament joust with the PM is fun and worthwhile, but here its bizarre behavior.
I'm guilty of it too. I may soon change my mind on support of this plan simply because I don't want to be seen as in the company of Hicks, et al. On the other hand filling a river with water and making little provision for boat usage is like building a highway with no on ramps. Like the rest of life, screwed...blued...tattooed.
Good job, Michael.
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
Let's get to the root of the matter. Is there anybody here that believes two low water dams and repairs to the Zink Dam could actually be done for 5.4 Million dollars? If so, may I please get some of what you are smoking? Any attempt to say otherwise is an attempt to scuttle the issue.
OBVIOUSLY, that was intended as matching seed money. Nobody in their right mind, including Michael Bates, could believe otherwise, unless they are purposefully ignoring logic.
You might be surprised what people thought. Shortly after my business went belly up in 2005, I found myself selling ad space for a now defunct news-weekly (I can sure pick 'em). Making sales calls to small businesses gives you access to what is usually a little more informed populace. Let me relate to you what merchants at River Walk in Jenks thought just two years after V2025 had been passed.
They thought that construction on the low water dam was eminent. Many of them were barely holding on (some didn't) and were doing so because they figured the dam would save them. Remember, the engineering studies weren't even completed, only the locations had been decided. These people thought that the dams would cost around 3million apiece and would take less than a year from that date to be up and running. I gently suggested that if they had brought in bulldozers that day, that it would be two years before finishing touches with a cost closer to 12 million. Nothing I said made a dent on them. They had obviously been informed by management or local officials that this was all about to happen and they wanted to believe. People may be too embarrassed to admit what seemed the truth back then.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
To an astonished group of curious Tulsans attending the River Vision question and answer session Sunday, a red-faced foam-flecked mouthed Michael Bates needed to be calmed down following a bizarre outburst.
Unsatisfied with the panel's answer to a question, Bates escalated rapidly, standing just yards from the presenters and screaming. Hands still shaking from a caffeine rush of Cherry Coke, the blogger rushed the table demanding answers. Eventually, Lady Kathy needed to sit next to Mikey to calm him down.
Whether or not sometime Tulsanow lurker DSchutler will post his video of the embarassing freakout is yet to be seen.
The audience was tipped slightly in favor of the Visioneers. Dan Hicks was back with hand-crayoled signs, accompanied by some pot-bellied chicken-legged dude who paced around the whole time.
Who cares....At least he nutted up and said something......You are a troll at best....
Well, in any case, it's time for the County to directly address this issue, before any attempt to pass on a new attempt to pay for dams again.
The River Tax should be tabled until those questions are resolved.
Frankly, there doesn't seem to be any real question, the dams were in fact included in Vision2025.
H20, I think you are right. The impression was that the dams were next up. It seemed the next logical step and were there not drarings of kayakers and what not down to Jenks? In that direction, I certainly agree that the dams should be the single highest priority. Shame it was not done when there was zero flow, huh?
Also, DSchutler has decided to help out his friend MBates and edit the truth severely cutting out the freak-out KOTV aired (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdmmBdXwOnU%22), and certainly not including the screaming at the end about taxes or promises (which I suppose I will now have to download from my videophone.) His finale was nothing less than a full-fledged tantrum.
And if anyone were interested, at 0900 this AM the filth-spewing trailer at the Fairgrounds was gone. But if one hurries, one may still catch about a cup full of poop near the 'black water' drain . . .
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
Let's get to the root of the matter. Is there anybody here that believes two low water dams and repairs to the Zink Dam could actually be done for 5.4 Million dollars? If so, may I please get some of what you are smoking? Any attempt to say otherwise is an attempt to scuttle the issue.
OBVIOUSLY, that was intended as matching seed money. Nobody in their right mind, including Michael Bates, could believe otherwise, unless they are purposefully ignoring logic.
You might be surprised what people thought. Shortly after my business went belly up in 2005, I found myself selling ad space for a now defunct news-weekly (I can sure pick 'em). Making sales calls to small businesses gives you access to what is usually a little more informed populace. Let me relate to you what merchants at River Walk in Jenks thought just two years after V2025 had been passed.
They thought that construction on the low water dam was eminent. Many of them were barely holding on (some didn't) and were doing so because they figured the dam would save them. Remember, the engineering studies weren't even completed, only the locations had been decided. These people thought that the dams would cost around 3million apiece and would take less than a year from that date to be up and running. I gently suggested that if they had brought in bulldozers that day, that it would be two years before finishing touches with a cost closer to 12 million. Nothing I said made a dent on them. They had obviously been informed by management or local officials that this was all about to happen and they wanted to believe. People may be too embarrassed to admit what seemed the truth back then.
Senator Jim Inhofe was the one that was going to get the matching funds and did not. Again, maybe he could have, Oklahoma City got matching federal funds for the so called "Oklahoma" river. But Katrina changed the funding priorities for The Corp of Engineers and I'm sure that it is true that Tom Coburn didn't help with his anti-everything crusade in the Senate. For whatever reason, Inhofe failed.
And now, the Republican Party has lost the Senate, and will likely soon lose the presidency and it does not look like they will be taking back power any time soon. So our red state Oklahoma congressional delegation now has very little power and there's simply not going to be any matching funds coming our way. If we want the river done, we are going to have to pay for it ourselves.
And if you keep listening to Inhofe, Coburn, Bates, Medlock and their friends, well, look where they have gotten us so far. Nowhere. They want to tell you that we were misled over the river funds. Medlock was on the city council at the time, Inhofe and Coburn are the senators that were supposed to secure the funding, Bates is a Republican party official that helped and pushed to get all of them elected.
quote:
...nothing less than a full-fledged tantrum.
Kind of reminds me of this thread...in fact, most of your threads for the last couple of weeks.
I find it interesting that you have no trouble complaining about Medlock and what he says, but it's okay for you to say things like:
quote:
...pot-bellied chicken-legged dude who paced around the whole time...
I'm finding your preoccupation with right-wing bloggers and radio personalities extremely disturbing. Maybe it's that you're suffering from little man's syndrome. All these people who you can't stand have so much more power and a louder voice than you...sounds like someone's just a little jealous.
What little I saw, on the KOTV piece, looks like a "freak out." Looked worse than that classic Bates rant at the City Council over that F&M vs Fortress Guier Woods deal.
IP, you must be suffering from pot-bellied chicken-leg man syndrome to focus on that and equivicate an on-air attack by an elected Party official on a grieving mother with some wierdo with a hand-drawn sign pacing 12 inches from my face.
Burner, I am not a troll. You know my name, why not 'nut up' and tell us yours?
Swake, good observations, I concur.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
Let's get to the root of the matter. Is there anybody here that believes two low water dams and repairs to the Zink Dam could actually be done for 5.4 Million dollars? If so, may I please get some of what you are smoking? Any attempt to say otherwise is an attempt to scuttle the issue.
OBVIOUSLY, that was intended as matching seed money. Nobody in their right mind, including Michael Bates, could believe otherwise, unless they are purposefully ignoring logic.
You might be surprised what people thought. Shortly after my business went belly up in 2005, I found myself selling ad space for a now defunct news-weekly (I can sure pick 'em). Making sales calls to small businesses gives you access to what is usually a little more informed populace. Let me relate to you what merchants at River Walk in Jenks thought just two years after V2025 had been passed.
They thought that construction on the low water dam was eminent. Many of them were barely holding on (some didn't) and were doing so because they figured the dam would save them. Remember, the engineering studies weren't even completed, only the locations had been decided. These people thought that the dams would cost around 3million apiece and would take less than a year from that date to be up and running. I gently suggested that if they had brought in bulldozers that day, that it would be two years before finishing touches with a cost closer to 12 million. Nothing I said made a dent on them. They had obviously been informed by management or local officials that this was all about to happen and they wanted to believe. People may be too embarrassed to admit what seemed the truth back then.
Senator Jim Inhofe was the one that was going to get the matching funds and did not. Again, maybe he could have, Oklahoma City got matching federal funds for the so called "Oklahoma" river. But Katrina changed the funding priorities for The Corp of Engineers and I'm sure that it is true that Tom Coburn didn't help with his anti-everything crusade in the Senate. For whatever reason, Inhofe failed.
And now, the Republican Party has lost the Senate, and will likely soon lose the presidency and it does not look like they will be taking back power any time soon. So our red state Oklahoma congressional delegation now has very little power and there's simply not going to be any matching funds coming our way. If we want the river done, we are going to have to pay for it ourselves.
And if you keep listening to Inhofe, Coburn, Bates, Medlock and their friends, well, look where they have gotten us so far. Nowhere. They want to tell you that we were misled over the river funds. Medlock was on the city council at the time, Inhofe and Coburn are the senators that were supposed to secure the funding, Bates is a Republican party official that helped and pushed to get all of them elected.
Is this a political thing? Miller is true/blue republican, Taylor is...not. No, this is business.
I agree that we have to pay for this ourselves now. Looking back at past mistakes is only going to be helpful inasmuch as we need to be very clear on this ballot what is happening. If there was no intent to mislead in the past this should be made clear. We also will need to provide for real public oversight, not just mayors from surrounding cities or cronies of theirs.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
IP, you must be suffering from pot-bellied chicken-leg man syndrome to focus on that and equivicate an on-air attack by an elected Party official on a grieving mother with some wierdo with a hand-drawn sign pacing 12 inches from my face.
Burner, I am not a troll. You know my name, why not 'nut up' and tell us yours?
Swake, good observations, I concur.
Yeah, I forget. It's only a personal attack and tasteless if someone else does it. Apparently your website isn't getting enough attention and you feel the need to attack people who are clearly more successful than you are...someone's definitely jealous. BTW, I think the word you're looking for is "equate." And Burner is dead on, this post is trollish.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
Let's get to the root of the matter. Is there anybody here that believes two low water dams and repairs to the Zink Dam could actually be done for 5.4 Million dollars? If so, may I please get some of what you are smoking? Any attempt to say otherwise is an attempt to scuttle the issue.
OBVIOUSLY, that was intended as matching seed money. Nobody in their right mind, including Michael Bates, could believe otherwise, unless they are purposefully ignoring logic.
You might be surprised what people thought. Shortly after my business went belly up in 2005, I found myself selling ad space for a now defunct news-weekly (I can sure pick 'em). Making sales calls to small businesses gives you access to what is usually a little more informed populace. Let me relate to you what merchants at River Walk in Jenks thought just two years after V2025 had been passed.
They thought that construction on the low water dam was eminent. Many of them were barely holding on (some didn't) and were doing so because they figured the dam would save them. Remember, the engineering studies weren't even completed, only the locations had been decided. These people thought that the dams would cost around 3million apiece and would take less than a year from that date to be up and running. I gently suggested that if they had brought in bulldozers that day, that it would be two years before finishing touches with a cost closer to 12 million. Nothing I said made a dent on them. They had obviously been informed by management or local officials that this was all about to happen and they wanted to believe. People may be too embarrassed to admit what seemed the truth back then.
Senator Jim Inhofe was the one that was going to get the matching funds and did not. Again, maybe he could have, Oklahoma City got matching federal funds for the so called "Oklahoma" river. But Katrina changed the funding priorities for The Corp of Engineers and I'm sure that it is true that Tom Coburn didn't help with his anti-everything crusade in the Senate. For whatever reason, Inhofe failed.
And now, the Republican Party has lost the Senate, and will likely soon lose the presidency and it does not look like they will be taking back power any time soon. So our red state Oklahoma congressional delegation now has very little power and there's simply not going to be any matching funds coming our way. If we want the river done, we are going to have to pay for it ourselves.
And if you keep listening to Inhofe, Coburn, Bates, Medlock and their friends, well, look where they have gotten us so far. Nowhere. They want to tell you that we were misled over the river funds. Medlock was on the city council at the time, Inhofe and Coburn are the senators that were supposed to secure the funding, Bates is a Republican party official that helped and pushed to get all of them elected.
Is this a political thing? Miller is true/blue republican, Taylor is...not. No, this is business.
I agree that we have to pay for this ourselves now. Looking back at past mistakes is only going to be helpful inasmuch as we need to be very clear on this ballot what is happening. If there was no intent to mislead in the past this should be made clear. We also will need to provide for real public oversight, not just mayors from surrounding cities or cronies of theirs.
It's time to decide which side you are on. And, don't forget that these yahoos, Bates and Medlock et all, are the ones that brought us LaFortune too, and tried to bring him back for another term.
This is a good plan with a very good return on the tax money devoted. Again, 282 million in new taxes to get 887 million in river development. That is simple math and Bates and company are yelling and screaming in hopes we get confused.
Go ahead, IP, attack the messenger, [sniffle sniffle] if it makes you feel better.
Yup, that is me, just a jealous troll. Unlike yourself, I am just a loser, not a loyyah like you with so much time on his hands he wastes thousands of dollars of billable time arguing anonymously on chat boards. What is your name, anyway? Tell us so we can steer some bidness your way, sounds like you need it. Or are another of Tulsa's indolent trust-fund class who does not know the meaning of work?
Nothing prevented the Holy One from coming out and merely quoting Goldwater's catchphrase about extremism versus moderation. My analysis is that Miller's PA system caused him to raise his voice unnecessarily, and with his emotions high it was not too much of a leap for that Cherry Coke to kick in.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
What little I saw, on the KOTV piece, looks like a "freak out." Looked worse than that classic Bates rant at the City Council over that F&M vs Fortress Guier Woods deal.
That bank is a great example of this group and their impact on this city.
Isn't it terrible how that F&M Bank at 71st and Harvard has just ruined the neighborhood. It just looks awful. I drive by there all the time think "what an eyesore" (sarcasm alert).
Compare that to the new Arvest Bank building at 15th that they didn't fight. That building destroyed homes in a HP area for surface parking and IS an eyesore. It makes you wonder how they choose their fights and why. The arguments and fights they start are inconsistent, and like claiming that they didn't know that 2025 was just matching funds for the river the arguments are less than truthful.
These arguments certainly aren't trying to accomplish anything in the best interest of the city of Tulsa. What are they serving?
Sorry for cross-posting Swake. Those are great points. I am going to sign off for the day. Ya'll be nice.
Not to steer this article back on topic or anything, but...
1) Bates certainly did more than "raise his voice." His fight or flight bell went off and he chose fight. Aggressive posture, raised voice, and advancement on his opponent. If this was a debate, he got DQ'd. Call it what you will, but at least he admitted he went too far and that the passion got the best of him.
2) Politics is too civil anyway. A little passion every now and then might make people think or heaven forbid consider another viewpoint.
3) Michael was right. I like to think of myself as fairly informed, and I was under the impression that the dams were to be part of 2025. Perhaps it was explained at times in more detail, but certainly the impression was they were to be included.
"Who honestly thinks two dams cost...?" Well, I did. I have no idea how much dams cost, so when I was told we would get low water dams in the package I believed what I was told. No matter how many times I learn the lesson, I still default to WANTING to believe my government at face value. Intentional or not, in this instance I feel I was misled.
- - - - -
In spite of all that, I'm still a probable "YES" on the river plan.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Go ahead, IP, attack the messenger, [sniffle sniffle] if it makes you feel better.
Nope. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who constantly complains about others being hateful and negative when they themselves deal in the same wares.
quote:
Yup, that is me, just a jealous troll. Unlike yourself, I am just a loser, not a loyyah like you with so much time on his hands he wastes thousands of dollars of billable time arguing anonymously on chat boards. What is your name, anyway? Tell us so we can steer some bidness your way, sounds like you need it.
No thanks. I have more business than I can handle already...really good lawyers in my field don't need to advertise. There are only two people on this board who know my real name, and I plan on keeping that way so that cranks like you can just keep guessing...
quote:
Or are another of Tulsa's indolent trust-fund class who does not know the meaning of work?
Nope. Born into a middle-to-lower class, single parent family and the first in my family to go to college, but nice try.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
What little I saw, on the KOTV piece, looks like a "freak out." Looked worse than that classic Bates rant at the City Council over that F&M vs Fortress Guier Woods deal.
That bank is a great example of this group and their impact on this city.
I got a chance once to meet that Mona lady from Guier Woods. Don't remember her full name. She seemed like a decent person, fairly well spoken. If she had a mean streak, she was hiding it well.
But, she was campaigning for Medlock and GW had attached itself to that whole Bates/Medlock lovefest. It was always in the back of my mind, "you've done yourself and the city a disservice by attaching yourself to those folks." All they did was take a huge crap all over everything, and F&M was built anyway. GW had few legal avenues, all they could do was cry and claim "conspiracy." And so, that's what they did.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
What little I saw, on the KOTV piece, looks like a "freak out." Looked worse than that classic Bates rant at the City Council over that F&M vs Fortress Guier Woods deal.
That bank is a great example of this group and their impact on this city.
I got a chance once to meet that Mona lady from Guier Woods. Don't remember her full name. She seemed like a decent person, fairly well spoken. If she had a mean streak, she was hiding it well.
But, she was campaigning for Medlock and GW had attached itself to that whole Bates/Medlock lovefest. It was always in the back of my mind, "you've done yourself and the city a disservice by attaching yourself to those folks." All they did was take a huge crap all over everything, and F&M was built anyway. GW had few legal avenues, all they could do was cry and claim "conspiracy." And so, that's what they did.
I don't have a problem with the neighbors being against the bank. Every project has people that are for and against for many reasons. I have a problem with the Bates and the Medlocks of the world being to damn hypocritical and while acting so self-righteous.
Mr Midtown preservation Bates almost brokered the deal that paved over Mayo Meadow for a Wal-Mart. This is the right-wing preservation guy's version of good infill? Give me a break.
Another great example of a fight they are carrying that is not in the best interest of the city of Tulsa is the south bridge. There are hundreds and hundreds of homes being built right now in the area of Jenks and Bixby served by this bridge. The residents in this area today find it pretty hard to get to Tulsa to shop. Today they are going to go into Bixby and soon will be going to the now under construction Walmart in Glenpool. With the bridge Tulsa would be able to capture a lot more of the shopping dollars (and sales tax) of these south county residents. Why are they fighting this bridge again? Certainly not for the betterment of the city of Tulsa.
And don't even get me started on blocking the annexation of the area up north by Owasso.
It's all just a political game to them and the goal isn't a better Tulsa, it's power. Fighting F&M and the bridge makes wealthy Republican contributors that live in these areas happy, fighting Arvest and Walmart didn't, even though in all four cases, their position and actions harm the city of Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
I don't have a problem with the neighbors being against the bank. Every project has people that are for and against for many reasons. I have a problem with the Bates and the Medlocks of the world being to damn hypocritical and while acting so self-righteous.
Mr Midtown preservation Bates almost brokered the deal that paved over Mayo Meadow for a Wal-Mart. This is the right-wing preservation guy's version of good infill? Give me a break.
Another great example of a fight they are carrying that is not in the best interest of the city of Tulsa is the south bridge. There are hundreds and hundreds of homes being built right now in the area of Jenks and Bixby served by this bridge. The residents in this area today find it pretty hard to get to Tulsa to shop. Today they are going to go into Bixby and soon will be going to the now under construction Walmart in Glenpool. With the bridge Tulsa would be able to capture a lot more of the shopping dollars (and sales tax) of these south county residents. Why are they fighting this bridge again? Certainly not for the betterment of the city of Tulsa.
And don't even get me started on blocking the annexation of the area up north by Owasso.
It's all just a political game to them and the goal isn't a better Tulsa, it's power. Fighting F&M and the bridge makes wealthy Republican contributors that live in these areas happy, fighting Arvest and Walmart didn't, even though in all four cases, their position and actions harm the city of Tulsa.
There were two important issues with the 71st and Harvard F&M Bank, issues involving the integrity of Tulsa's land use planning process. It wasn't a matter of whether the bank would look nice or not.
The first was that the development was not only a change of existing zoning but out of accord with the Comprehensive Plan, which had the parcel designated for low-intensity residential, not office or commercial. That designation went back to a commitment made when 71st Street was widened to six lanes.
The second and more crucial issue for all property owners was the way the protest petitions were handled by INCOG and the city attorney's office. There were sufficient signatures to require a 3/4 council supermajority to approve the zoning change. But INCOG and city legal changed the rules in the middle of the game and ultimately the city attorney declared the protest petition ordinance a violation of the city charter, even though it predated the charter. We passed a charter amendment last year to restore the provision.
Nothing could be done to stop the Wal-Mart at 21st and Yale. The land was already zoned CS. Wal-Mart did not need a zoning change or a PUD to build. The owner, John Nidiffer, whose father built the center in 1955, requested one BoA variance to allow Yale Cleaners to build a new location on an outparcel, but approval or disapproval would have had no effect on the supermarket. I was sorry to see the old center go, and I wish they could have at least incorporated the old neon sign in the new design, but there wasn't any leverage to change the plans.
Both the old Mayo Meadow center and the new Wal-Mart are auto-oriented suburban development, but at least they aren't segregated from the adjacent residential area. I got involved to try to retain the two connections between the shopping center and the neighborhood, connections that had been there since the subdivision and shopping center were developed. I live two blocks from the shopping center, and I believe it's to the neighborhood's advantage to have pedestrian and vehicular access to the shopping center without having to go out to one of the arterials. We got agreement on that point, and the Vandalia entrance will be reopened, north of 21st Place, when the northwest pad site is developed. It is now possible, for the first time in many years, for the Mayo Meadow neighborhood to pass the "popsicle test."
I supported the efforts of the Yorktown Neighborhood to stop the erosion of their HP district by Arvest Bank and the successful effort by 41st & Harvard area homeowners to stop a Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market at that corner. I didn't take a leading role in either fight, although I did write about both issues in support of the homeowners on my website, and I answered questions from neighborhood leaders who were trying to get a handle on the zoning process.
I don't see a reason to annex 23 square miles north Tulsa County right now. We have a fenceline that protects that area from encroachment by other municipalities (something we should have had to the southwest, and something we still need to our west). Annexation of such an elongated area would force the city to spend more on police and fire coverage, streets, and utilities, but without bringing in a significant source of new revenues to pay for it all. It was the opposite of fairgrounds annexation in that regard.
Regarding the south Tulsa bridge, I'm sympathetic to the homeowners' concerns, but it was the cozy insider financing of the deal and the lack of scrutiny by the county commissioners that bothers me most. STCC's work to connect the bridge to Riverside and avert heavy truck traffic on Yale seem reasonable to me. There's a way to make the bridge happen that will satisfy the concerns of everyone except IVI.
I'm on the mailing list for the expensive fundraisers, and I know who the big donors are, but with the possible exception of the south Tulsa bridge issue, I don't think there were any wealthy Republican donors involved in any of these fights. In fact, I'm pretty sure that many of the neighborhood leaders I've worked with are politically active Democrats.
Michael Bates,
Did Inhofe even try for matching funds? This would effect my decision. I can't find any information on whether or not he tried to follow through. How about Sullivan?
Oh, and I can pretty much guess Doctor Senator Coburn's reaction, but I wonder about the others.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Mr Bates, you are not telling the full truth and you know it.
Here is an acticle from before the vote on 2025.
Tulsa World, 7/23/03:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=030723_Ne_a1_reven
Quote:
Ballot proposition No. 4 includes $5.6 million that would be used as matching funds to build two low-water dams on the Arkansas River. The $5.6 million figure was based upon the best estimates the U.S. Corps of Engineers could give the Vision organizers, Dick said.
Here is a quote about the $5.4 million being for MATCHING funds. Your well loved Republican senator, James Inhofe has long said he would secure the matching funds and has never done so. The feds are not coming through, Inhofe has failed, largely due to Katrina, but he has failed to do what he said he would do.
And Mr Bates, I know you read this particular article, because YOU are quoted in it:
Quote:
Bates said he would rather have seen the tax package structured so that it would expire once the $885 million is raised, rather than for a finite period of time.
You are being disingenuous when you claim we were promised low water dams for $5.4 million. We were correctly told we were getting matching funds and it's your party, you being a official of the Republican party, that has failed to live up to what was promised.
swake, I don't claim we were promised low water dams for $5.4 million. I claim we were promised low water dams and all the other projects on the list if we approved the Vision 2025 sales tax.
Read the rest of that article. In the context of talking about potential overages, here's what Commissioner Bob Dick had to say about the possibility of not having enough money to fund the projects:
quote:
Dick said the Vision 2025 package also was designed to ensure no project gets left behind due to a lack of funding.
"I think the worst thing you could do is promise you are going to build something and then not have enough money to build it," Dick said.
Vision proponents concede room for error is built into some project cost estimates.
"I don't know specifically what it is really going to cost to build a low-water dam," Dick said.
The message Dick was conveying to the voters was that while the tax may collect more than the total of the project cost estimates, the overage would be used, if needed, to make sure all the projects are built as promised.
I don't think he or his colleagues were trying to mislead us on that point. In fact, both he and Miller indicated in June 2005 (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=050617_Ne_A1_Visio%22) that they gave completing the Vision 2025 river projects as highest priority for spending any projected overages. I'm paraphrasing, but you can read it for yourself.
quote:
While they aren't ready to act on projections for what the 13-year, sixth-tenths of a penny sales tax will bring in, Commissioners Bob Dick and Randi Miller both believe the Arkansas River is a likely candidate to see additional funding.
"It's too soon to start spending money above those things that have already been identified," Dick said. "But there's one real easy one, to say if we do have that, I think a high priority would be on the river."
The $5.6 million allocated in Vision 2025 for river projects only pays for a portion of two low-water dams. It is supposed to be used along with federal funds, but Miller said officials may need the extra money to make sure the dams get built.
"If there's any money that's available, in my opinion because we do not have enough for the dams, then I'm going to go with river
development," she said.
I think Miller and Dick meant what they said, back then. But I also think Miller is trying to mislead us now about what she has said on this issue in the past.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Michael Bates,
Did Inhofe even try for matching funds? This would effect my decision. I can't find any information on whether or not he tried to follow through. How about Sullivan?
Oh, and I can pretty much guess Doctor Senator Coburn's reaction, but I wonder about the others.
The authorization and money for the dams was actually on a Inhofe backed bill in the Senate this year, but the final version of the bill stripped all money out of the dams leaving only the authorization. Inhofe has no influence in the current Senate, and that is unlikely to change.
I have met Tim Huntzinger and while he does look a little bit like the one in the middle, he is clearly human.
(http://www.tulsanow.org/forumpics/Trolls_Not_Smurfs.jpg)
Please keep the personal attacks and troll accustation to a minimum please. Many people one here are by one definition or another a public figure and as such, draw both praise and criticism. However, that can still be done in a civil manner and tone.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Michael Bates,
Did Inhofe even try for matching funds? This would effect my decision. I can't find any information on whether or not he tried to follow through. How about Sullivan?
Oh, and I can pretty much guess Doctor Senator Coburn's reaction, but I wonder about the others.
I don't know for sure. I've been told that the county never made a formal request, but they may have not made a request because they had no hope of getting funds.
There was a KOTV report on or about July 31, 2003, that federal funds for low-water dams on the Arkansas River were an "impossibility for the forseeable future." Emory Bryan spoke off the record with congressional staff who told him that funds for the cleanup of Tar Creek were a higher priority.
I blogged about it at the time, but none of the proponents of Vision 2025 seemed alarmed by the news. Unfortunately, I can't find the full story in the Wayback Machine or on KOTV's website, so I don't know if KOTV had reaction from any of the county commissioners. As I mention above, Bob Dick seemed confident that Vision 2025 overages could handle any underestimate of cost or overestimate of outside funding.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
QuoteThe authorization and money for the dams was actually on a Inhofe backed bill in the Senate this year, but the final version of the bill stripped all money out of the dams leaving only the authorization. Inhofe has no influence in the current Senate, and that is unlikely to change.
Okay. Thanks, swake. It's guys like you that keep the TN boards a font of knowledge...or, fount?
So, it's clear then that matching funds were sought. I'd still like to hear from Michael if he believes that the $5.4 was contingent on receipt of federal funding.
There does appear to be some evidence that this was a quid pro quo arrangement. I think it rates a straightforward answer.
UPDATE: Thanks, Michael. I don't know is straightforward, I guess. Were you aware of the attempt that swake mentions?
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by swake
QuoteThe authorization and money for the dams was actually on a Inhofe backed bill in the Senate this year, but the final version of the bill stripped all money out of the dams leaving only the authorization. Inhofe has no influence in the current Senate, and that is unlikely to change.
Okay. Thanks, swake. It's guys like you that keep the TN boards a font of knowledge...or, fount?
So, it's clear then that matching funds were sought. I'd still like to hear from Michael if he believes that the $5.4 was contingent on receipt of federal funding.
There does appear to be some evidence that this was a quid pro quo arrangement. I think it rates a straightforward answer.
UPDATE: Thanks, Michael. I don't know is straightforward, I guess. Were you aware of the attempt that swake mentions?
Here is the only news article that I can quickly find on the subject. The story is from three months ago and it talks about the bill passing the house and going to the Senate. It's not in this article, but I do know the final bill stripped our $12 million for dams out of the bill.
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0507/421624.html
Also, I found a version of the 2005 version of the Water Resources Act, it also had $12 million in it for the Arkansas in Tulsa that was stripped, the text of the act is here:
http://www.waterways.org/WRDADebate18July.doc
I just got another flat tire from a pothole today.
Thoughts?
In all seriousness, I met Micheal Bates last night as he was walking by along the sidewalk. I've been reading his blog and column for a while and what impressed me about him was how intelligent and well-spoken he was in person. I personally, have a hard time believing the original poster and have an irking he's over exaggerating for some other reason.
That being said, if he did get mad. Good for him. He's only looking out for the good of the city and wants responsible spending.
I'd like somebody to explain why Inhofe would seek $12 million in funding on a project that was "promised" in Vision 2025.
Unless someone can come up with an explanation, it seems that the $5.4 million was indeed matching funds for a larger project.
If the county didn't get the matching federal funds, then I think it's pretty unreasonable to demand that the complete the project with only partial funding.
However, I think it would be reasonable to demand that the county reduce the current request by $5.4 million.
My only real beef, then, is a broader one. Should the county be using the sales tax at all? It's the only resource the city can go to in order to fix the streets and they'd be negatively affecting the city's chances of going to the voters for some very basic improvements.
Why can't the county propose this as a property tax hike? Is there a Constitutional Problem?
If it was 5.4mil to be used as part of funding for the dam, where is that money now? Same place the Oxley money is?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
If it was 5.4mil to be used as part of funding for the dam, where is that money now? Same place the Oxley money is?
I think it's reasonable to presume it's still there, so reduce the current request by $5.4 million.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
If it was 5.4mil to be used as part of funding for the dam, where is that money now? Same place the Oxley money is?
I think it's reasonable to presume it's still there, so reduce the current request by $5.4 million.
No it's not. The current proposal has the dams in at over $50 million just for two new dams (2 x $25 mil), not counting the Zink Lake dam at another $15 mil. The prior estimates were $9.4 Matching + $12 Fed, or a total of $21.4. I've heard up to $26 million for two dams + Zink. Whomever that was sitting next to Randi stated they were assuming a 35% Match/65% Fed ratio. That would make the Fed portion $17 mil and closer to the $26 mil total above. But, it was put in at only $12 mil. Why, I couldn't explain.
Going the other way, $12 mil as 65% would make the 35% match $6.5 mil, and a total of $18.5 million. There was also already seperate money in V2025 for the silt trap/removal on Zink dam.
When these prices inflated by over 100% is suspect.
Besides, it's a COUNTY SALES TAX. And, there's clearly funding in the V2025 to do the original estimated work, even if it delays it somewhat.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
If it was 5.4mil to be used as part of funding for the dam, where is that money now? Same place the Oxley money is?
I think it's reasonable to presume it's still there, so reduce the current request by $5.4 million.
No it's not. The current proposal has the dams in at over $50 million just for two new dams (2 x $25 mil), not counting the Zink Lake dam at another $15 mil. The prior estimates were $9.4 Matching + $12 Fed, or a total of $21.4. I've heard up to $26 million for two dams + Zink. Whomever that was siting next to Randi stated they were assuming a 35% Match/65% Fed ratio. That would make the Fed portion $17 mil and closer to the $26 mil total above. But, it was put in at only $12 mil. Why, I couldn't explain.
When these prices inflated by over 100% is suspect.
Besides, it's a COUNTY SALES TAX. And, there's clearly funding in the V2025 to do the original estimated work, even if it delays it somewhat.
What about the $60 million for land for a Tulsa Landing?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
If it was 5.4mil to be used as part of funding for the dam, where is that money now? Same place the Oxley money is?
I think it's reasonable to presume it's still there, so reduce the current request by $5.4 million.
No it's not. The current proposal has the dams in at over $50 million just for two new dams (2 x $25 mil), not counting the Zink Lake dam at another $15 mil. The prior estimates were $9.4 Matching + $12 Fed, or a total of $21.4. I've heard up to $26 million for two dams + Zink. Whomever that was siting next to Randi stated they were assuming a 35% Match/65% Fed ratio. That would make the Fed portion $17 mil and closer to the $26 mil total above. But, it was put in at only $12 mil. Why, I couldn't explain.
When these prices inflated by over 100% is suspect.
Besides, it's a COUNTY SALES TAX. And, there's clearly funding in the V2025 to do the original estimated work, even if it delays it somewhat.
What about the $60 million for land for a Tulsa Landing?
The County does not need to acquire this land, let the developer do it. It's part of their project.
Besides, Westport should stay as is for now.
There's no good reason for it to be destroyed.
The City owns the parcel south of 21st and the concrete plant on the north can be had, along with potential for some portion of the current West Festival Park.
The County doesn't need to be in the land business anyway, especially as a new Authority governing Tulsa's section of the river, or anyone elses either.
X the Authority/County after they build the dams.
That's not an option. We are in the real world here and if the land and money isn't provided, that project will not go forward. That developer got over $100 million in public money for Branson Landing and he's said he's going to want something like that here in Tulsa as well. Just saying it's his problem isn't realistic and Tulsa needs this development. It will bring lots of money into the city from the burbs and from outside the metro, this is real new money into the economy and Tulsa needs it.
Per the development, there is an outdoor area in Albuquerque called "Albuquerque Uptown" that reminds me a ton of Branson Landing. Hope we get something like that, very nice. Utica beware.
http://www.abquptown.com/
I hear quite a bit about Branson Landing being a potential model for river development. I would like to know who has actually been there and based on their visit whether they believe the concept would work in Tulsa.
I have been there several times and it really is a unique "mall" and seems to be a huge success. However, I believe a reason it has been a success is that it is far away from the traffic nightmare on the strip. Not having to navigate that mess to get to the outlet malls is a real benefit that cannot be overstated.
I think a lot of this hinges on whether or not there is 2025 language that says that building the dams reqires there be matching funds.
However, even if we got the matching funds originally requested it would not cover the costs that we are now projecting for them and thus we would be right back where we are now relying on 2025 to cover the difference. With the matching funds, 2025 would cover any difference. Without the matching funds, 2025 would cover the difference.
Again, if there is no language that requires the matching funds we could think of the situation this way.
When the other already started 2025 projects get their funding and the dams can start receiving funds, we can get our dams. No new tax for them need be added, no need redirect any extra 2025 money, because it isnt extra its part of the original deal.
This can allow any new tax to fund any further development plans to be less. Basically, the Kaiser plan minus the cost of the 2 low water dams and possibly some of the Zink lake improvements. This will help make this next tax more palpable to the voters since it can be 60, or whatever the figure would be, million dollars less.
It may be that the dams end up getting built a few years later than we would like. But they can get built if there is no language somewhere in 2025 that will prevent it.
Once we get a bit more info on all of this, it could be that this isnt a bad thing for those of us who want the dams and other development. It could make it more of a sure thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Besides, it's a COUNTY SALES TAX. And, there's clearly funding in the V2025 to do the original estimated work, even if it delays it somewhat.
I don't know if there is a "besides" if V2025 only provided matching funds. That's a proposal for partial funding at best.
Either that deal is dead and gone, or, the County is still obliged to provide that original match from V2025. But how do you get from there to the point where the County is
obliged to pay for 100% of it out of V2025? It's an
idea, but it doesn't seem like an obligation.
I still think the better argument is simply saying that the County is impinging on the City's sole source of revenue (an unstable source at that) by asking for more sales tax. The City is already hundreds of millions behind on infrastructure repairs and the County continues to take big bites out of the only resource that the City can turn to, constitutionally.
Of course, that might imply that you were FOR the City raising taxes to fix streets, and I'm pretty sure I know where you stand on that[;)].
I'm still wondering if the County could raise property taxes to pay for these improvements instead of sales tax...anybody know?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
That's not an option. We are in the real world here and if the land and money isn't provided, that project will not go forward. That developer got over $100 million in public money for Branson Landing and he's said he's going to want something like that here in Tulsa as well. Just saying it's his problem isn't realistic and Tulsa needs this development. It will bring lots of money into the city from the burbs and from outside the metro, this is real new money into the economy and Tulsa needs it.
You're too easy, and of the same mindset as our illustrious leaders.
We (the City of Tulsa, not the County)have the ability to offer a TIF to do infrastructure improvements adjacent to the development, provide utility connections, etc. But, what's the underlying reason for providing them land? A gift? Begging?
Why stop there, why not just build the entire thing and contract for a manager, like the golf course?
Developers primarily look at numbers. If the numbers are there, they'll do it. If not they won't. Subsidizing to assure profit means anyone can do it. It's an irresponsible use of public funds, and is far more subject to politics than free market development.
IAC, the County is absolutely the most improper method of achieving this, as is the currently proposed 'plan'. Let the County put water in the river and step aside, allowing each city to determine their own method of dealing with development.
The last thing we need is a 5-member County Authority Board deciding Tulsa can't do this or that because it will hurt something going on in Jenks, for example. Makes those 5 individuals pretty darn powerful.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Besides, it's a COUNTY SALES TAX. And, there's clearly funding in the V2025 to do the original estimated work, even if it delays it somewhat.
I don't know if there is a "besides" if V2025 only provided matching funds. That's a proposal for partial funding at best.
Either that deal is dead and gone, or, the County is still obliged to provide that original match from V2025. But how do you get from there to the point where the County is obliged to pay for 100% of it out of V2025? It's and idea, but it doesn't seem like an obligation.
Read it yourself:
http://www.vision2025.info/category.php?mode=&category=lowwaterdams
"Vision 2025 funds will be utilized to construct two low water dams, which along with Zink Lake, will provide a series of lakes in the Arkansas River corridor."
While it does also say:
"This local funding is a key component in attracting federal money for the dams and other river channel improvements and will also serve as a catalyst for private investment."
...it does not suggest if fed money is not received, the projects die.
What Commissioner Miller, in June 2005, DID say was:
"The $5.6 million allocated in Vision 2025 for river projects only pays for a portion of two low-water dams. It is supposed to be used along with federal funds, but Miller said officials may need the extra money to make sure the dams get built."
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
QuoteOriginally posted by Wrinkle
I still think the better argument is simply saying that the County is impinging on the City's sole source of revenue (an unstable source at that) by asking for more sales tax. The City is already hundreds of millions behind on infrastructure repairs and the County continues to take big bites out of the only resource that the City can turn to, constitutionally.
Of course, that might imply that you were FOR the City raising taxes to fix streets, and I'm pretty sure I know where you stand on that.
I'm still wondering if the County could raise property taxes to pay for these improvements instead of sales tax...anybody know?
Sure, it implies that. But, it would also need to be responsible.
The City vs County Sales Tax issue IS the primary reason to vote NO on this, especially with the County already obligated to build the dams (to put "water in the river").
The County could do the project with either a Project Revenue Bond (but, since it generates no revenue, this could not work) or a General Obligation Bond, subject to Ad Valorem and which would tie projects to funds. The best option is the GOB, certainly NOT Sales Tax.
But, then, I'm making the case the County is ALREADY obligated to build the dams with planned and excess revenues of the existing Vision2025 plan. So, from here, as I see it, the County's out of it altogether once they get the dams built.
So, with water in the river, it'd be up to each city how to handle additional development. If the City of Tulsa wanted to try and pass this plan, less dams, it could be addressed locally rather than over the entire county. But, I wouldn't try that. There's really nothing preventing development RIGHT NOW except the County causing a bunch of problems.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
QuoteOriginally posted by Wrinkle
I still think the better argument is simply saying that the County is impinging on the City's sole source of revenue (an unstable source at that) by asking for more sales tax. The City is already hundreds of millions behind on infrastructure repairs and the County continues to take big bites out of the only resource that the City can turn to, constitutionally.
Of course, that might imply that you were FOR the City raising taxes to fix streets, and I'm pretty sure I know where you stand on that.
I'm still wondering if the County could raise property taxes to pay for these improvements instead of sales tax...anybody know?
Sure, it implies that. But, it would also need to be responsible.
The City vs County Sales Tax issue IS the primary reason to vote NO on this, especially with the County already obligated to build the dams (to put "water in the river").
The County could do the project with either a Project Revenue Bond (but, since it generates no revenue, this could not work) or a General Obligation Bond, subject to Ad Valorem and which would tie projects to funds. The best option is the GOB, certainly NOT Sales Tax.
But, then, I'm making the case the County is ALREADY obligated to build the dams with planned and excess revenues of the existing Vision2025 plan. So, from here, as I see it, the County's out of it altogether once they get the dams built.
So, with water in the river, it'd be up to each city how to handle additional development. If the City of Tulsa wanted to try and pass this plan, less dams, it could be addressed locally rather than over the entire county. But, I wouldn't try that. There's really nothing preventing development RIGHT NOW except the County causing a bunch of problems.
The county is not "obligated" at all to put water in the river between 81st and 31st. The dams even if built with 2025 money do nothing for that part of the river.
quote:
The county is not "obligated" at all to put water in the river between 81st and 31st. The dams even if built with 2025 money do nothing for that part of the river.
You're going to have expand on that, it doesn't make sense.
Well, somebody mark their calendar...as of this moment, I'm officially on the fence. I was leaning for this thing because I actually do believe that it could provide a great boost to our economy and quality of life. I see it as a good investment.
But I feel that V2025 funding, as an idea should be explored. If the language in V2025 covers the new scope as proposed, then why not take a look? I'm not sure why it would take longer...if the revenue will eventually be there, why can't you bond it now?
Miller owes the Tulsa (city) that much. Remember a few months back when she was sniping at the City about doing a better job at managing their money? The County's (her) budget is up what, 18%, this year? And the City's is flat...again.
I also think that, if there is some kind of overage, or if the current proposal is not eligible, then the County should look at a GO bond based on property tax, instead of a sales tax, and quit dipping into the City's well. It doesn't seem quite fair that the County should be hitting the sales tax harder than the City when they have alternate revenue sources. Wouldn't they be screwing with the City's bond rating?
Here is more of the discussion between Michael Bates and Randi Miller. KOTV just showed the last two seconds or so.
Thanks to DSchuttler for posting this on his website and you tube...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdmmBdXwOnU
Make you own conclusion.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Well, somebody mark their calendar...as of this moment, I'm officially on the fence. I was leaning for this thing because I actually do believe that it could provide a great boost to our economy and quality of life. I see it as a good investment.
But I feel that V2025 funding, as an idea should be explored. If the language in V2025 covers the new scope as proposed, then why not take a look? I'm not sure why it would take longer...if the revenue will eventually be there, why can't you bond it now?
Miller owes the Tulsa (city) that much. Remember a few months back when she was sniping at the City about doing a better job at managing their money? The County's (her) budget is up what, 18%, this year? And the City's is flat...again.
I also think that, if there is some kind of overage, or if the current proposal is not eligible, then the County should look at a GO bond based on property tax, instead of a sales tax, and quit dipping into the City's well. It doesn't seem quite fair that the County should be hitting the sales tax harder than the City when they have alternate revenue sources. Wouldn't they be screwing with the City's bond rating?
How sturdy is that fence? Room for two?
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Besides, it's a COUNTY SALES TAX. And, there's clearly funding in the V2025 to do the original estimated work, even if it delays it somewhat.
I don't know if there is a "besides" if V2025 only provided matching funds. That's a proposal for partial funding at best.
Either that deal is dead and gone, or, the County is still obliged to provide that original match from V2025. But how do you get from there to the point where the County is obliged to pay for 100% of it out of V2025? It's an idea, but it doesn't seem like an obligation.
I still think the better argument is simply saying that the County is impinging on the City's sole source of revenue (an unstable source at that) by asking for more sales tax. The City is already hundreds of millions behind on infrastructure repairs and the County continues to take big bites out of the only resource that the City can turn to, constitutionally.
Of course, that might imply that you were FOR the City raising taxes to fix streets, and I'm pretty sure I know where you stand on that[;)].
I'm still wondering if the County could raise property taxes to pay for these improvements instead of sales tax...anybody know?
Unless someone can show me the specific language, my read is that 2025 was not providing the "matching funds". The dams were a 2025 project and it was from the Fed gov. that they were seeking the matching funds. They had to have some contingency plan thought out for if they did not receive the hoped for matching funds. What does that plan say will happen?
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Well, somebody mark their calendar...as of this moment, I'm officially on the fence. I was leaning for this thing because I actually do believe that it could provide a great boost to our economy and quality of life. I see it as a good investment.
But I feel that V2025 funding, as an idea should be explored. If the language in V2025 covers the new scope as proposed, then why not take a look? I'm not sure why it would take longer...if the revenue will eventually be there, why can't you bond it now?
Miller owes the Tulsa (city) that much. Remember a few months back when she was sniping at the City about doing a better job at managing their money? The County's (her) budget is up what, 18%, this year? And the City's is flat...again.
I also think that, if there is some kind of overage, or if the current proposal is not eligible, then the County should look at a GO bond based on property tax, instead of a sales tax, and quit dipping into the City's well. It doesn't seem quite fair that the County should be hitting the sales tax harder than the City when they have alternate revenue sources. Wouldn't they be screwing with the City's bond rating?
The Bonding issue is that the longer the term, the more it costs. If that conflicts with the available amount of revenue, it matters.
IF, for example, $50 million of extra V2025 revenue is expected, you can't just bond $50 million. The TOTAL bond cost includes interest over the term and a bonding agent fee up front.
In that sense, it's just like any other loan, actually more like a mortgage with closing costs.
So, the shorter the period between the time of bonding and the end of revenue collections, the less it costs in terms of interest.
To pay for $25 million in dam costs today would take perhaps a 10 year bond at something around 7%. Over that 10 years, the interest adds up to around an additional $10 million. So, the excess V2025 revenues would need to be $35 mil to cover a $25 mil expense today.
If we wait 5 years, we'd save $5 mil in interest and make the total cost only $30 mil.
It depends on how much excess revenue is available, and if that's the best way to allocate.
Since the County's currently pulling around $57 mil per year on V2025, there's some chance the dams could be paid directly out of cash flow, but that depends on how other bonds were structured and the cash flow requirements of all V2025 projects taken together.
As a matter of record, the County's Four-Fixers portion portion of Sales Tax (0.417%) will also produce excess of approximately $200 million.
The entire County estimate was for $885 mil, while collections are expected to become around $1.35 billion by the end of 2016. V2025 gets about 60% of that, about $800 mil.
V2025 surplus was about $265 mil before arena was refunded with $45.5 mil in cost overruns.
I'm getting about $200 mil available yet in V2025, another $150-$200 mil available on the balance of County proceeds.
It appears money is a problem only in the sense of having to wade through it wherever they go.
Update: I should add that there's currently about $400 mil in bonds issued in two sets for V2025. Don't know the particulars, but the interest and fee costs for these would need be deducted.
At 6% and 10 years, that could add up to around $133 mil, knocking V2025 excesses down to around $65-$70 mil., which, I think, corresponds closely with current County claims.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Unless someone can show me the specific language, my read is that 2025 was not providing the "matching funds". The dams were a 2025 project and it was from the Fed gov. that they were seeking the matching funds. They had to have some contingency plan thought out for if they did not receive the hoped for matching funds. What does that plan say will happen?
From the comments made by county commissioners to the media during the campaign and after, and from the language in the ballot resolution itself, it appears that the excess sales tax receipts were the contingency plan.
I haven't seen anything to suggest that the county commissioners said before the Vision 2025 vote, "If we don't get the matching funds, you won't get the dams," or, "If we don't get the matching funds, we'll come back to ask you for another tax to pay for them."
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Thanks to DSchuttler for posting this on his website and you tube...
I am seriously disappointed in you DS ('You are dead to me Fredo.') That is by far and away the most favorable part of the exchange, stopped just before he really lost it. For the record I will post the rest taken from my phone. As I was leaving the meeting, MB and DS were huddled together talking.
At least one of these number crunchers showed they have
emotion, too bad it is about geeky number splitting. It is telling that the same problem vexed Medlock last week when he popped off about the 12-year-old's mom: talking about the issue at an emotional level inappopriate for the circumstance.
I thank you MichaelBates for addressing your harshest critics and will not beat this dead horse any longer. However, I would like an apology for you statement that I have exploded like that in a public meeting. I assert that is either a deliberate lie or an honest mistake.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Thanks to DSchuttler for posting this on his website and you tube...
I am seriously disappointed in you DS ('You are dead to me Fredo.') That is by far and away the most favorable part of the exchange, stopped just before he really lost it. For the record I will post the rest taken from my phone. As I was leaving the meeting, MB and DS were huddled together talking.
At least one of these number crunchers showed they have emotion, too bad it is about geeky number splitting. It is telling that the same problem vexed Medlock last week when he popped off about the 12-year-old's mom: talking about the issue at an emotional level inappopriate for the circumstance.
I thank you MichaelBates for addressing your harshest critics and will not beat this dead horse any longer. However, I would like an apology for you statement that I have exploded like that in a public meeting. I assert that is either a deliberate lie or an honest mistake.
Envy is the most sincere form of flattery....The obsession continues....
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
At least one of these number crunchers showed they have emotion, too bad it is about geeky number splitting. It is telling that the same problem vexed Medlock last week when he popped off about the 12-year-old's mom: talking about the issue at an emotional level inappopriate for the circumstance.
I thank you MichaelBates for addressing your harshest critics and will not beat this dead horse any longer. However, I would like an apology for you statement that I have exploded like that in a public meeting. I assert that is either a deliberate lie or an honest mistake.
Tim, I apologize if I gave the impression that you blew up during a public meeting, but I think it is fair to write what I did, that I've seen your passion get the best of you. I'll tell you what I had in mind when I wrote that:
(1) When you posted off-topic diatribes on numerous threads on this forum under your previous username, you were banned. The admin at the time found it worthy to email the TulsaNow board of directors about your behavior.
(2) The 2005 Tulsa County Republican Convention, when you became rather agitated that the newly elected chairman, Jerry Buchanan, "stole" your idea of focusing on rebuilding the precinct-level organization without giving you credit.
Anyone who has been involved in local Democratic or Republican politics knows that every new county chairman comes in with the intention of recruiting and training precinct officers who will actually work the precinct for funds, volunteers, and votes. It's an idea that is as old as the hills, but it's very difficult to get it done, which is why every new chairman sets out to rebuild the precincts.
While I don't think you blew up in the convention meeting itself, I seem to recall you making a spectacle of yourself out in the convention lobby with your complaints, and it started you on a snit against the Republican Party which is two years long and counting.
I believe you thought you had an original idea and would be greeted as a hero and a genius. What you had was a good idea, but one that a lot of other people had already had.
Here's what you wrote (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=1531%22) at the time, which seems to capture your state of mind:
quote:
The rift will be between those who want control and influence just for the sake of having control and influence and those who want control and influence because they have a mission.
When I was at the Convention Saturday, I was telling anyone who would listen 'Precincts, precincts, precincts,' including Chair Buchanan, who looked at me puzzled when I brought this up. On the radio yesterday, the first f******* word out of his mouth was 'Precincts'.
And look, not one Republicrat has said 'Do not leave us, we need as much help as we can.' but the Dems are saying 'The water is not too bad.'
The Republican crybabies can whine about media bias but the hypocrites cannot take the slightest bit of criticism.
So there it is. The Republicans have gained an enemy, and the Democrats an advocate.
So that was the basis for what I wrote. People can judge for themselves whether I mischaracterized your actions. The point was that people, like you and me, sometimes get carried away when they believe an injustice is being done.
And, without excusing my loss of temper, that is what got me angry on Sunday. I was not blowing up over "geeky" numbers. It was Randi Miller's bald-face denials of promises made by her and her fellow commissioners four years ago that set me off, denials made in the face of their clearly written commitment in the ballot resolution.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Here is more of the discussion between Michael Bates and Randi Miller. KOTV just showed the last two seconds or so.
Thanks to DSchuttler for posting this on his website and you tube...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdmmBdXwOnU
Make you own conclusion.
KOTV showed a different discussion than the one in this video.
Yeah, KOTV's little slice wasn't present in that video. Still, nice flailing arms there Batesy. Twould have been hilarious had his majesty cold cocked Taylor.
At least Miller seemed to handle herself pretty well.
Anywho, Bates went crazy, then apologized, it's kind of over. He's not making serious excuses, I dig that. I find the episode slightly hilarious, but not everyone does I'm sure.
Seriously though, I don't remember any "promises" about the river, other than the matching funds. But, you mentioned on your blog the concept of extending the current V2025 to include the river. I don't know if it's possible, but it doesn't sound like a bad idea. It would probably be, just guessing, a 4 year extension as opposed to a 7 year hike.
Then you get into the question of when would the funds be available, etc. Better now than later, but it doesn't sound like a bad idea. Again, whether or not it's possible, I don't know.
How about a 1.483c tax for a shorter time period.
I would love it if taxes were a round number.
Interesting idea sgrizzle.
How about a 10,000 dollar tax just when there are lots of visitors in town?
For every dollar they spend, we would collect ten thousand in tax?
I could put off grocery shopping for a week...
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Interesting idea sgizzle.
How about a 10,000 dollar tax just when there are lots of visitors in town?
For every dollar they spend, we would collect ten thousand in tax?
I could put off grocery shopping for a week...
I'm okay with that. I think Southern Hills should be giving the city 5-10% of what they're making to pay for all of this cleanup too.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Interesting idea sgizzle.
How about a 10,000 dollar tax just when there are lots of visitors in town?
For every dollar they spend, we would collect ten thousand in tax?
I could put off grocery shopping for a week...
I'm okay with that. I think Southern Hills should be giving the city 5-10% of what they're making to pay for all of this cleanup too.
Why should they pay for what the city should already be doing....I think it's a slap in the face to people that live here on a daily basis.....We have to live with it but when City feels like it needs to impress the wealthier side coming to town they jump through hoops to make sure and give a good impression......
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Interesting idea sgizzle.
How about a 10,000 dollar tax just when there are lots of visitors in town?
For every dollar they spend, we would collect ten thousand in tax?
I could put off grocery shopping for a week...
I'm okay with that. I think Southern Hills should be giving the city 5-10% of what they're making to pay for all of this cleanup too.
Why should they pay for what the city should already be doing....I think it's a slap in the face to people that live here on a daily basis.....We have to live with it but when City feels like it needs to impress the wealthier side coming to town they jump through hoops to make sure and give a good impression......
Eh, those government officials live here and drive through the overgrown weeds like we do.
There's no magic ultra-cared for route for the high and mighty.
I'm sure the "they" are doing the best they can with all the hoops, rules, back-door agreements, contractual obligations, etc they can.
I'm glad the medians and fields are being taken care of now. The weather's been nice and the areas I've b****ed about don't look too bad. I'm sure it could be better but I have a feeling there are bureaucratic issues with just getting someone to acknowledge the need for weed eating.
On the other hand...if you guys know of a ultra cared for route for the high and mighty, let me know. I'd love to check it out.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Michael Bates,
Did Inhofe even try for matching funds? This would effect my decision. I can't find any information on whether or not he tried to follow through. How about Sullivan?
Oh, and I can pretty much guess Doctor Senator Coburn's reaction, but I wonder about the others.
I don't know for sure. I've been told that the county never made a formal request, but they may have not made a request because they had no hope of getting funds.
There was a KOTV report on or about July 31, 2003, that federal funds for low-water dams on the Arkansas River were an "impossibility for the forseeable future." Emory Bryan spoke off the record with congressional staff who told him that funds for the cleanup of Tar Creek were a higher priority.
I blogged about it at the time, but none of the proponents of Vision 2025 seemed alarmed by the news. Unfortunately, I can't find the full story in the Wayback Machine or on KOTV's website, so I don't know if KOTV had reaction from any of the county commissioners. As I mention above, Bob Dick seemed confident that Vision 2025 overages could handle any underestimate of cost or overestimate of outside funding.
INCOG, The Corps, Tulsa County, The City of Tulsa and the City of Jenks and others have made numerous presentations working up the Corps of Engineers ladder all the way to the Under Secretary of the Army for Public Works (who came to Tulsa expressly to see the proposed River and Navigation Channel improvement projects...at the Senator's request). At this and other similar presentations I have participated in both of Oklahoma Senate offices were well represented and funding was discussed.
Inhofe is trying for some Federal money again right now, from "breaking news" on tulsaworld.com
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070731_1__WASHI47057&breadcrumb=Breaking%20News
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe is using a major water resources bill to authorize $50 million for certain components of a Arkansas River development plan and millions more to complete the on-going buyout at the Tar Creek Superfund site.
Once again, the Oklahoma Republican used his key position as the ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to push those two huge projects and others around the state.
They are included in the latest version of the Water Resources Development Act, a much-delayed and much-anticipated piece of legislation that could go to final vote within days.
The measure was filed in the U.S. House of Represenatives Tuesday morning.
The bill's wording calls for the money to be used to carry out ecosystem restoration, recreation and flood damage reduction components of the Arkansas River plan.
"This gets us as close to providing help for the Arkansas River as we can," said an Inhofe aide.
To complete the on-going buyout at Tar Creek , Inhofe has included language in the bill to provide another $30 million.
The bill also provides changes in the way the the buyout is funded in the future, so that the costs most likely would be charged to the EPA
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
The Bonding issue is that the longer the term, the more it costs. If that conflicts with the available amount of revenue, it matters.
IF, for example, $50 million of extra V2025 revenue is expected, you can't just bond $50 million. The TOTAL bond cost includes interest over the term and a bonding agent fee up front.
In that sense, it's just like any other loan, actually more like a mortgage with closing costs.
Thanks, this is helpful.
The scope and budget are inversely related, obviously. To demand that the County complete the two damns they mentioned with only partial, matching funds, is an unreasonble position, IMO. It's a hyperbolic argument, but I can see how some people might use it.
Nevertheless, if there's a chance to wring as much out of V2025 as the law allows, and therefore reduce or eliminate the need for a new request, then that's worth pursuing.
So, if there is a chance, I think you must also study the opportunity cost of doing it sooner, rather than later.
In my opinion, this has the potential to boost revenues in the city, directly, and indirectly by raising the image and attractiveness and growing the population of Tulsa. Delaying the investment in order to knock down the bond rate a couple of points may be overcareful. This point is underscored if, in fact, the private leverage demands quick action...and I think they do.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
The county is not "obligated" at all to put water in the river between 81st and 31st. The dams even if built with 2025 money do nothing for that part of the river.
You're going to have expand on that, it doesn't make sense.
Am I?
Then you have not been paying attention very closely. The two dams that 2025 provides matching funds for are to be located in Sand Springs and at 106th. The Sand Springs dam will impound water in Sand Springs only. The 106th St Dam will create a lake from 106th to somewhere between 81st and 71st.
Vision 2025 allocated nothing for the reach between the 31st St Dam (the existing one which backs up water to downtown) and 81st. No money, no promises, there's nothing in it for that part of the river. The Kaiser plan address that part of the river too.
I watched the linked clips of Michael and Randi going back and forth. I saw a commissioner who wouldn't listen and refused to answer direct questions in kind. As far as I can tell, she's a silver-tongued devil. Michael's vexation was nothing compared to what I expected, having read the thread before checking out the videos. "...red-faced foam-flecked mouthed..." is ridiculous hyperbole.
"Are you an engineer?" That bit was a quick and dirty tactic allowing her to claim that he wouldn't cooperate and wouldn't answer her questions.
Nobody knows what the hell is going on or even what to do. That being the case, why should I vote in another tax? "Here, take some more of my money and mess around with it, results and goals be damned."
Not a chance.
Sure, there was a little hyperbole. I have no idea if Michael was foaming at the mouth. I need to log onto another computer to get my email and then post the end of the sequence.
I really, really hate to beat a dead horse (yeeeeaaah . . .) but MBates you did not give the impression you said flat out I did something and you said 'in person.' Come on, dude.
The difference between you, me, and Paul Tay? Paul Tay was never invited back to this forum and Paul Tay would have been thrown out of the meeting.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Am I?
Then you have not been paying attention very closely. The two dams that 2025 provides matching funds for are to be located in Sand Springs and at 106th. The Sand Springs dam will impound water in Sand Springs only. The 106th St Dam will create a lake from 106th to somewhere between 81st and 71st.
Vision 2025 allocated nothing for the reach between the 31st St Dam (the existing one which backs up water to downtown) and 81st. No money, no promises, there's nothing in it for that part of the river. The Kaiser plan address that part of the river too.
Seems like your jenks dam is about a mile too far downstream.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Paul Tay was never invited back to this forum and Paul Tay would have been thrown out of the meeting.
In a Santa Suite. But hey, at least the man doesnt take himself too seriously. Probably not seriously enough, but for sure... not too seriously.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Interesting idea sgizzle.
How about a 10,000 dollar tax just when there are lots of visitors in town?
For every dollar they spend, we would collect ten thousand in tax?
I could put off grocery shopping for a week...
I'm okay with that. I think Southern Hills should be giving the city 5-10% of what they're making to pay for all of this cleanup too.
I think SHCC will be getting a new tax bill....the previous ad valorem bill was based on $4,000,000....the new one should be substantially higher.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Am I?
Then you have not been paying attention very closely. The two dams that 2025 provides matching funds for are to be located in Sand Springs and at 106th. The Sand Springs dam will impound water in Sand Springs only. The 106th St Dam will create a lake from 106th to somewhere between 81st and 71st.
Vision 2025 allocated nothing for the reach between the 31st St Dam (the existing one which backs up water to downtown) and 81st. No money, no promises, there's nothing in it for that part of the river. The Kaiser plan address that part of the river too.
Seems like your jenks dam is about a mile too far downstream.
For water flow reasons the dam has to be placed before the outflow of Polecat creek which enters the Arkansas just before 111th. The "106th" is an approximation, but the dam is going to be placed between the outflow Polecat, at about 110th and The Creek Turnpike, which is just south of 101st on the west bank and just north of 101st on the east. I've been told this is the location of the dam and it will be closer to Polecat creek than the Creek Turnpike.
Be careful debating our good Mayor. She was a master debater in high school and college. She knows when to keep quiet and how to push buttons.
It would be a shame to look this gift horse in the mouth and respond with "no way". There has to be a way to get there from here.
Where are The Channels folks in all this?
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Be careful debating our good Mayor. She was a master debater in high school and college. She knows when to keep quiet and how to push buttons.
It would be a shame to look this gift horse in the mouth and respond with "no way". There has to be a way to get there from here.
Where are The Channels folks in all this?
Pouting
quote:
She was a master debater in high school
So was I...wait...what?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
She was a master debater in high school
So was I...wait...what?
Still? Pouting?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
She was a master debater in high school
So was I...wait...what?
[}:)]
well, I have no like for Master Bates, but Randi Miller is a flat out LIAR. Bates was right to call her out on it. It is high time they quit playing the public for fools and someone brings up what THEY proposed. Look at the video, she is sitting there DENYING what the actual ballot said! I hope everyone at the meeting figures that out. The ballot said what the ballot said.
Now Inhofe is making another play for those funds again, if the county was smart they would put off this vote until that is resolved, because if they have a vote proposal while these federal funds are being sought, people are going to have doubts when they go to the polls.
From the Tulsa World article:
included in the latest version of the Water Resources Development Act, a much-delayed and much-anticipated piece of legislation that could go to final vote within days.
The congressional vote will likely take place well before the commission even votes, much less the public.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
The county is not "obligated" at all to put water in the river between 81st and 31st. The dams even if built with 2025 money do nothing for that part of the river.
You're going to have expand on that, it doesn't make sense.
Am I?
Then you have not been paying attention very closely. The two dams that 2025 provides matching funds for are to be located in Sand Springs and at 106th. The Sand Springs dam will impound water in Sand Springs only. The 106th St Dam will create a lake from 106th to somewhere between 81st and 71st.
Vision 2025 allocated nothing for the reach between the 31st St Dam (the existing one which backs up water to downtown) and 81st. No money, no promises, there's nothing in it for that part of the river. The Kaiser plan address that part of the river too.
I guess it depends on what your definition of
"is" "water in the river" is.
You may have some inside info. I've been paying attention and there's been no public distinction made there. V2025 was waiting on the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan to determine requirements, placements, etc.
So, to now suggest one solves a 'problem' with the other isn't reality.
And, I never heard Randi Miller or anyone else saying, "Oh, you guys wanted water in that part, too!"
Appears to me the dams themselves are discrete issues in need of public input and guidance. Sounds like there's quite a few behind-the-scene decisions being made ad hock.
But, it's not being presented either way. And, the public is thinking "water in the river" means "water in the river".
I can't wait for Ms. Miller to stand up and tell Tulsans they can expect absolutely no visible change in their section of the river.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
The county is not "obligated" at all to put water in the river between 81st and 31st. The dams even if built with 2025 money do nothing for that part of the river.
You're going to have expand on that, it doesn't make sense.
Am I?
Then you have not been paying attention very closely. The two dams that 2025 provides matching funds for are to be located in Sand Springs and at 106th. The Sand Springs dam will impound water in Sand Springs only. The 106th St Dam will create a lake from 106th to somewhere between 81st and 71st.
Vision 2025 allocated nothing for the reach between the 31st St Dam (the existing one which backs up water to downtown) and 81st. No money, no promises, there's nothing in it for that part of the river. The Kaiser plan address that part of the river too.
I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" "water in the river" is.
You may have some inside info. I've been paying attention and there's been no public distinction made there. V2025 was waiting on the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan to determine requirements, placements, etc.
So, to now suggest one solves a 'problem' with the other isn't reality.
And, I never heard Randi Miller or anyone else saying, "Oh, you guys wanted water in that part, too!"
Appears to me the dams themselves are discrete issues in need of public input and guidance. Sounds like there's quite a few behind-the-scene decisions being made ad hock.
But, it's not being presented either way. And, the public is thinking "water in the river" means "water in the river".
I can't wait for Ms. Miller to stand up and tell Tulsans they can expect absolutely no visible change in their section of the river.
The Kaiser plan does put water in this section, but 2025 does not address it.
You really need to study this issue further
DSchutler has this but edited it out of HisTulsaWhirled.
Looks, sounds, walks like a . . . (//%22http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6710362855241318851&hl=en%22)
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
The county is not "obligated" at all to put water in the river between 81st and 31st. The dams even if built with 2025 money do nothing for that part of the river.
You're going to have expand on that, it doesn't make sense.
Am I?
Then you have not been paying attention very closely. The two dams that 2025 provides matching funds for are to be located in Sand Springs and at 106th. The Sand Springs dam will impound water in Sand Springs only. The 106th St Dam will create a lake from 106th to somewhere between 81st and 71st.
Vision 2025 allocated nothing for the reach between the 31st St Dam (the existing one which backs up water to downtown) and 81st. No money, no promises, there's nothing in it for that part of the river. The Kaiser plan address that part of the river too.
I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" "water in the river" is.
You may have some inside info. I've been paying attention and there's been no public distinction made there. V2025 was waiting on the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan to determine requirements, placements, etc.
So, to now suggest one solves a 'problem' with the other isn't reality.
And, I never heard Randi Miller or anyone else saying, "Oh, you guys wanted water in that part, too!"
Appears to me the dams themselves are discrete issues in need of public input and guidance. Sounds like there's quite a few behind-the-scene decisions being made ad hock.
But, it's not being presented either way. And, the public is thinking "water in the river" means "water in the river".
I can't wait for Ms. Miller to stand up and tell Tulsans they can expect absolutely no visible change in their section of the river.
The Kaiser plan does put water in this section, but 2025 does not address it.
You really need to study this issue further
Semantics. [not the AV folks]
V2025 said it'd do what the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan recommended.
I am sorry if it was unclear in the above post, but I have uploaded what little bit I could capture on my SonyEricsson Z520's VGA onto videogoogle.
Just another hallucination, that 'screaming' description . . . (//%22http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6710362855241318851&hl=en%22)
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
The county is not "obligated" at all to put water in the river between 81st and 31st. The dams even if built with 2025 money do nothing for that part of the river.
You're going to have expand on that, it doesn't make sense.
Am I?
Then you have not been paying attention very closely. The two dams that 2025 provides matching funds for are to be located in Sand Springs and at 106th. The Sand Springs dam will impound water in Sand Springs only. The 106th St Dam will create a lake from 106th to somewhere between 81st and 71st.
Vision 2025 allocated nothing for the reach between the 31st St Dam (the existing one which backs up water to downtown) and 81st. No money, no promises, there's nothing in it for that part of the river. The Kaiser plan address that part of the river too.
I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" "water in the river" is.
You may have some inside info. I've been paying attention and there's been no public distinction made there. V2025 was waiting on the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan to determine requirements, placements, etc.
So, to now suggest one solves a 'problem' with the other isn't reality.
And, I never heard Randi Miller or anyone else saying, "Oh, you guys wanted water in that part, too!"
Appears to me the dams themselves are discrete issues in need of public input and guidance. Sounds like there's quite a few behind-the-scene decisions being made ad hock.
But, it's not being presented either way. And, the public is thinking "water in the river" means "water in the river".
I can't wait for Ms. Miller to stand up and tell Tulsans they can expect absolutely no visible change in their section of the river.
The Kaiser plan does put water in this section, but 2025 does not address it.
You really need to study this issue further
Semantics. [not the AV folks]
V2025 said it'd do what the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan recommended.
And where did it say that? Not on the ballot, that's for sure. You were either educated on what was planned, or you were not.
What was said at the time of the vote is that the 2025 money was matching funds for two dams and that placement of the dams would follow the master plan, and they are. The master plan recommended the first two dams built be at 106th and in Sand Springs. You have a pretty selective memory it seems.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
And where did it say that? Not on the ballot, that's for sure. You were either educated on what was planned, or you were not.
What was said at the time of the vote is that the 2025 money was matching funds for two dams and that placement of the dams would follow the master plan, and they are. The master plan recommended the first two dams built be at 106th and in Sand Springs. You have a pretty selective memory it seems.
swake is correct that Vision 2025 did not include any work on the river between 31st and 71st. It included:
quote:
Construct two low water dams on Arkansas River the locations of which will be determined in the Arkansas River Corridor Plan
Zink Lake Shoreline Beautification
Design and construct Zink Lake Upstream Catch Basin and silt removal
The 31st to 71st work could be potentially be done by borrowing against projected Vision 2025 overage -- I believe there would be enough for this as well as the projects promised in Vision 2025 -- by borrowing against projected 4 to Fix the County overage, or by extending Vision 2025 and borrowing against those future revenues.
In reference to what Wrinkle said about interest rates and bonds, remember that even if we had the cash on hand today for the new dams, the Zink modifications, and the "living river" section, construction wouldn't be able to start for some time because the Corps 404 permitting process isn't complete. I'm not sure what the time frame is -- years, I would guess -- but the key point is that the bulk of funding for "water in the river" won't need to be bonded right away, which means a shorter gap between issuing the bonds and collecting the revenue.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
The county is not "obligated" at all to put water in the river between 81st and 31st. The dams even if built with 2025 money do nothing for that part of the river.
You're going to have expand on that, it doesn't make sense.
Am I?
Then you have not been paying attention very closely. The two dams that 2025 provides matching funds for are to be located in Sand Springs and at 106th. The Sand Springs dam will impound water in Sand Springs only. The 106th St Dam will create a lake from 106th to somewhere between 81st and 71st.
Vision 2025 allocated nothing for the reach between the 31st St Dam (the existing one which backs up water to downtown) and 81st. No money, no promises, there's nothing in it for that part of the river. The Kaiser plan address that part of the river too.
I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" "water in the river" is.
You may have some inside info. I've been paying attention and there's been no public distinction made there. V2025 was waiting on the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan to determine requirements, placements, etc.
So, to now suggest one solves a 'problem' with the other isn't reality.
And, I never heard Randi Miller or anyone else saying, "Oh, you guys wanted water in that part, too!"
Appears to me the dams themselves are discrete issues in need of public input and guidance. Sounds like there's quite a few behind-the-scene decisions being made ad hock.
But, it's not being presented either way. And, the public is thinking "water in the river" means "water in the river".
I can't wait for Ms. Miller to stand up and tell Tulsans they can expect absolutely no visible change in their section of the river.
The Kaiser plan does put water in this section, but 2025 does not address it.
You really need to study this issue further
Semantics. [not the AV folks]
V2025 said it'd do what the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan recommended.
And where did it say that? Not on the ballot, that's for sure. You were either educated on what was planned, or you were not.
What was said at the time of the vote is that the 2025 money was matching funds for two dams and that placement of the dams would follow the master plan, and they are. The master plan recommended the first two dams built be at 106th and in Sand Springs. You have a pretty selective memory it seems.
We're not saying anything different with regard to the location of the dams.
You're contending V2025 provides only $5.4 mil when the clear intent was to include them regardless of Fed funding.
Still, that plan puts no additional water in Tulsa's section of the river. So, Tulsans could take a snapshot now and it'll do for generations.
And, the current plan only digs a 500' wide channel to flow water, about 1/3rd the river width, and, apparently, on the west side. So, wouldn't look much different either, for $90 mil.
Here's your ballot:
http://www.vision2025.info/includes/pages/downloads/uploads/04/file.pdf
It says "construct two low water dams on Arkansas River locations of which will be determined in the Arkansas River Corridor Plan." ($5.4 mil)
and, "design and construct Zink Lake upstream catch basin and silt removal" ($2.1 mil)
Matching funds (to use your words) were not addressed.
Years.... but worth the wait. I won't be here but think it's a blessing to have this opportunity.
Where's the money?
Maybe Mr. Crowe might know....
Funding is but one issue of several LARGE ones.
This plan is primarily funding for Jenks and Sand Springs, courtesy of Tulsa once again.
And, it's a County Sales Tax, reducing the margin available to Tulsa and all the rest of the communities in the entire County for their own local needs of police, fire, etc.
But, the largest, overriding reason to oppose this plan is the NEW County Authority.
That would be something of great regret.
Let Tulsa, and each other river community decide how to develop their own portions of the river. If they decide to adopt the Master Plan, fine. But, it's their choice. We don't need 5 people (the Commissioners usually place themselves and two others they select onto the boards of these authorities) deciding who gets what when and would also own the land.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by swake
And where did it say that? Not on the ballot, that's for sure. You were either educated on what was planned, or you were not.
What was said at the time of the vote is that the 2025 money was matching funds for two dams and that placement of the dams would follow the master plan, and they are. The master plan recommended the first two dams built be at 106th and in Sand Springs. You have a pretty selective memory it seems.
swake is correct that Vision 2025 did not include any work on the river between 31st and 71st. It included:
quote:
Construct two low water dams on Arkansas River the locations of which will be determined in the Arkansas River Corridor Plan
Zink Lake Shoreline Beautification
Design and construct Zink Lake Upstream Catch Basin and silt removal
The 31st to 71st work could be potentially be done by borrowing against projected Vision 2025 overage -- I believe there would be enough for this as well as the projects promised in Vision 2025 -- by borrowing against projected 4 to Fix the County overage, or by extending Vision 2025 and borrowing against those future revenues.
Do the math...I wanna see it, MB.
None of that fuzzy s**t either.
Or, are you not a hydrologist, so you can't say how much a dam should cost?
Oh...And I want my dams to have Pedestrian crossings on them, so include that in your calculations.
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by swake
And where did it say that? Not on the ballot, that's for sure. You were either educated on what was planned, or you were not.
What was said at the time of the vote is that the 2025 money was matching funds for two dams and that placement of the dams would follow the master plan, and they are. The master plan recommended the first two dams built be at 106th and in Sand Springs. You have a pretty selective memory it seems.
swake is correct that Vision 2025 did not include any work on the river between 31st and 71st. It included:
quote:
Construct two low water dams on Arkansas River the locations of which will be determined in the Arkansas River Corridor Plan
Zink Lake Shoreline Beautification
Design and construct Zink Lake Upstream Catch Basin and silt removal
The 31st to 71st work could be potentially be done by borrowing against projected Vision 2025 overage -- I believe there would be enough for this as well as the projects promised in Vision 2025 -- by borrowing against projected 4 to Fix the County overage, or by extending Vision 2025 and borrowing against those future revenues.
Do the math...I wanna see it, MB.
None of that fuzzy s**t either.
Or, are you not a hydrologist, so you can't say how much a dam should cost?
Oh...And I want my dams to have Pedestrian crossings on them, so include that in your calculations.
A hydrologist is an engineer not an accountant. No plans have yet asked for pedestrian crossings on the dams so might as well ask for a bullet train while you're at it.
But I too would like to know how v-2025 money overages could be used. Two things come to mind that are important to this decision and they have little to do with financing.
1. The major benefits of this expenditure are going to Jenks and SS. The group asking to develop at West Bank park may or may not come through Swake, but if the project is voted in the dams are a certainty. We could be left with nothing but a living river which will not be a tax revenue producer.
2.It is going to take several more years to even get approval of the dams and river changes from the fed authorities. With that in mind the tax seems unneccessary if v2025 overages can be legally tapped for this purpose and coincide with approval dates.
quote:
Oh...And I want my dams to have Pedestrian crossings on them, so include that in your calculations.
Add 36" fence and handrails
Now I'm wondering why it is the existing pedestrian bridge is closed again for the second straight summer. Perhaps to build some enthusiasm from potential users?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
What about the $60 million for land for a Tulsa Landing?
The current plan has land purchases AND infrastructure improvements funded at only $56.4 mil, for the ENTIRE COUNTY.
So, maybe I should be asking where's that $60 mil for Branson Landing?
As an aside, it appears the City of Tulsa and the County have no plans for Branson Landing developers at that location.
New poll says voters are unconvinced
http://tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070801_238_A1_hOthe57076
quote:
Only 39 percent of the 500 likely Tulsa County voters surveyed July 26 through 28 for the Tulsa World and KOTV Channel 6 said they supported the proposal.
More than half -- 52 percent -- were against it.
Nine percent were undecided.
It seems that most people want streets fixed. I do think that the River would help Tulsa's bottom line. But I think you also have to consider this idea, as the County is proposing it, would consume some of the City's only potential resource for "street-fixing" funds, i.e., the sales tax.
The county is setting the voters up for a clear choice, i.e., streets or River, when they have other potential revenue sources to turn to: property taxes, revisiting V2025, existing 4-to-fixes. If they don't get creative pretty soon, they may blow this.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Funding is but one issue of several LARGE ones.
This plan is primarily funding for Jenks and Sand Springs, courtesy of Tulsa once again.
And, it's a County Sales Tax, reducing the margin available to Tulsa and all the rest of the communities in the entire County for their own local needs of police, fire, etc.
But, the largest, overriding reason to oppose this plan is the NEW County Authority.
That would be something of great regret.
Let Tulsa, and each other river community decide how to develop their own portions of the river. If they decide to adopt the Master Plan, fine. But, it's their choice. We don't need 5 people (the Commissioners usually place themselves and two others they select onto the boards of these authorities) deciding who gets what when and would also own the land.
Primarily Jenks and Sand Springs? You do love to play loose with facts don't you?
Jenks will have shoreline from 106th to 91st (the Jenks city limits on the west bank), Tulsa has the rest of the west Bank and the entire east bank from the 106th St dam.
And one of the main components of a Sand Springs dam is protection and improvement of water flow and silting of the lower dams.
The Kaiser plan provides for the entire Tulsa riverfront north of 106th, something like 30 total miles of riverbank. Compared to 1.5 for Jenks.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Funding is but one issue of several LARGE ones.
This plan is primarily funding for Jenks and Sand Springs, courtesy of Tulsa once again.
And, it's a County Sales Tax, reducing the margin available to Tulsa and all the rest of the communities in the entire County for their own local needs of police, fire, etc.
But, the largest, overriding reason to oppose this plan is the NEW County Authority.
That would be something of great regret.
Let Tulsa, and each other river community decide how to develop their own portions of the river. If they decide to adopt the Master Plan, fine. But, it's their choice. We don't need 5 people (the Commissioners usually place themselves and two others they select onto the boards of these authorities) deciding who gets what when and would also own the land.
Primarily Jenks and Sand Springs? You do love to play loose with facts don't you?
Jenks will have shoreline from 106th to 91st (the Jenks city limits on the west bank), Tulsa has the rest of the west Bank and the entire east bank from the 106th St dam.
And one of the main components of a Sand Springs dam is protection and improvement of water flow and silting of the lower dams.
The Kaiser plan provides for the entire Tulsa riverfront north of 106th, something like 30 total miles of riverbank. Compared to 1.5 for Jenks.
The riverbank north of 91st on the east hardly lends itself to commercial development. Too narrow, too controversial. Park expansion in reality. No tax revenue there.
The West bank north of 91st would be Turkey mountain (spoken for), a sewage treatment plant, two miles of industrial concrete and trucking companies then finally 2 miles of developable land similar to what Jenks has.
Thats preposterous to assert that the SS dam is for water flow and silt control. Don't get me started on that one. It is development pure and simple. If it was for silt control it is at their expense. It will fill with sand quite quickly. If it was just for water and silt control it would be built cheaper and more effieciently off of county land farther down stream.
I want to believe Swake, but you have to show me more.
I think TulsaNow should sponsor a SS to BA River Ride.
Because folk tend to view the final and first entries only, I wanted to be sure that everyone heard just the bit of the outburst that I caught on my SonyEricsson Z520 videophone (//%22http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6710362855241318851&hl=en%22).
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
I think TulsaNow should sponsor a SS to BA River Ride.
Because folk tend to view the final and first entries only, I wanted to be sure that everyone heard just the bit of the outburst that I caught on my SonyEricsson Z520 videophone (//%22http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6710362855241318851&hl=en%22).
Holy crap...obsessed much?
Man, now Im disappointed. I'm actually been waiting for a video of Bates Gone Wild. Instead we get Bates gets emotional.
Call me when he throws a chair. [;)]
I would never, ever exaggerate just to have fun and give someone a hard time. Not never! [}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Funding is but one issue of several LARGE ones.
This plan is primarily funding for Jenks and Sand Springs, courtesy of Tulsa once again.
And, it's a County Sales Tax, reducing the margin available to Tulsa and all the rest of the communities in the entire County for their own local needs of police, fire, etc.
But, the largest, overriding reason to oppose this plan is the NEW County Authority.
That would be something of great regret.
Let Tulsa, and each other river community decide how to develop their own portions of the river. If they decide to adopt the Master Plan, fine. But, it's their choice. We don't need 5 people (the Commissioners usually place themselves and two others they select onto the boards of these authorities) deciding who gets what when and would also own the land.
Primarily Jenks and Sand Springs? You do love to play loose with facts don't you?
Jenks will have shoreline from 106th to 91st (the Jenks city limits on the west bank), Tulsa has the rest of the west Bank and the entire east bank from the 106th St dam.
And one of the main components of a Sand Springs dam is protection and improvement of water flow and silting of the lower dams.
The Kaiser plan provides for the entire Tulsa riverfront north of 106th, something like 30 total miles of riverbank. Compared to 1.5 for Jenks.
The riverbank north of 91st on the east hardly lends itself to commercial development. Too narrow, too controversial. Park expansion in reality. No tax revenue there.
The West bank north of 91st would be Turkey mountain (spoken for), a sewage treatment plant, two miles of industrial concrete and trucking companies then finally 2 miles of developable land similar to what Jenks has.
Thats preposterous to assert that the SS dam is for water flow and silt control. Don't get me started on that one. It is development pure and simple. If it was for silt control it is at their expense. It will fill with sand quite quickly. If it was just for water and silt control it would be built cheaper and more effieciently off of county land farther down stream.
I want to believe Swake, but you have to show me more.
Ok, then how about spending by city. If I recall correctly the plan has 198 million for Tulsa, 26 each for Jenks and Sand Springs and 8 for Bixby and 5 for Broken Arrow.
I while I know these numbers are really suspect since they are from the Tax Vampires at the Tulsa World, I had Space Ghost check them out and all is good.
[:D]I've always respected Space Ghost.
Why is this method of financing superior to waiting for v2025 overages that may coincide with federal approval for the river plans? They can't start working on the river till those plans are approved anyway.
OML (on my lunch break).
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
[:D]I've always respected Space Ghost.
Why is this method of financing superior to waiting for v2025 overages that may coincide with federal approval for the river plans? They can't start working on the river till those plans are approved anyway.
OML (on my lunch break).
It's not.
Waterboy, tell me again why we need a $90 million bar ditch in the river?
I thought I heard you stake claim to this idea. What's the benefit?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
[:D]I've always respected Space Ghost.
Why is this method of financing superior to waiting for v2025 overages that may coincide with federal approval for the river plans? They can't start working on the river till those plans are approved anyway.
OML (on my lunch break).
Let's say we are a year or even more out from being to start construction. But, even so, and I'm no banker, but, we are talking bond money here, and if we use an extension of the 2025 tax and even with using overages we be accruing interest on almost $300 million for 5-6 years with no payments. That cost would be massive, really massive.
It's like buying a car with no payments for a year, it's stupid.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
[:D]I've always respected Space Ghost.
Why is this method of financing superior to waiting for v2025 overages that may coincide with federal approval for the river plans? They can't start working on the river till those plans are approved anyway.
OML (on my lunch break).
Let's say we are a year or even more out from being to start construction. But, even so, and I'm no banker, but, we are talking bond money here, and if we use an extension of the 2025 tax and even with using overages we be accruing interest on almost $300 million for 5-6 years with no payments. That cost would be massive, really massive.
It's like buying a car with no payments for a year, it's stupid.
Stupid like the $76 million in bond debt on the New City Hall??
NO PRINCIPAL reduction for the first five years. Or, until Kathy Taylor has moved on to a new job; whichever comes last.
Now, that will really escalate the total interest costs over the life of the bonded indebtedness.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
[:D]I've always respected Space Ghost.
Why is this method of financing superior to waiting for v2025 overages that may coincide with federal approval for the river plans? They can't start working on the river till those plans are approved anyway.
OML (on my lunch break).
It's not.
Waterboy, tell me again why we need a $90 million bar ditch in the river?
I thought I heard you stake claim to this idea. What's the benefit?
Why pick a fight with me? Bar ditch? $90 million? How would I know. Begging a negative?[;)]
I am a proponent of a natural plains river being changed as little as possible. That comes from my first hand experience that few others around here have. No nature enthusiast who I've met feels any different. Forcing water into this type of river to satisfy visual aesthetics is courting trouble and working against nature. Entire species of fish may dissapear. Lots of wildlife and birds depend on the fluctuation of water and dryness this type river affords.
But this is a democracy (or a republic if you want to argue) and my view is minority. So if we're going to force water into it and try to keep the water in it during dry periods then the living river concept being alternated with impounded water is a good compromise.
It works something like this. You work with the river to direct its energy into maintaining a channel. Much of the river's energy is dissipated because of varying river bed levels, sand bars, meandering etc. If you use jetties (also called wing dams) to force the water into straight narrow areas, the water carves out the sand and makes a navigable channel. These dams are similar to a low water only they have no operating parts and only go part way across the river. Think the PSO jettie that creates "the Wave" for the kayakers. The bonus is that land builds up in front of the jettie. Since you now know where the water will be, you can begin to harden the banks of the new channel using rip/rap or debris. These jetties and banks are popular with fishermen and naturists.
When the water level is high during the spring/fall rains it can rise above the jetty, if necessary, becoming a bank to bank river. Being below the low water dam, there would be plenty of time to warn people just like the Zink dam does.
What you get is:
1. Navigable channel
2. Low cost construction and maintenance
3. Natural scouring meaning no expensive dredgers
4. Year round water in the river (a smaller river)
5. The ecology of the river is sustained
6. Aesthetically the view from either side of the river would be very nice. You still have large expanses of sand punctuated with a river.
7. You can operate boats close to year round.
I may not like all the features of this plan, particularly what is left out, but you can't say its a boondoggle. If done right, the river will attract lots of attention and commercial development. But they're going to have to answer some questions about financing and development pretty quick.
Actually, at the time I percieved this as canals that ran parallel to the river bank with the jetties creating them. Is that clear?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Actually, at the time I percieved this as canals that ran parallel to the river bank with the jetties creating them. Is that clear?
That was great. But, I'm having a little trouble with #2 above. After all, $90 million represents 1/3rd of the project total.
I wasn't sure if this actually allowed navigation at all, from 11th street to 106th street, but pretty sure it does NOT from 11th to SS.
And, it sounds like if you build the dams to achieve this, then the channeling is done for you. If so, why does this cost so much?
Well, like it matters at this point. This plan is so screwed up, I can't begin to support it. Mostly, as I said earlier, due to the new County Authority, but certainly since Ms. Miller is having trouble recalling her prior promises.
It needs cleaning up at the very least.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
[:D]I've always respected Space Ghost.
Why is this method of financing superior to waiting for v2025 overages that may coincide with federal approval for the river plans? They can't start working on the river till those plans are approved anyway.
OML (on my lunch break).
Let's say we are a year or even more out from being to start construction. But, even so, and I'm no banker, but, we are talking bond money here, and if we use an extension of the 2025 tax and even with using overages we be accruing interest on almost $300 million for 5-6 years with no payments. That cost would be massive, really massive.
It's like buying a car with no payments for a year, it's stupid.
I did some number on Bates' idea of using overages and an extension of Vision 2025.
Let's say we get a favorable bond rating on the bond for the river at say 4%. Let's also say for arguments sake that construction (and the bond sale) starts in about a year and that 2025 is paid for a very generous two years early. That means that for six years the river bond will accrue interest without payments. That $288 million suddenly becomes $364 million. It would add another $76 million dollars to the total amount to be bonded for the river, another $76 million in interest, nothing tangible, just interest.
Does that sound fiscally responsible and conservative?
No.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
I did some number on Bates' idea of using overages and an extension of Vision 2025.
Let's say we get a favorable bond rating on the bond for the river at say 4%. Let's also say for arguments sake that construction (and the bond sale) starts in about a year and that 2025 is paid for a very generous two years early. That means that for six years the river bond will accrue interest without payments. That $288 million suddenly becomes $364 million. It would add another $76 million dollars to the total amount to be bonded for the river, another $76 million in interest, nothing tangible, just interest.
Does that sound fiscally responsible and conservative?
No.
But that's precisely the way the arena overrun was financed. And almost none of Vision 2025 was pay-as-you-go. (The retirement of the Jenks Aquarium debt is, I believe, the lone exception.) The intent was to spend the entire 13 years' worth of revenue during the first six years of its collection.
So how much interest and bond fees are we paying on the current Vision 2025 bonds? If I understand correctly, Tulsa County Industrial Authority has borrowed close to half a billion dollars, with bonds being issued in 2003 and 2005, plus the additional bonds for the arena overage. (If the Vision 2025 monthly reports were available online, I could be more precise.)
I wouldn't advocate doing the entire $282 million proposal with Vision 2025 funds or indeed with any sort of county tax.
At least, Vision 2025 should pay for the promised low water dams and modifications to Zink Lake. According to Rich Brierre of INCOG those items would total $75 million.
At most, Vision 2025 and/or other county funding should pay for the "Water in the River" projects. That's listed as $154.85 million, but that includes about $12 million in sops to Bixby and Broken Arrow for "river studies". So let's call it $143 million (rounding up), about half of the amount the county is asking for in this tax package. (But we still need to see the line item breakdown and the justification. The estimated price per low water dam keeps going up in big increments.) That's the most I could justify financing via Vision 2025 or any other county source.
The remainder of the projects -- pedestrian bridges, downtown connectors, land acquisition -- should be funded by and controlled by the municipalities as they see fit, and as balanced against priorities like streets and public safety.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Actually, at the time I percieved this as canals that ran parallel to the river bank with the jetties creating them. Is that clear?
That was great. But, I'm having a little trouble with #2 above. After all, $90 million represents 1/3rd of the project total.
I wasn't sure if this actually allowed navigation at all, from 11th street to 106th street, but pretty sure it does NOT from 11th to SS.
And, it sounds like if you build the dams to achieve this, then the channeling is done for you. If so, why does this cost so much?
Mostly, as I said earlier, due to the new County Authority,
It needs cleaning up at the very least.
I am spending more of my grey matter and physical being just trying to make ends meet. The river is gradually slipping into a memory. I share that frustration with a lot of other Tulsans. I couldn't even go to these plan meetings because I work till 7pm. So it is important that you folks who have the knowledge of financing, details of the plan and insights- use them carefully to distill this plan to the rest of us. Make the financing clear, the object of the plan obvious and our faith in your leadership unassailable and it will pass. Let it become political/emotional sniping and we all lose.
#2 is a relative observation. It is generally cheaper to use bulldozers and dump trucks to create natural impediments to the river than concrete, rebar and collapsible gates. However, I would guess any form of river manipulation is expensive to start out. Buying your first house is the hardest, the others build on the equity of the first right?
As far as navigation, this is my stumbling point for the plan. I haven't examined it closely, but I'm told the mindset is still "not navigable". I think we suffer from not having an orientation to water here. We're plains people not Gulf coast. Maybe they're thinking of boats with 4-6ft drafts like on the Mississippi. Those boats, no. But shallow draft pontoons, barges, lightweights should be able to travel along these canals. But since there is NO connection between the lakes it is a serious limitation for commercial boats like dinner cruises, casino junkets, historical rides, day trips on canoes, kayaks etc. Each lake or living river area is not big enough to justify operations. The small river taxis on the Bricktown canal aren't doing that well for the same reason. The retail, casino area of Jenks would be separated from any retail in Tulsa and SS. It's like building a 3500ft home with only one bath in the basement. The official word from INCOG is that its not possible, too expensive or too little demand. "Any color you want as long as its black". My gut reaction is that they don't know how, or they fear the complexity of controlling/regulating a marginally navigable waterway. Easier to blow it off.
The area between SS and 11th street will definitely be impacted. It depends on how the water flow will be allocated among the lakes. It could become even more navigable if it results in constant release. I kayak that area, ran airboats along that area and it does have a defined channel. Again, it depends on what is considered navigable or commercially navigable.
I was a supporter of the creation of an authority to provide some direction to what will be conflicting needs of each of the cities along the river. They could end up fighting for more water or less. Even that is not clear to me anymore. INCOG can do that. The corps. can do that. And I'm leary of a three member county commission making the decisions for such disparate interests even if they "sub contract" it to advisory committees.
Off to work.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by swake
I did some number on Bates' idea of using overages and an extension of Vision 2025.
Let's say we get a favorable bond rating on the bond for the river at say 4%. Let's also say for arguments sake that construction (and the bond sale) starts in about a year and that 2025 is paid for a very generous two years early. That means that for six years the river bond will accrue interest without payments. That $288 million suddenly becomes $364 million. It would add another $76 million dollars to the total amount to be bonded for the river, another $76 million in interest, nothing tangible, just interest.
Does that sound fiscally responsible and conservative?
No.
But that's precisely the way the arena overrun was financed. And almost none of Vision 2025 was pay-as-you-go. (The retirement of the Jenks Aquarium debt is, I believe, the lone exception.) The intent was to spend the entire 13 years' worth of revenue during the first six years of its collection.
So how much interest and bond fees are we paying on the current Vision 2025 bonds? If I understand correctly, Tulsa County Industrial Authority has borrowed close to half a billion dollars, with bonds being issued in 2003 and 2005, plus the additional bonds for the arena overage. (If the Vision 2025 monthly reports were available online, I could be more precise.)
I wouldn't advocate doing the entire $282 million proposal with Vision 2025 funds or indeed with any sort of county tax.
At least, Vision 2025 should pay for the promised low water dams and modifications to Zink Lake. According to Rich Brierre of INCOG those items would total $75 million.
At most, Vision 2025 and/or other county funding should pay for the "Water in the River" projects. That's listed as $154.85 million, but that includes about $12 million in sops to Bixby and Broken Arrow for "river studies". So let's call it $143 million (rounding up), about half of the amount the county is asking for in this tax package. (But we still need to see the line item breakdown and the justification. The estimated price per low water dam keeps going up in big increments.) That's the most I could justify financing via Vision 2025 or any other county source.
The remainder of the projects -- pedestrian bridges, downtown connectors, land acquisition -- should be funded by and controlled by the municipalities as they see fit, and as balanced against priorities like streets and public safety.
^^^
This is precisely the plan I would propose and support.
Whether it $75m or $143m, or anywhere in between, it should minimally "put water in the river" by the definitions currently being used.
Chances are, dam construction wouldn't be able to begin for two years or more. If V2025's payoff comes two years early (2014 vs 2016) there's a five year differential.
Total payout over 7 years (2009-2016) of $75m at 4% costs only $11m in interest, for a total cost of $86m and a monthly installment of around $1,030,000 (meanwhile, County's collection is about $4.75m/mo on V2025 and $3.35m/mo on the balance of the Four-Fixers, a total of around $8m/mo. We also can presume a conservative growth of 3%/year in revenues).
$144m would be roughtly twice that amount, resulting in interest costs of about $28m and a total cost of around $172m.
So, as V2025 projects complete, I+P payments out of cash flow is very possible and greatly reduces the interest-only accumulation cost over 5 years.
BTW, I too wonder how an $8-$10 million dam has become $30m in the current proposal.
And, the Jenks dam, at $27m, costs the same as the SS dam + Pedestrian walkway, while Tulsa's Pedestrian walkways cost another $10m each.
Seems numbers are being tossed around very loosely.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by swake
I did some number on Bates' idea of using overages and an extension of Vision 2025.
Let's say we get a favorable bond rating on the bond for the river at say 4%. Let's also say for arguments sake that construction (and the bond sale) starts in about a year and that 2025 is paid for a very generous two years early. That means that for six years the river bond will accrue interest without payments. That $288 million suddenly becomes $364 million. It would add another $76 million dollars to the total amount to be bonded for the river, another $76 million in interest, nothing tangible, just interest.
Does that sound fiscally responsible and conservative?
No.
But that's precisely the way the arena overrun was financed. And almost none of Vision 2025 was pay-as-you-go. (The retirement of the Jenks Aquarium debt is, I believe, the lone exception.) The intent was to spend the entire 13 years' worth of revenue during the first six years of its collection.
So how much interest and bond fees are we paying on the current Vision 2025 bonds? If I understand correctly, Tulsa County Industrial Authority has borrowed close to half a billion dollars, with bonds being issued in 2003 and 2005, plus the additional bonds for the arena overage. (If the Vision 2025 monthly reports were available online, I could be more precise.)
I wouldn't advocate doing the entire $282 million proposal with Vision 2025 funds or indeed with any sort of county tax.
At least, Vision 2025 should pay for the promised low water dams and modifications to Zink Lake. According to Rich Brierre of INCOG those items would total $75 million.
At most, Vision 2025 and/or other county funding should pay for the "Water in the River" projects. That's listed as $154.85 million, but that includes about $12 million in sops to Bixby and Broken Arrow for "river studies". So let's call it $143 million (rounding up), about half of the amount the county is asking for in this tax package. (But we still need to see the line item breakdown and the justification. The estimated price per low water dam keeps going up in big increments.) That's the most I could justify financing via Vision 2025 or any other county source.
The remainder of the projects -- pedestrian bridges, downtown connectors, land acquisition -- should be funded by and controlled by the municipalities as they see fit, and as balanced against priorities like streets and public safety.
^^^
This is precisely the plan I would propose and support.
Whether it $75m or $143m, or anywhere in between, it should minimally "put water in the river" by the definitions currently being used.
Chances are, dam construction wouldn't be able to begin for two years or more. If V2025's payoff comes two years early (2014 vs 2016) there's a five year differential.
Total payout over 7 years (2009-2016) of $75m at 4% costs only $11m in interest, for a total cost of $86m and a monthly installment of around $1,030,000 (meanwhile, County's collection is about $4.75m/mo on V2025 and $3.35m/mo on the balance of the Four-Fixers, a total of around $8m/mo. We also can presume a conservative growth of 3%/year in revenues).
$144m would be roughtly twice that amount, resulting in interest costs of about $28m and a total cost of around $172m.
So, as V2025 projects complete, I+P payments out of cash flow is very possible and greatly reduces the interest-only accumulation cost over 5 years.
I can be for all of that really, and it makes fiscal sense.
I read on KOTV that the city of Tulsa is likely going to have a $385 million street GO Bond issue vote. Expand that issue by $143 million (property taxes are much less regressive than sales taxes) and hold a vote on a $528 general obligation bond that would pay for the land for "Tulsa Landing" and capture the donation from the Kaiser foundation.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
BTW, I too wonder how an $8-$10 million dam has become $30m in the current proposal.
And, the Jenks dam, at $27m, costs the same as the SS dam + Pedestrian walkway, while Tulsa's Pedestrian walkways cost another $10m each.
Seems numbers are being tossed around very loosely.
Where has anyone stated that the dams would cost 8-10 mill each? And I am talking recently not back when 2025 was being worked out. We now have a better idea of what kind of dams we are going to use and where they are going to be placed.
Btw each dam and bridge is different. The Sand Springs dam is going to be higher and have the ability to have controlled release, so that it can retain some extra water that is released by Keystone at night and then release that water during the day to keep the water flowing more often. The Zink and Jenks dams will have a stepped structure and other designs that will eliminate the dangerous "rolling" effect and allow fish to migrate. Plus the "living river" area will enhance the ability for fish to migrate because there will be a way for them to move when the water is low. Plus having more water in the river during the day from the Sand Springs dam will help them as well, plus the other birds and animals. They had an interesting presentation at the meetings that showed how its all supposed to work.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by swake
I did some number on Bates' idea of using overages and an extension of Vision 2025.
Let's say we get a favorable bond rating on the bond for the river at say 4%. Let's also say for arguments sake that construction (and the bond sale) starts in about a year and that 2025 is paid for a very generous two years early. That means that for six years the river bond will accrue interest without payments. That $288 million suddenly becomes $364 million. It would add another $76 million dollars to the total amount to be bonded for the river, another $76 million in interest, nothing tangible, just interest.
Does that sound fiscally responsible and conservative?
No.
But that's precisely the way the arena overrun was financed. And almost none of Vision 2025 was pay-as-you-go. (The retirement of the Jenks Aquarium debt is, I believe, the lone exception.) The intent was to spend the entire 13 years' worth of revenue during the first six years of its collection.
So how much interest and bond fees are we paying on the current Vision 2025 bonds? If I understand correctly, Tulsa County Industrial Authority has borrowed close to half a billion dollars, with bonds being issued in 2003 and 2005, plus the additional bonds for the arena overage. (If the Vision 2025 monthly reports were available online, I could be more precise.)
I wouldn't advocate doing the entire $282 million proposal with Vision 2025 funds or indeed with any sort of county tax.
At least, Vision 2025 should pay for the promised low water dams and modifications to Zink Lake. According to Rich Brierre of INCOG those items would total $75 million.
At most, Vision 2025 and/or other county funding should pay for the "Water in the River" projects. That's listed as $154.85 million, but that includes about $12 million in sops to Bixby and Broken Arrow for "river studies". So let's call it $143 million (rounding up), about half of the amount the county is asking for in this tax package. (But we still need to see the line item breakdown and the justification. The estimated price per low water dam keeps going up in big increments.) That's the most I could justify financing via Vision 2025 or any other county source.
The remainder of the projects -- pedestrian bridges, downtown connectors, land acquisition -- should be funded by and controlled by the municipalities as they see fit, and as balanced against priorities like streets and public safety.
^^^
This is precisely the plan I would propose and support.
Whether it $75m or $143m, or anywhere in between, it should minimally "put water in the river" by the definitions currently being used.
Chances are, dam construction wouldn't be able to begin for two years or more. If V2025's payoff comes two years early (2014 vs 2016) there's a five year differential.
Total payout over 7 years (2009-2016) of $75m at 4% costs only $11m in interest, for a total cost of $86m and a monthly installment of around $1,030,000 (meanwhile, County's collection is about $4.75m/mo on V2025 and $3.35m/mo on the balance of the Four-Fixers, a total of around $8m/mo. We also can presume a conservative growth of 3%/year in revenues).
$144m would be roughtly twice that amount, resulting in interest costs of about $28m and a total cost of around $172m.
So, as V2025 projects complete, I+P payments out of cash flow is very possible and greatly reduces the interest-only accumulation cost over 5 years.
I can be for all of that really, and it makes fiscal sense.
I read on KOTV that the city of Tulsa is likely going to have a $385 million street GO Bond issue vote. Expand that issue by $143 million (property taxes are much less regressive than sales taxes) and hold a vote on a $528 general obligation bond that would pay for the land for "Tulsa Landing" and capture the donation from the Kaiser foundation.
You're mixing modes here. You've turned a County obligation into a new tax for the City of Tulsa only.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by swake
I did some number on Bates' idea of using overages and an extension of Vision 2025.
Let's say we get a favorable bond rating on the bond for the river at say 4%. Let's also say for arguments sake that construction (and the bond sale) starts in about a year and that 2025 is paid for a very generous two years early. That means that for six years the river bond will accrue interest without payments. That $288 million suddenly becomes $364 million. It would add another $76 million dollars to the total amount to be bonded for the river, another $76 million in interest, nothing tangible, just interest.
Does that sound fiscally responsible and conservative?
No.
But that's precisely the way the arena overrun was financed. And almost none of Vision 2025 was pay-as-you-go. (The retirement of the Jenks Aquarium debt is, I believe, the lone exception.) The intent was to spend the entire 13 years' worth of revenue during the first six years of its collection.
So how much interest and bond fees are we paying on the current Vision 2025 bonds? If I understand correctly, Tulsa County Industrial Authority has borrowed close to half a billion dollars, with bonds being issued in 2003 and 2005, plus the additional bonds for the arena overage. (If the Vision 2025 monthly reports were available online, I could be more precise.)
I wouldn't advocate doing the entire $282 million proposal with Vision 2025 funds or indeed with any sort of county tax.
At least, Vision 2025 should pay for the promised low water dams and modifications to Zink Lake. According to Rich Brierre of INCOG those items would total $75 million.
At most, Vision 2025 and/or other county funding should pay for the "Water in the River" projects. That's listed as $154.85 million, but that includes about $12 million in sops to Bixby and Broken Arrow for "river studies". So let's call it $143 million (rounding up), about half of the amount the county is asking for in this tax package. (But we still need to see the line item breakdown and the justification. The estimated price per low water dam keeps going up in big increments.) That's the most I could justify financing via Vision 2025 or any other county source.
The remainder of the projects -- pedestrian bridges, downtown connectors, land acquisition -- should be funded by and controlled by the municipalities as they see fit, and as balanced against priorities like streets and public safety.
^^^
This is precisely the plan I would propose and support.
Whether it $75m or $143m, or anywhere in between, it should minimally "put water in the river" by the definitions currently being used.
Chances are, dam construction wouldn't be able to begin for two years or more. If V2025's payoff comes two years early (2014 vs 2016) there's a five year differential.
Total payout over 7 years (2009-2016) of $75m at 4% costs only $11m in interest, for a total cost of $86m and a monthly installment of around $1,030,000 (meanwhile, County's collection is about $4.75m/mo on V2025 and $3.35m/mo on the balance of the Four-Fixers, a total of around $8m/mo. We also can presume a conservative growth of 3%/year in revenues).
$144m would be roughtly twice that amount, resulting in interest costs of about $28m and a total cost of around $172m.
So, as V2025 projects complete, I+P payments out of cash flow is very possible and greatly reduces the interest-only accumulation cost over 5 years.
I can be for all of that really, and it makes fiscal sense.
I read on KOTV that the city of Tulsa is likely going to have a $385 million street GO Bond issue vote. Expand that issue by $143 million (property taxes are much less regressive than sales taxes) and hold a vote on a $528 general obligation bond that would pay for the land for "Tulsa Landing" and capture the donation from the Kaiser foundation.
You're mixing modes here. You've turned a County obligation into a new tax for the City of Tulsa only.
No I have not, vision 2025 concerned itself with with Zink and two new dams, so have 2025 pay for those. Bates then tossed the non-Tulsa portions of the issue leaving $143 million in Tulsa projects. If the projects are entirely Tulsa, then have the city issue the tax. You are the one so against the county having control of the taxes, so don't give the county control, keep under the city.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
BTW,
Where has anyone stated that the dams would cost 8-10 mill each? And I am talking recently not back when 2025 was being worked out. We now have a better idea of what kind of dams we are going to use and where they are going to be placed.
Btw each dam and bridge is different. The Sand Springs dam is going to be higher and have the ability to have controlled release, so that it can retain some extra water that is released by Keystone at night and then release that water during the day to keep the water flowing more often. The Zink and Jenks dams will have a stepped structure and other designs that will eliminate the dangerous "rolling" effect and allow fish to migrate. Plus the "living river" area will enhance the ability for fish to migrate because there will be a way for them to move when the water is low. Plus having more water in the river during the day from the Sand Springs dam will help them as well, plus the other birds and animals. They had an interesting presentation at the meetings that showed how its all supposed to work.
First off, thats how all the low water dams work(ed) and have since inception. They hold the water that the dam uses to generate electricity during the day, it takes 8-12 hrs for that water to reach tulsa/jenks so the levels in tulsa start to rise in the early evening. Any interruption holds the water till the next cycle. It works fine till they stop generating electricity or the water levels are too low. Then the lake becomes stagnant and shallow. The SS dam will help level out the cycles but it needn't be so large, that's a commercial consideration. People tend to forget that SS had a low water dam back in the eighties and blew it up out of frustration. It is torturous to see them ignore their past. But like I've said, this stuff has its own momentum.
Secondly, the 10/12 million is a figure used until this spring when different dam configurations began to be presented and trial ballooned to the public. Remember the inflatables? the drop gates? The stepped structure is also a new plan from back in early spring.
It would be naive to believe that what they show and tell is going to be the finished product. That's okay with me, they should be open to new and better.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by swake
I did some number on Bates' idea of using overages and an extension of Vision 2025.
Let's say we get a favorable bond rating on the bond for the river at say 4%. Let's also say for arguments sake that construction (and the bond sale) starts in about a year and that 2025 is paid for a very generous two years early. That means that for six years the river bond will accrue interest without payments. That $288 million suddenly becomes $364 million. It would add another $76 million dollars to the total amount to be bonded for the river, another $76 million in interest, nothing tangible, just interest.
Does that sound fiscally responsible and conservative?
No.
But that's precisely the way the arena overrun was financed. And almost none of Vision 2025 was pay-as-you-go. (The retirement of the Jenks Aquarium debt is, I believe, the lone exception.) The intent was to spend the entire 13 years' worth of revenue during the first six years of its collection.
So how much interest and bond fees are we paying on the current Vision 2025 bonds? If I understand correctly, Tulsa County Industrial Authority has borrowed close to half a billion dollars, with bonds being issued in 2003 and 2005, plus the additional bonds for the arena overage. (If the Vision 2025 monthly reports were available online, I could be more precise.)
I wouldn't advocate doing the entire $282 million proposal with Vision 2025 funds or indeed with any sort of county tax.
At least, Vision 2025 should pay for the promised low water dams and modifications to Zink Lake. According to Rich Brierre of INCOG those items would total $75 million.
At most, Vision 2025 and/or other county funding should pay for the "Water in the River" projects. That's listed as $154.85 million, but that includes about $12 million in sops to Bixby and Broken Arrow for "river studies". So let's call it $143 million (rounding up), about half of the amount the county is asking for in this tax package. (But we still need to see the line item breakdown and the justification. The estimated price per low water dam keeps going up in big increments.) That's the most I could justify financing via Vision 2025 or any other county source.
The remainder of the projects -- pedestrian bridges, downtown connectors, land acquisition -- should be funded by and controlled by the municipalities as they see fit, and as balanced against priorities like streets and public safety.
^^^
This is precisely the plan I would propose and support.
Whether it $75m or $143m, or anywhere in between, it should minimally "put water in the river" by the definitions currently being used.
Chances are, dam construction wouldn't be able to begin for two years or more. If V2025's payoff comes two years early (2014 vs 2016) there's a five year differential.
Total payout over 7 years (2009-2016) of $75m at 4% costs only $11m in interest, for a total cost of $86m and a monthly installment of around $1,030,000 (meanwhile, County's collection is about $4.75m/mo on V2025 and $3.35m/mo on the balance of the Four-Fixers, a total of around $8m/mo. We also can presume a conservative growth of 3%/year in revenues).
$144m would be roughtly twice that amount, resulting in interest costs of about $28m and a total cost of around $172m.
So, as V2025 projects complete, I+P payments out of cash flow is very possible and greatly reduces the interest-only accumulation cost over 5 years.
I can be for all of that really, and it makes fiscal sense.
I read on KOTV that the city of Tulsa is likely going to have a $385 million street GO Bond issue vote. Expand that issue by $143 million (property taxes are much less regressive than sales taxes) and hold a vote on a $528 general obligation bond that would pay for the land for "Tulsa Landing" and capture the donation from the Kaiser foundation.
You're mixing modes here. You've turned a County obligation into a new tax for the City of Tulsa only.
No I have not, vision 2025 concerned itself with with Zink and two new dams, so have 2025 pay for those. Bates then tossed the non-Tulsa portions of the issue leaving $143 million in Tulsa projects. If the projects are entirely Tulsa, then have the city issue the tax. You are the one so against the county having control of the taxes, so don't give the county control, keep under the city.
I think if you read Bates' and mine again, you'll soon discover you're the only one proposing a new City of Tulsa tax.