Ever heard of getting the cart before the horse?
I have been flabbergasted to see that the City of Tulsa does not have enough money budgeted to mow her property. And then I read in the local newspaper that our streets have deteriorated so badly that we can never realistically expect that they will be well maintained.
A City is like a person. Think about how you run your household affairs and then think about how Tulsa runs her household affairs.
Tulsa recently decided to borrow $76M for a new city hall that she does not have to have.
Tulsa is about to ask her citizens to approve $200M in new taxes for developing recreational areas on the river.
That would be like me borrowing $19,000 for a storage room addition and $40,000 for a new in ground swimming pool when I couldn't pay my monthly electric bill and when I was also unable to pay the hazard insurance on my home.
I'm a pro-growth social liberal but I'm also a fiscal conservative and it looks to me like Tulsa needs to tighten her belt and put her many self improvement schemes on hold until she has something left over after fully funding basic services.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Ever heard of getting the cart before the horse?
I have been flabbergasted to see that the City of Tulsa does not have enough money budgeted to mow her property. And then I read in the local newspaper that our streets have deteriorated so badly that we can never realistically expect that they will be well maintained.
A City is like a person. Think about how you run your household affairs and then think about how Tulsa runs her household affairs.
Tulsa recently decided to borrow $76M for a new city hall that she does not have to have.
Tulsa is about to ask her citizens to approve $200M in new taxes for developing recreational areas on the river.
That would be like me borrowing $19,000 for a storage room addition and $40,000 for a new in ground swimming pool when I couldn't pay my monthly electric bill and when I was also unable to pay the hazard insurance on my home.
I'm a pro-growth social liberal but I'm also a fiscal conservative and it looks to me like Tulsa needs to tighten her belt and put her many self improvement schemes on hold until she has something left over after fully funding basic services.
Well said, HT!
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Ever heard of getting the cart before the horse?
A lot of what you speak of, can be attributed to the shrinking tax base in conjunction with the removal of federal and state funds. The city's funds are not growing at the rate of the city's obligations. And the city has already, over the last several years, streamlined itself. There's not much left to cut, besides employees and services.
The "river tax", V2025, even parts of "4 to fix" are meant to rebuild parts of the tax base through revitalization. It's an increase in activity that Tulsa hasn't seen in a while. Creating the objects and circumstances that will hopefully make Tulsa an attraction, rather than a work community supporting the bedroom communities.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Ever heard of getting the cart before the horse?
I have been flabbergasted to see that the City of Tulsa does not have enough money budgeted to mow her property. And then I read in the local newspaper that our streets have deteriorated so badly that we can never realistically expect that they will be well maintained.
A City is like a person. Think about how you run your household affairs and then think about how Tulsa runs her household affairs.
Tulsa recently decided to borrow $76M for a new city hall that she does not have to have.
Tulsa is about to ask her citizens to approve $200M in new taxes for developing recreational areas on the river.
That would be like me borrowing $19,000 for a storage room addition and $40,000 for a new in ground swimming pool when I couldn't pay my monthly electric bill and when I was also unable to pay the hazard insurance on my home.
I'm a pro-growth social liberal but I'm also a fiscal conservative and it looks to me like Tulsa needs to tighten her belt and put her many self improvement schemes on hold until she has something left over after fully funding basic services.
The city of Tulsa lives on two cents of sales tax for operating revenue. Last month the city got $14.56 per cent, per resident to that end (which is actually more than Oklahoma City per resident). Tulsa also has raised a 3rd cent sales tax for infrastructure and has a modest amount of Bond issue money coming in for streets and other capital needs, these two money streams cannot by law be used for city operations. The city can levy a income tax, but that would require a vote of the people and would never pass.
The reason the streets are in the condition they are is that over the last decade the federal government ended it's payment to local government for street maintenance and the city has been unable to find another revenue stream to make up that difference.
Why is this all germane to the river question? Well, Tulsa has not been growing residentially recently so revenue has been at best about flat when indexed for inflation. The river question will do two things to help Tulsa from a budget perspective both operationally and with capital needs.
The quality of life aspect for the city will encourage infill development and encourage more people to live in the city thus driving up sales taxes and property values which in turn increases property taxes. If that's all too fuzzy and hard to prove, then there this: The proposed "Tulsa Landing" which is part of this plan will have a strong and direct impact on the city budget. A development like this could easily see a million dollars a day in revenue, or about a third of a billion dollars in sales a year with much of it from outside the city and even the metro. That's about $7 million dollar more a year for the operations budget of the city and another $3.5 million to the 3rd penny. On top of that the development will have an appraised value in the range of half a billion dollars, that's a lot more money to the city's bond issue fund and lot more money for schools.
These numbers are real and there is a real impact. To be against the plan is penny wise and pound foolish.
River development is probably a good idea - but only if it brings in outside money. I am always wary of things like this - because the rich get richer. Some low wage jobs may be provided, but very few well-paying jobs will be created, and those that are well-paying will mostly go to the rich who will get richer - or outsiders who will take all but tax dollars elsewhere.
The move of city hall, however, seems to be budgetary irresponsibility. It's a cool idea - if all of the other stuff Hometown is talking about was being done - but it is not being done. A new city hall building is nothing more than "city bling" - a luxury we should not have considered.
I want cool stuff. I love new stuff. It looks better and makes us look progressive. There are too many other areas we should perhaps be investing our money. If the river development brings in money and new residents, it will be a success. I have read the ideas and opinions saying how the new city hall will bring in new corporations and investors - that kool-aid is dangerous and I refuse to drink. If it does indeed bring in more business - I'll be the first to apologize.
I think we're only about 3 to 5 years away from seeing a vastly improved downtown, with relatively massive expansion. And I don't think it's going to stop there.
I know HT was opposed to the city hall move primarily on architectural lines, whether or not the architecture is worth salvaging is something I kind of balked on. For me it's age and value, versus the potential value of the property as something else. Like the Skelly building, had the World wanted to replace the Skelly building with a 20 story residential tower, that would have been much better than a surface parking lot. The end result, or potential result, is a big factor in whether or not I want to fight about it.
I really believe the move makes sense. Especially given location of the Arena, redevelopment at the Mayo, and a few other projects in the pipeline for that area of town. Also, given that the Library will probably try to move again. That section of the city can be developed much better than it is. And to the benefit of the tax base, for the city of Tulsa.
And, placing the city services in an area of town that is already growing, where employees and visitor to the city complex can benefit this area, also makes sense.
Outside of details, it's a win all around IMO. And as far as I could tell, even the details were favorable.
We used to have some Low Water Dams, Nice Racetrack, Amusement Park . . .
Seems we used to have low water dams, there was one in Sand Springs by the park, but they were torn down for some stated safety reason.
Seems we had a state of the art Clay Oval 5/8 mile Racetrack at Expo Square (now QuikTrip Center) at one time that drew over 8,000 fans on Saturday nights.
Seems the racetrack was moved to another location and did worse there than it did at the original location at Expo.
Seems we have a very nice Ballpark at QT Center currently that the owners want to move to another location.
Seems we had an operating Amusement Park at Expo for 50+ years, that now is a pile of rubble and some rides in storage.
As pointed out above in another post the tax base appears to of decreased and that seems to coincide with lower ticket sales and purchases at most attractions and retail businesses in Tulsa.
Based on the lower number of participants this past weekend at the Road Races held at Hallett, versus what we have been seeing this season at the tracks in Louisiana and Texas I would have to say it appears to be an economic problem in Oklahoma.
Could be wrong, but I do know there are two racetracks that have closed for this season, Tulsa Speedway and Salina Highbanks which were going concerns not two seasons ago. No new competitors have moved in, and the other tracks that have struggled to stay open, have not experienced a large influx of business by their closings.
Could be high cost of energy, low wages, lack of gainfully employed workers, weather, under-employment and the higher cost of housing. Most of those have an effect on the sales tax base.
quote:
The reason the streets are in the condition they are is that over the last decade the federal government ended it's payment to local government for street maintenance and the city has been unable to find another revenue stream to make up that difference.
That has happened in every city in the nation (but DC) and most do not have the amazingly crappy roads that Tulsa does. I understand we are wet, get way too hot, and then freeze in the winter - hard on roads to be sure. But that's why we have departments to plan and allocate for such things. Which they, apparently, have not done.
I'm a not-so-proud member of the "I got a flat tire in a Tulsa pot hole" club.Another reason for the decline is the increase in road-miles per person. More suburban developments have more road per house, fewer apartment buildings, and more sprawling retail. That equals a lot more road in South Tulsa to maintain without the same return (density has its own problems).
- - -
HT, I largely agree with your assessment. My analogy would be me buying a newer and bigger home with fancy things I don't need when I do not have the time to maintain what I have now and can only afford it if someone buys my old house (which I assume they will, of course). So much for running the city like a business. I guess running it like a dot-com business perhaps.
quote:
Originally posted by AMP
We used to have some Low Water Dams, Nice Racetrack, Amusement Park . . .
Seems we used to have low water dams, there was one in Sand Springs by the park, but they were torn down for some stated safety reason.
Seems we had a state of the art Clay Oval 5/8 mile Racetrack at Expo Square (now QuikTrip Center) at one time that drew over 8,000 fans on Saturday nights.
Seems the racetrack was moved to another location and did worse there than it did at the original location at Expo.
Seems we have a very nice Ballpark at QT Center currently that the owners want to move to another location.
Seems we had an operating Amusement Park at Expo for 50+ years, that now is a pile of rubble and some rides in storage.
As pointed out above in another post the tax base appears to of decreased and that seems to coincide with lower ticket sales and purchases at most attractions and retail businesses in Tulsa.
Based on the lower number of participants this past weekend at the Road Races held at Hallett, versus what we have been seeing this season at the tracks in Louisiana and Texas I would have to say it appears to be an economic problem in Oklahoma.
Could be wrong, but I do know there are two racetracks that have closed for this season, Tulsa Speedway and Salina Highbanks which were going concerns not two seasons ago. No new competitors have moved in, and the other tracks that have struggled to stay open, have not experienced a large influx of business by their closings.
Could be high cost of energy, low wages, lack of gainfully employed workers, weather, under-employment and the higher cost of housing. Most of those have an effect on the sales tax base.
You point out ventures that are doing poorly and moves that you feel were bad decisions. But what about things that are doing well? The Riverwalk in Jenks seems to do well. Our movie theaters seem to get good traffic on the weekends. The lakes seem to have an abundance of activity and boats in the summer. Social districts such as Cherry St and Brookside seem strong. Business on 71st St, as much as most complain of the area, is always booming.
Perhaps those things that have been abandoned or failed simply did so due to a lack of interest from the regional population. What a concept!!! The market speaks! Demanded activities and services will find their way to success. All it takes is for enterprising individuals (such as Mr. Gordon of the Jenks Riverwalk) to see demand for something and offer it.
>>I think we're only about 3 to 5 years away from seeing a vastly improved downtown, with relatively massive expansion. And I don't think it's going to stop there..
Fan-F'ing-Tastic.
Now where is the "Vastly Improved" Tulsa were the people acutally go....?
If you know anything about this town, then you are aware of the "streamlining" the last several years, the tax situation, and that the next thing to go is services. And you're probably also aware, that almost any sales tax hike from the City would automatically put our rates higher than the burbs.
And you also know, that if absolutely nothing happens and we just sit here and let it go, Tulsa will be a hollowed out shell of a town in constant spiral feeding the burbs. The burbs have finally caught up to us, Tulsa will either fight or die. She's fighting.
Sitting here with a police force the same size as it is now when we hit 450K, isn't appealling to me. Letting the streets go to oblivion because we simply don't have a usable tax base anymore, is not appealling to me.
But streets aren't going to attract much of anything, we can have the best streets we can afford, and the best PD we can afford, unless we do something, it'll never be enough and Tulsa will be able to afford less and less.
quote:
Originally posted by Aa5drvr
Fan-F'ing-Tastic.
Now where is the "Vastly Improved" Tulsa were the people acutally go....?
Are you drunk? Try typing out a coherent sentence.
Hmmm...
If I've got $100 to spend, and I go to Riverwalk in Jenks - how much does that leave for downtown? Do we actually have enough of a market to support these ventures after they've opened? The market at present is spending their money in Jenks by the river. Will the development in Tulsa try to share that dollar amount? Do we think, "build it and they will come"? Do we think that an attraction will grow the market?
There is only so much money in this town. Is overpriced real estate down by the river gonna draw people out of the suburbs? I highly doubt those living in Jenks and Union school districts are gonna move their family down to the river and send their kids to the surrounding schools - just because its a cool place. If the metro-minded people of midtown move into the real estate of the river - what happens to midtown?
Where is the money gonna come from?
Where are the people gonna come from?
Whether the development is locally sustainable, or depends on the "pie-in-the-sky" hopes and promises of short-sighted, short-term politicians is a major issue for me.
Maybe (I'm just thinking out loud) we should be content with a clean, quiet, low-crime, expertly maintained city.
We are not a big city. Of course - that kind of thinking (out loud) won't get you votes.
It is going to be very interesting to see which families will benefit from all these plans and govt contracts.
Or Bass Pro in Broken Arrow. Whether you like it or not, it attracts people from places farther than Tulsa. It also attracts Tulsans. Don't know what the numbers are, at best I suspect it's a wash for Tulsa assuming that Bass Pro visitors might actually spend some amount of money in Tulsa. Odds are, Tulsa loses money there to BAs city gov't.
Or Owasso, which now, like it or not, is a type of shopping destination. People who would typically travel in from parts north, now stop in Owasso.
How about Bixby? Is there any reason for a person in Bixby or south of Bixby to travel to Tulsa?
Tulsa is losing it's place in the metro area. It used to be, not long ago, you had to come to Tulsa for attractions or shopping. It is not that way now. We're losing our tax base, we're stagnant in population, roads and infrastructure are expanding; we can fall apart, we can get better by design, or we can get better by accident.
I know that this may be a mundane point, but it simply isn't practical to purchase a house in Tulsa anymore unless you're willing to spend 250K to buy the same quality home you can buy for 175K in Jenks, BA, Owasso...
The main reason I recently bought a house in Jenks was because I could opt for a crap house in Midtown that would take money and time to update, or for less money buy a brand new house 15 minutes away. Trust me, this hurts me as I have been living in Florence Park for the last couple of years and would love to stay...
My house is in no-man's-land right now, but in 2 years it will be right in the middle of everything I need.
It's going to be that way forever. People will always leave for the burbs, and housing will for the most part always be cheaper in the burbs. The truth is, people that leave for the burbs are not all going to come back as residents. There's nothing Tulsa can do, that loss of population is going to happen.
Tulsa's survival depends on core development, and attracting new people. People that like urban living, or simply establishing new locations for visitors. Anything that will broaden the tax base.
This has been going on a while, hopefully people have become more aware of the situation since Jenks expanded and the aquarium was built. They couldn't possibly have survived on my money, but they're always busy and it works. And a lot of that money is from Tulsa.
Misnomer #1) Tulsa's retail sales are not shrinking, they are at an all time high.
#2) Tulsa's population is no longer shrinking. We remain some 1.2% off of our all time high, which we hit in 2000. Given the collapse of our major industries that is not surprising and I hope we can recover that by the next census.
Tulsa is not want I want it to be, but it is not the withered old man some here speak of. The fact that IP had to wuss out and move to the suburbs is proof enough that there is DEMAND to live in Tulsa. That's why Midtown prices are high. (wuss!)
http://www.city-data.com/city/Tulsa-Oklahoma.html
Interesting data.
quote:
Tulsa's survival depends on core development, and attracting new people. People that like urban living, or simply establishing new locations for visitors. Anything that will broaden the tax base.
I agree, but part of that has to include reasonable housing, and projects like the lofts and many others like it don't qualify (at least to me). Newer and more modern living spaces in a renewed downtown area would be great, but I can't stress enough that it has to be reasonable. We have too many high quality neighborhoods within a short distance. If there's one thing that
guarantees a white, upper class, socialite, un-diverse area it's high priced urban housing. How many people around here would be happy to see that? 5 years ago I would have loved to live in a vibrant downtown loft, but today, with a family that's just not an option.
After being in Spain for a couple of weeks, it makes me really wish we had cities like Pamplona where you have anything within walking distance from your home. People aren't fat, and they're generally happier and frendlier because they are forced to build great communities.
You may be right that Tulsa's only option is to be the hub that provides everything else the surrounding communities can't, and that's entertainment, but I suggest we step on it if we wish not to play second fiddle to Jenks.
The one question I can't answer is why this can't be done with private money if it is to be so lucractive?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Misnomer #1) Tulsa's retail sales are not shrinking, they are at an all time high.
#2) Tulsa's population is no longer shrinking. We remain some 1.2% off of our all time high, which we hit in 2000. Given the collapse of our major industries that is not surprising and I hope we can recover that by the next census.
Tulsa is not want I want it to be, but it is not the withered old man some here speak of. The fact that IP had to wuss out and move to the suburbs is proof enough that there is DEMAND to live in Tulsa. That's why Midtown prices are high. (wuss!)
http://www.city-data.com/city/Tulsa-Oklahoma.html
Interesting data.
That's true...not the wuss part... but all that other stuff you said [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Ever heard of getting the cart before the horse?
I have been flabbergasted to see that the City of Tulsa does not have enough money budgeted to mow her property. And then I read in the local newspaper that our streets have deteriorated so badly that we can never realistically expect that they will be well maintained.
A City is like a person. Think about how you run your household affairs and then think about how Tulsa runs her household affairs.
Tulsa recently decided to borrow $76M for a new city hall that she does not have to have.
Tulsa is about to ask her citizens to approve $200M in new taxes for developing recreational areas on the river.
That would be like me borrowing $19,000 for a storage room addition and $40,000 for a new in ground swimming pool when I couldn't pay my monthly electric bill and when I was also unable to pay the hazard insurance on my home.
I'm a pro-growth social liberal but I'm also a fiscal conservative and it looks to me like Tulsa needs to tighten her belt and put her many self improvement schemes on hold until she has something left over after fully funding basic services.
The city of Tulsa lives on two cents of sales tax for operating revenue. Last month the city got $14.56 per cent, per resident to that end (which is actually more than Oklahoma City per resident). Tulsa also has raised a 3rd cent sales tax for infrastructure and has a modest amount of Bond issue money coming in for streets and other capital needs, these two money streams cannot by law be used for city operations. The city can levy a income tax, but that would require a vote of the people and would never pass.
The reason the streets are in the condition they are is that over the last decade the federal government ended it's payment to local government for street maintenance and the city has been unable to find another revenue stream to make up that difference.
Why is this all germane to the river question? Well, Tulsa has not been growing residentially recently so revenue has been at best about flat when indexed for inflation. The river question will do two things to help Tulsa from a budget perspective both operationally and with capital needs.
The quality of life aspect for the city will encourage infill development and encourage more people to live in the city thus driving up sales taxes and property values which in turn increases property taxes. If that's all too fuzzy and hard to prove, then there this: The proposed "Tulsa Landing" which is part of this plan will have a strong and direct impact on the city budget. A development like this could easily see a million dollars a day in revenue, or about a third of a billion dollars in sales a year with much of it from outside the city and even the metro. That's about $7 million dollar more a year for the operations budget of the city and another $3.5 million to the 3rd penny. On top of that the development will have an appraised value in the range of half a billion dollars, that's a lot more money to the city's bond issue fund and lot more money for schools.
These numbers are real and there is a real impact. To be against the plan is penny wise and pound foolish.
There's nothing inherently wrong about your synopsis, except the last paragraph. The River Plan is fine, the funding mechanism is the problem. There's much better ways to accomplish the river plan which do not require the County or its' new authority.
Start by letting the County finish its' obligations in V2025 with the dam construction. Then, they're out of it. Let each City decide what they want to do from that point, so long as it conforms to the Plan via INCOG, TMAPC or whomever as a zoning type restriction. That is, if each City also decides to 'adopt' that plan. They would seem to have an option there as well.
That's "putting water in the river". All the rest is fluff.
Technically, the sales tax base is growing, which under current conditions, it should. If it won't keep pace with infrastructure growth or other city obligations, it doesn't matter. We'll sit here frozen in time, slowly decaying.
quote:
The one question I can't answer is why this can't be done with private money if it is to be so lucractive?
If you're talking about the river, if I'm not mistaken, there is a $111 million private contribution that will be coupled with the public tax if it goes through.
I can't think of one place in Tulsa, where the river is marginally prepared for private development. It may exist, I can't think of one. And cities do compete for these types of things, if you can't provide basic access to the river and infrastructure, no one will bother.
I don't think Tulsa is dying. I think it can be a growing and vibrant area - I just think that the mentality of developing the river is the answer, or moving city hall and getting into more debt is the answer - is wrong.
I love this city more than any other place I've lived. It's not he most beautiful (that would be Humacao, PR). It's not the most prosperous (Richmond, VA). It's not the biggest (Baltimore, MD) - but it is a great place to raise a family and just enjoy life. The people are nice and there's enough diversity to make it interesting.
I believe the city can co-exist and prosper with all our neighbors (burbs). The debt and pipe dreams on the river are way too big for where we stand now. Maybe dice and slice the plan into smaller bite-sized pieces and evaluate the effectiveness as we go.
The city hall thing was and is a bad idea - just as Hometown said above - bad business decision. A waste of money. A giant risk. Political bling. I can't see how it improves Tulsa one bit.
quote:
Originally posted by restored2x
The city hall thing was and is a bad idea - just as Hometown said above - bad business decision. A waste of money. A giant risk. Political bling. I can't see how it improves Tulsa one bit.
If a company bought a building, on the presumption that current rental agreements would pay off the loan completely, and get them an essentially free building, how is that a bad business decision?
Also, how long have you lived here? Have you kept up to speed on say last say 4 years? Just wondering, how much of the current "goings on" you've followed.
If I sat hear and said "the situation is dire", I might be lying to myself. Tulsa isn't done yet, there are a few things in the pipeline that could really help. And V2025, the Arena, a lot of private investment in downtown, is likely to be a big help.
I wonder if it's enough. It may be, I'm not convinced. This "old man" syndrome in cities, it happens. Detroit and Pittsburgh are not the only examples, it happens everywhere. Dallas, mostly a hellhole now. It takes a lot of work out of a city, to keep itself young and functional.
And the River is underdeveloped, except in Jenks. We're running the risk that Jenks, Bixby, BA, and even Sand Springs will be far ahead of us, before we ever decide to develop the river. And there is a lot of potential there, a lot of potential to add to the population and tax base of Tulsa, and to the county Tax base. If you want density, downtown, and the river is where it needs to happen.
I really think people get it wrong when they talk of our river and downtown as competing with the suburbs. We are not going to draw those people from there to downtown to live. However there are a lot of people like me who want to live in a city environment and would rather rot in heck than live in the burbs. Tulsa can compete with the burbs in other areas, but when it comes to downtown and some mid-town/river areas Tulsa needs to be thinking about competing with other cities, for the urban, walkable district loving type people. Plus by having great "destinations" and attractions Tulsa can draw people in from the suburbs and reap the rewards of the money they spend here. World class museums, a destination riverwalk, great downtown activities, great park facilities, etc.
The only possible, sizeable, market of people that we may attract to live in central Tulsa from the suburbs are the younger people who were raised there and often want to move and experience "active city living". They most likely don't want to live in a quiet lazy suburban environment. Tulsa should be making itself one of the places they may choose.
I was quite heartened just the other day when I was reading several different articles about TCC's new scholarship program and the reaction it was getting. Several young people said something to this effect. "I had never seriously thought of going to TCC or staying in Tulsa to get my education. But now its hard to say no with this TCC program, and having the colleges like OSU nearby definitely makes it an option I will consider." Now thats exactly the kind of thing I was hoping to see in this town, and glad to see that those of us pushing for better university systems in Tulsa, are being proved right in our belief in what it will do for our city.
It's only a competition if Tulsa fails miserably to develop it's part of the river. We'll always lose people and business to the burbs, sitting on our hands and watching it happen without trying to attract new people, that's what we've done so far with the river.
And since we'll always lose people and business to the burbs, the burbs will benefit from a bigger better Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
It's only a competition if Tulsa fails miserably to develop it's part of the river. We'll always lose people and business to the burbs, sitting on our hands and watching it happen without trying to attract new people, that's what we've done so far with the river.
And since we'll always lose people and business to the burbs, the burbs will benefit from a bigger better Tulsa.
That's all well and fine, but not this way.
We need a better plan for financing. The River Plan, by itself, is fine for the most part.
When are people going to realize that people will want to come here when they see US having a good time?
We're being told to suck it up and suffer to hang trinkettes to attract flies.
quote:
Originally posted by jackbristow
quote:
Originally posted by AMP
We used to have some Low Water Dams, Nice Racetrack, Amusement Park . . .
Seems we used to have low water dams, there was one in Sand Springs by the park, but they were torn down for some stated safety reason.
Seems we had a state of the art Clay Oval 5/8 mile Racetrack at Expo Square (now QuikTrip Center) at one time that drew over 8,000 fans on Saturday nights.
Seems the racetrack was moved to another location and did worse there than it did at the original location at Expo.
Seems we have a very nice Ballpark at QT Center currently that the owners want to move to another location.
Seems we had an operating Amusement Park at Expo for 50+ years, that now is a pile of rubble and some rides in storage.
As pointed out above in another post the tax base appears to of decreased and that seems to coincide with lower ticket sales and purchases at most attractions and retail businesses in Tulsa.
Based on the lower number of participants this past weekend at the Road Races held at Hallett, versus what we have been seeing this season at the tracks in Louisiana and Texas I would have to say it appears to be an economic problem in Oklahoma.
Could be wrong, but I do know there are two racetracks that have closed for this season, Tulsa Speedway and Salina Highbanks which were going concerns not two seasons ago. No new competitors have moved in, and the other tracks that have struggled to stay open, have not experienced a large influx of business by their closings.
Could be high cost of energy, low wages, lack of gainfully employed workers, weather, under-employment and the higher cost of housing. Most of those have an effect on the sales tax base.
You point out ventures that are doing poorly and moves that you feel were bad decisions. But what about things that are doing well? The Riverwalk in Jenks seems to do well. Our movie theaters seem to get good traffic on the weekends. The lakes seem to have an abundance of activity and boats in the summer. Social districts such as Cherry St and Brookside seem strong. Business on 71st St, as much as most complain of the area, is always booming.
Perhaps those things that have been abandoned or failed simply did so due to a lack of interest from the regional population. What a concept!!! The market speaks! Demanded activities and services will find their way to success. All it takes is for enterprising individuals (such as Mr. Gordon of the Jenks Riverwalk) to see demand for something and offer it.
Most movie theaters I knew of it Tulsa are defunct, some are boarded up while others have become Drug Stores or other businesses that cater to an older generation. Movie theaters that are left operating may have some folks attending them, as there are less theaters than in the past, just like there are less racetracks than in the near past as well. Last movie I attended which was two Friday nights ago had less than 50 people in the audiance at the movies at 41st and Yale. Place looked as if someone had called in a bomb scare compared to 6 years ago crowds.
My point being that just because you have the tax payers fund a project that may or may not attract people for a short or long term does not mean it will work or last. I travel over 65,000 miles each year to several other states and have had first hand view of many cities' riverfronts. Stopped and walked the area, engaged in conversation with business owners and folks around the area. Majority I come across near larger cities are street people sitting on the bench or concrete partitions getting drunk. But that is common in most downtown areas I have visited.
Many times folks think the problem with lack of attendance is the venue or the area it is located in. Bottom line is the income and attitude of the people living in that market. If people have entertainment dollars in their budget, they will seek out places to spend it. There are older venues all over the world that continue to attract sell out crowds today. So it is not how fancy the venue is, or where it is located, it is the market in most cases.
With motorsports the main problem is the cost of energy for both the support staff, teams and fans to travel to and from the venue. Because most are located in remote locations today due to noise requirement, the support of those events has fallen off tremendously at many levels of competition.
Not sure about a couple of the places you mention as I have never been to the Jenks River Walk or ever read much about it or seen any photos of it. I did hear that Gary who worked at Brownies Hamburgers had a burger joint there, but it did not last long. I actually have no clue where the River Walk is. If I decided to drive there, I would need directions.
I do travel to Hallett twelve times during the summer, and drive across Keystone Lake quite often, I do not recall seeing much boating activity on the water. Most boats I have seen in the past 24 times past there on the weekends were six at one time. Last season I would travel across Lake Hudson, their boating traffic had fallen off dramatically as well, most the businesses in the area complained about lack of numbers, the Salina Highbanks Speedway is located near Lake Hudson and fell victim to lack of traffic in that area as well.
The outrageous high cost of energy has put many of the large high maintenance and high ticket price businesses out. Much more cost effective to sell or rent a video, or download videos online for around $10 to $29 for Internet rental, and watch it on a laptop or DVD player than it is to go to watch an event live today. Cost me $103 just to travel to and from Hallett this past weekend to perform my services there. Race teams that traveled from Texas and Louisiana fuel expenses were well over $300 for their transports. Not to mention a additional $53 each for Turnpike and big rig fuel and weight certificates required in Oklahoma and Kansas.
I continue to see more companies going out of business in Tulsa than going into business. If you like I will spend a few days this week taking photos of numerous empty buildings that recently housed businesses that have been in Tulsa for over 40 years.
Anyone have a list of new businesses that have opened in the city of Tulsa in the past year?
While Tulsa may have a few service type business such as restaurants and some small retail stores will operating in the areas you describe, I continue to see a deterioration of business that provided high paying positions.
How many of the fancy brass and glass businesses currently operating in Tulsa are also owned by Tulsan's? Or are they corporate owned and are being used as tax write offs for major firms? Either way the companies that are owned out of Tulsa and Oklahoma only serve to suck the revenue out of the City/State, and perhaps may employ a few low wage folks locally. A few that come to mind are AEP that supplies our electricity owned in Ohio or at least that is where the bill is generated from. Out wonder six telephone books for the Tulsa Metropolitan area, of which none are owned, managed or printed in the state of Oklahooma.
All the massive amount of revenue flows out of Tulsa at a much higher rate of travel than the water of the Arkansas River.
If one were wanting to build some new Dams and re-direct a flow, the massive flow of cash in the form of Revenue of the six Yellow Page Books would be a great starting place. By the way, Tulsa Speedway had been in business since the late 1930s. Bell's Amusement Park had been in business since the late 1940s. Both make it through some very rough times, but could not survive this recent economic downturn in Tulsa.
Entertainment dollars are the first to be cut from ones budget when other fees, taxes and cost of living exceeds the income of the average family. If those long time firms could not survive under the current tax, fee and cost of living index, just imagine what will happen if any of those items are raised above what they are today.
Guess Tulsa could entice new businesses to move into the abandoned and vacant buildings, hire younger educated folks that you could also lure into the area, move out the older folks on fixed income as they would no longer be able to afford the cost of housing if the replacements took over and were able to pay higher fees, rent and mortgage payments due to the increased income brought on by the wonderful River Font Project. This River Front Project sounds like the salvation of many problems in Tulsa.
I would suggest traveling to Memphis, Baton Rouge, St Louis and other cities with riverfronts and walk those before deciding that the Riverfront project is such the "save all" that it seems to be for some. Keep in mind those cities are on the Mississippi river, and not a small drainage ditch such as the Arkansa is in this area. Now the Arkansas is much nicer in Little Rock, Arkansas where they have a recreation area on the river there.
In Memphis they also have an NBA coliseum that is the number one attraction, folks walking Beal Street and the River area are mostly killing time waiting for the games.
Not so sure about trying to transform the drainage ditch, with Oil Refineries and sewage treatment plants that dump into the water in this area into some recreation meca. Perhaps the new younger higher educated imports may be swayed to believe in the project, and if so one should have them and the companies they will be working for pay for the entire deal.
Having a tough time this week AMP? No need for the glass half empty attitude. One would not be surprised that high energy prices would negatively affect your business. In fact it is changing our entire lifestyle as all industry adapts to the new reality. But we will adapt.
I am of your generation. It is particularly depressing for us to endure the (perceived negative) changes that technology and high energy costs are causing. I think its part of the life cycle though. We sound and feel like our parents. I don't care to stay in that paradigm. Tasted it, don't care for it.
But you won't find many admirers for your attitude on this forum. We are all trying to understand what's happening and adjust or improve. For instance, I happen to believe that the high cost of energy is going to be the catalyst for tremendous positive change. The Tesla electric sports car will cause Porsche, Ferrari, and other high performance enthusiasts to take notice. It outperforms them on a cost/performance ratio. Imagine being able to move your race tracks closer to population centers because their clean, electric motors make little noise. Eventually even GM has to pull their head out.
The natural race to the burbs of populations chasing low taxes, low construction costs and perceived safety will do the same thing. And its hardly a new process. It leave tremendous opportunities for cheaper investment once the larger city adjusts to the new reality of flatter tax revenues. And those who move into burbs like Owasso will soon tire of the atmosphere. Especially their children who will rebel from that lifestyle and move back into the city.
The river plan is an effort to help. Think of it as a recently divorced middle age man who realizes he needs to make some changes to be effective in his new reality. He's suddenly less affluent, overweight, out of style and boring. What does he do? Buys a sports car on credit, buys some inappropriate clothes, joins a health club and makes a pass at the secretary. Somehow in spite of his laughable choices, some woman finds him intriguing and pulls his donkey back into a better reality. It would have happened anyway but you'll never convince him of that.
In my thinking, its all about repeating cycles, realizing where you are in the cycle, and making adjustment. We will adjust or become irrelevant as a city.
Edit: Btw I believe our position in this current cycle is quite similar to the late 1890's often referred to as the gilded age. In fact, many ultra-conservatives consider that the golden age of America where corporations were the government and politicians were there stooges. It ended with the progressive movement of the late 20's early 30's. Startling parallels.
Actually I am having a very busy and good month. Gross numbers are down, but the net profit margin is higher than last year due to adjustments we made for 2007.
Sleep depravation must of caused the brain pain. :) Worked 16 hours Friday, then started again at 4am Saturday and worked both the Road Races then drove 50 miles to PCR to announce the Sprint Cars Saturday night which lasted until 1:30am due to a rain delay. Back up at 4am Sunday after two hours of sleep, and left Hallett around 7:30 Sunday evening to drive back to Tulsa. Actually looked like the same numbers as last year at Hallett for the Road Races last weekend.
Hallett Track owner the late Mike Stephens, who passed away in August has done an outstanding job of making improvements and maintaining that facility built in 1974 by Toly Arutunoff, dirt work by Frank McElroy. Mike's family continues their great management at the facility, and they are in the process of completing a new racing school building. Shane and Scott Stephen's will be moving their Stephens Brothers Racing Schoool business which is currently located in West Tulsa on Nogales street out to the new building at the racetrack.
They are trying the Electric Indoor Racing thing in OKC. Tried it in Tulsa at two locations, but they both failed. Gator's and Mickey's tried the Electric Indoor Karting.
The one in OKC appears to have much more invested in the facility and equipment.
http://www.racep2r.com/
(http://www.racep2r.com/OKC/images/vr_2.jpg)
AMP quote... "Last movie I attended which was two Friday nights ago had less than 50 people in the audiance at the movies at 41st and Yale. Place looked as if someone had called in a bomb scare compared to 6 years ago crowds."
I live near the AMC 20 and yes some nights its slow, but other nights movies are sold out. I don't know of any movie theater in Tulsa that has ever not been that way.
AMP quote..."Not sure about a couple of the places you mention as I have never been to the Jenks River Walk or ever read much about it or seen any photos of it. I did hear that Gary who worked at Brownies Hamburgers had a burger joint there, but it did not last long. I actually have no clue where the River Walk is. If I decided to drive there, I would need directions." " continue to see more companies going out of business in Tulsa than going into business. If you like I will spend a few days this week taking photos of numerous empty buildings that recently housed businesses that have been in Tulsa for over 40 years.
Anyone have a list of new businesses that have opened in the city of Tulsa in the past year?"
Wow you don't get out much do you? This points out to me my argument about how people around here are very very "territorial". Those lines on a map that delineate the boundaries between BA, Jenks, Sand Springs seem to be more real here than many other places. The distances arent that great at all. If we made the entire county of Tulsa the City of Tulsa it would completely shift our view of the conversation. All of Tulsa county is smaller than OKC and the developed part is smaller still. In this view, Tulsa as a whole wouldnt be seen as losing population, or businesses. We would simply be seeing a shift in where in the city the people and businesses are moving.
Go to south Tulsa and the area around Jenks and look at all the new businesses there. Drive down South Yale and look at all the new office parks and buildings. They no longer work in downtown offic towers. Our downtown was doomed when it became a, business only area, it needs to evolve back into a mixed use environment. I work for a lot of those people who have businesses in South Tulsa. There are lots of small oil companies, doctors, many professionals that work from home, work via computer or with tech related companies in those office parks. The people in Tulsa have shifted where they live, and the nature and places of the businesses in Tulsa have shifted as well. There werent too many tech or computer related businesses in Tulsa 40 years ago.
I think downtown and the river are similar in that revitalizing them will bring a new type of people into our core. Its not going to be some big oil company that will fill up a whole building downtown. Its going to be those YP types that want an urban environment to live in and even older people who enjoy a pleasant walkable environment with lots of things nearby to do. Plus having great concentration of attractions that will attract day trippers to the central city. D-fest, PAC, Cains, Brady, Philbrook, An urban Riverwalk, high end shopping at Utica, an arts district, etc.
Central Tulsa is just at the start of a major trasition. Gonna take a lot of work, but it can be great and prosper. Tulsas population is stabilizing and growing, and the continued growth of the suburban population is a great opportunity to help Tulsas core become all the more attractive and alive, but with a different mix and reasons, than it once was.
quote:
Originally posted by AMP
They are trying the Electric Indoor Racing thing in OKC. Tried it in Tulsa at two locations, but they both failed. Gator's and Mickey's tried the Electric Indoor Karting.
The one in OKC appears to have much more invested in the facility and equipment.
http://www.racep2r.com/
(http://www.racep2r.com/OKC/images/vr_2.jpg)
Well they didn't promote it much. I would have tried one here had I known.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by restored2x
The city hall thing was and is a bad idea - just as Hometown said above - bad business decision. A waste of money. A giant risk. Political bling. I can't see how it improves Tulsa one bit.
If a company bought a building, on the presumption that current rental agreements would pay off the loan completely, and get them an essentially free building, how is that a bad business decision?
Also, how long have you lived here? Have you kept up to speed on say last say 4 years? Just wondering, how much of the current "goings on" you've followed.
I've only been here about 15 years. I am not a political animal, most of what goes on in politics is a monumental waste of time. Local politics are usually a mere stepping stone for a politician to get something bigger and better.
I admittedly do not know a lot about "what has gone on before". Face value tells me that spending 70-some million dollars on a building you don't need, and cannot be proven to bring in more corporations - is a risky move at best.
Face value and common sense tell me that the local economy is suffering; people are not spending as much on frivolous things (see above posts about local stuff shutting down, losing business, etc.). The people who can't spend that money cannot and will not approve a new tax that will take more money out of their budgets so we can have river development that will only make the rich richer and maybe provide some minimum salary jobs.
I may not be a born Okie - but I've lived here long enough to have paid my share in taxes.
I've seen it done here before in my short time on this forum: If you ain't a true Okie, born and bred, somebody will inevitably bring that up, so as to take away your credibilty.
We may have fewer theaters than before (and I'm not even sure that's true) but we have far more screens than ever before, and that is a national trend. I know of two new 8 screen theaters that have opened in the past 18 months (Riverwalk and Sapulpa) and we have something like 40 new screens coming at two more new theaters at Tulsa Hills and somewhere in BA.
quote:
Originally posted by restored2x
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by restored2x
The city hall thing was and is a bad idea - just as Hometown said above - bad business decision. A waste of money. A giant risk. Political bling. I can't see how it improves Tulsa one bit.
If a company bought a building, on the presumption that current rental agreements would pay off the loan completely, and get them an essentially free building, how is that a bad business decision?
Also, how long have you lived here? Have you kept up to speed on say last say 4 years? Just wondering, how much of the current "goings on" you've followed.
I've only been here about 15 years. I am not a political animal, most of what goes on in politics is a monumental waste of time. Local politics are usually a mere stepping stone for a politician to get something bigger and better.
I admittedly do not know a lot about "what has gone on before". Face value tells me that spending 70-some million dollars on a building you don't need, and cannot be proven to bring in more corporations - is a risky move at best.
Face value and common sense tell me that the local economy is suffering; people are not spending as much on frivolous things (see above posts about local stuff shutting down, losing business, etc.). The people who can't spend that money cannot and will not approve a new tax that will take more money out of their budgets so we can have river development that will only make the rich richer and maybe provide some minimum salary jobs.
I may not be a born Okie - but I've lived here long enough to have paid my share in taxes.
I've seen it done here before in my short time on this forum: If you ain't a true Okie, born and bred, somebody will inevitably bring that up, so as to take away your credibilty.
Now you don't have to flake out. And they were honest questions. And you didn't answer them either. You brought it up. How is that a "bad business" decision? For a corporation, that would be a great decision.
And if you can't make that case, what are you basing your opposition on? Do you know nothing, do you know something, what is it?
You're right. Tulsa is hurting. It's been hurting for several years now. All the activity you see now, is a result of the economic downturn. Not the "cause of." V2025 was passed 3 or so years after we started to hit bottome.
For HT it's easy, Hometown is opposed to this along architectural lines. Now, HT will throw anything else in there too, but HTs argument is architectural. What's your argument?
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by restored2x
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by restored2x
The city hall thing was and is a bad idea - just as Hometown said above - bad business decision. A waste of money. A giant risk. Political bling. I can't see how it improves Tulsa one bit.
If a company bought a building, on the presumption that current rental agreements would pay off the loan completely, and get them an essentially free building, how is that a bad business decision?
Also, how long have you lived here? Have you kept up to speed on say last say 4 years? Just wondering, how much of the current "goings on" you've followed.
I've only been here about 15 years. I am not a political animal, most of what goes on in politics is a monumental waste of time. Local politics are usually a mere stepping stone for a politician to get something bigger and better.
I admittedly do not know a lot about "what has gone on before". Face value tells me that spending 70-some million dollars on a building you don't need, and cannot be proven to bring in more corporations - is a risky move at best.
Face value and common sense tell me that the local economy is suffering; people are not spending as much on frivolous things (see above posts about local stuff shutting down, losing business, etc.). The people who can't spend that money cannot and will not approve a new tax that will take more money out of their budgets so we can have river development that will only make the rich richer and maybe provide some minimum salary jobs.
I may not be a born Okie - but I've lived here long enough to have paid my share in taxes.
I've seen it done here before in my short time on this forum: If you ain't a true Okie, born and bred, somebody will inevitably bring that up, so as to take away your credibilty.
Now you don't have to flake out. And they were honest questions. And you didn't answer them either. You brought it up. How is that a "bad business" decision? For a corporation, that would be a great decision.
And if you can't make that case, what are you basing your opposition on? Do you know nothing, do you know something, what is it?
You're right. Tulsa is hurting. It's been hurting for several years now. All the activity you see now, is a result of the economic downturn. Not the "cause of." V2025 was passed 3 or so years after we started to hit bottome.
For HT it's easy, Hometown is opposed to this along architectural lines. Now, HT will throw anything else in there too, but HTs argument is architectural. What's your argument?
My argument is that buying a new city hall is based on speculation - "If we can rent out the spaces..." Businesses are fleeing downtown (at least according to the posts in this thread) and we are risking 70-some million that a new city hall will attract more people downtown, into that specific building. Doesn't sound like a solid business decision.
My argument about the river development is much weaker. I've seen some urban renewal in other towns (Baltimore Harborplace, and rebuilding of downtown) and it CAN work.
I guess I see the weakness there as a handful of rich and generous (not that there's anything wrong with that) individuals as the core of what goes on there. Money talks BS walks. Once the people say "go" via a vote - who's in charge? If stuff goes downhill, who will be left holding the bag?
I doubt that Tulsa can convince young up-and-comers that Tulsa is the place to live. Afterwards, we'll have a really cool river - and still very few new jobs that these "up-and-comers" can or will do.
Why is everyone taking it for granted that if we develop the river - corporations, investments, yuppies, etc will automatically flock into Tulsa? What are the incentives? In Baltimore Harborplace development - the ancient row houses were bought by the city, offered at $1 apiece and people were offered very low-interest govt loans to renovate. They also had to sign a contract that said they would make that house their primary residence for a certain number of years. This brought in people of vision and affluence, and kept them (and their tax dollars) in the city. The Harbor was renewed one step at a time - not by one vote and over. The city actually planned and created their own tax base instead of building and waiting for the magic to happen.
Maybe the argument is stronger than I thought - but it's just my opinion.
Your argument has been the prevailing current in Tulsa for a long time. In that period, we've seen buildings come down, the burbs boom, Tulsa's population stagnant, and our tax base failing to keep pace. We've seen jobs leave at an incredible rate.
I kind of see what your saying with the River, and how it doesn't have to all be done at once. I see this as a "base" project. It won't solve everything, it's a start, and we already have some of the financing available (public and private), and we already have other private projects in the area (current, expected, or potential). The question is, for me, will we sit on it and let a lot projects slide and ignore private offers.
The One Tech Center move fits with everything else, very well. The economics, part is already in place in the form of renters. The question is, can they maintain what they've got and expand as necessary. For a corporation, it would be a good purchase, at a relatively low price (thanks to the downturn). 10 years from now, that building may be worth double what it is currently.
I kind of buy the "it's good for the GOB" line, but it's kind of like lawyers, I may not like them much, but the system won't move without them.
I'm glad we're moving, instead of standing still. We could have taken this downturn and all the lost jobs, and turned it into a permanent loss for Tulsa. Instead, we've done a few things that we're not used to doing. Getting a little inventive. I think we're heading in the right direction.
No Sweetie, my issue in this thread is not architecture. That's ancient history. That was before I found out we don't have enough money to mow. People with money in the bank worry about architecture. People with no money need to worry about getting some money.
I just spent several months working with a girlfriend in Dallas. Her marriage fell apart and she has having a hard time getting her financial house in order. I just spent several months coaching her on basics. Get the income rolling in. Make your house payments. Find a new anti-depressant. Pay your bills. I think I may have brought her out of her tail spin.
I'm a strong believer in first things first. You make sure you have a drawer full of clean underwear before you plop down $100 for a cashmere sweater.
And Waterboy, putting a middle aged man on a diet might help him get a date, but in my experience, by the time a man reaches middle age, the women are usually checking out the bulge in his wallet, not his biceps.
I'm learning a lot from this thread, but so far I'd say it still boils down to -- Tulsa doesn't have enough income to take care of her most basic responsibilities.
For an individual, that's a prescription for disaster.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Your argument has been the prevailing current in Tulsa for a long time. In that period, we've seen buildings come down, the burbs boom, Tulsa's population stagnant, and our tax base failing to keep pace. We've seen jobs leave at an incredible rate.
I kind of see what your saying with the River, and how it doesn't have to all be done at once. I see this as a "base" project. It won't solve everything, it's a start, and we already have some of the financing available (public and private), and we already have other private projects in the area (current, expected, or potential). The question is, for me, will we sit on it and let a lot projects slide and ignore private offers.
The One Tech Center move fits with everything else, very well. The economics, part is already in place in the form of renters. The question is, can they maintain what they've got and expand as necessary. For a corporation, it would be a good purchase, at a relatively low price (thanks to the downturn). 10 years from now, that building may be worth double what it is currently.
I kind of buy the "it's good for the GOB" line, but it's kind of like lawyers, I may not like them much, but the system won't move without them.
I'm glad we're moving, instead of standing still. We could have taken this downturn and all the lost jobs, and turned it into a permanent loss for Tulsa. Instead, we've done a few things that we're not used to doing. Getting a little inventive. I think we're heading in the right direction.
I agree with you - and when the time comes to vote - I'm pretty sure that I'll vote "yes". (River development) It IS a step in the right direction. The devil is in the details, which I hope are stretched out before the voters beforehand. This kind of dialogue (TulsaNow) is incredibly cool. Not everybody knows or is considering all sides - with this kind of dialogue - we will be prepared to ask the right questions.
Among all the conspiracy theories and the complaints about streets and the arguments over what was intended in 2025 something important is not being talked about.
This is a good plan and I am for it, but little is being said about the private development on west bank at 21st. The money is there for the land and there is the Branson Landing developer wanting the site. We need to be clear that we as citizens get what we want out of that development.
I'm very glad that the county has not just signed up with the Branson developer and made him part of the project from the start. It leads one to believe that there will be competitive bidding on the land and that we will have controls even if he is the only bidder, but the county has not said there will be bidding. Branson Landing is NOT what I would want build at this location. That does not mean that the Branson developer is incapable of building something worthwhile there.
So, I want to hear what the plans and process would be for choosing a developer and development for this site.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
No Sweetie, my issue in this thread is not architecture. That's ancient history. That was before I found out we don't have enough money to mow. People with money in the bank worry about architecture. People with no money need to worry about getting some money.
The next question you might ask, is where do you want the cut? City employees lost several pay hikes, TPD lost some pay hikes. TPD went on a hiring freeze for a while, can't remember how long. A year or two I think. Streets are being replaced, just not at a quick pace. We're down to services and employees, there's not much "fat" if you will.
Mowing, to me is probably one of the last things we need to worry about, in a technical sense. But, if mowing is more important, what do you want to cut? If streets are more important, where are you going to get the money?
I kind of hate to say it, but if it boils down to a slight gamble OR waiting it out with fiscal responsibility to a fault, I'd say lets gamble. If you're looking for a city wide tax hike for mowing and city streets, you've got another entire set of problems.
quote:
Originally posted by restored2x
I agree with you - and when the time comes to vote - I'm pretty sure that I'll vote "yes". (River development) It IS a step in the right direction. The devil is in the details, which I hope are stretched out before the voters beforehand. This kind of dialogue (TulsaNow) is incredibly cool. Not everybody knows or is considering all sides - with this kind of dialogue - we will be prepared to ask the right questions.
Yeah, it's just going the right direction. Can't prove to you that it's perfect, not going to bother trying.
It took us a couple tries to get an Arena built, I'm hoping it doesn't take too much longer to start working on the river.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
No Sweetie, my issue in this thread is not architecture. That's ancient history. That was before I found out we don't have enough money to mow. People with money in the bank worry about architecture. People with no money need to worry about getting some money.
The next question you might ask, is where do you want the cut? City employees lost several pay hikes, TPD lost some pay hikes. TPD went on a hiring freeze for a while, can't remember how long. A year or two I think. Streets are being replaced, just not at a quick pace. We're down to services and employees, there's not much "fat" if you will.
Mowing, to me is probably one of the last things we need to worry about, in a technical sense. But, if mowing is more important, what do you want to cut? If streets are more important, where are you going to get the money?
I kind of hate to say it, but if it boils down to a slight gamble OR waiting it out with fiscal responsibility to a fault, I'd say lets gamble. If you're looking for a city wide tax hike for mowing and city streets, you've got another entire set of problems.
Stop discretionary spending for now and work to increase income. If you can't tap into property taxes then look to a city income tax.
Oh my, you want to get brutal. I think at one time, I actually knew how property taxes are figured. I don't remember now.
But a city-wide income tax, holy crap, you really want to send people to the burbs don't ya?
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
The next question you might ask, is where do you want the cut? City employees lost several pay hikes, TPD lost some pay hikes. TPD went on a hiring freeze for a while, can't remember how long. A year or two I think. Streets are being replaced, just not at a quick pace. We're down to services and employees, there's not much "fat" if you will.
Mowing, to me is probably one of the last things we need to worry about, in a technical sense. But, if mowing is more important, what do you want to cut? If streets are more important, where are you going to get the money?
I kind of hate to say it, but if it boils down to a slight gamble OR waiting it out with fiscal responsibility to a fault, I'd say lets gamble. If you're looking for a city wide tax hike for mowing and city streets, you've got another entire set of problems.
S'not a gamble, it's an investment. The return is folks moving into Tulsa instead of out, thus fixing the leaks and making it easier to maintain what we have in the long run. Finding a new balancing point, one where the city creates only the amount of infrastructure than it can sustain...that's important, too. But, in the end, I think you also need to face the music and admit that Tulsa's taxes are unreasonably low, some of the lowest in the country, and these "choices" we make are false ones when you think about what other communities pay to sustain and improve their own quality of life.
Tulsa
is getting pretty creative on the investment side, but they need to get equally creative on the sustainability side like building at transit-friendly densities, infill development, and disincentives for sprawling growth (almost a non-issue since there are few greenfields left in the City Limits). And they also need to get serious about the revenue side...get a spine and start demanding our due from the County, State, and feds...and also have some frank talks with the citizens about stepping up a little and paying taxes that are more in-line with other places that are
serious about their survival.
If you set the threshold high enough city income tax might fly.
Wouldn't hurt to have more federal help via our representatives.
And do we have a full time staff person working with the state legislature to look for more income from the state?
quote:
Originally posted by restored2x
I doubt that Tulsa can convince young up-and-comers that Tulsa is the place to live. Afterwards, we'll have a really cool river - and still very few new jobs that these "up-and-comers" can or will do.
Why is everyone taking it for granted that if we develop the river - corporations, investments, yuppies, etc will automatically flock into Tulsa? What are the incentives?
I understand your skepticism. I'd like to point out an oft-overlooked facet of the Tulsa employment market, which is the dearth of young professionals with degrees to fill skill positions.
http://tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=070712_5_E1_hMore00440
There are three important things to understand about the current psychology of 20- and 30-something professionals. First, they consider themselves nationally mobile. Cities are like neighborhoods, and they want to choose a place that fits them. Second, they want amenities. Not just nice roads, but quality-of-life improvements. Third, and most important for Tulsa, after all their wanderings, eventually these peripatetic professionals want to settle in a place that feels like home.
Tulsa produces tons of these people. I'm one of them. We leave the state for higher education, start our careers in exciting, bustling places with lots of interesting jobs, but we watch from afar to see if Tulsa might be a place worth moving back to. We know the jobs are there, but we're waiting on our town to make sure the life we want is there.
Make the investment, and watch the results. With prodding, the city will rebound to the point that there is no doubting it is a warm, vibrant place to live.
I'm offten in Tulsa and I find the sales tax rates very high as compaired to other states and Oklahoma even has sales tax on food items. here in Ohio our sales tax rate is 6.5 percent and we do not tax any food items, not even fast food if it's carry out. We do tax eat-in restaurant food only. Tulsa's RiverSide jogging trail is in poor shape and should be rebuilt, parts of the trail is old and crumbly and full of pot holes. Anyone who has did any running or cycling on that trail knows it needs work, it's also very narrow. Tulsa has alot of taxes and I dunno where all that money is going.
The mayor of Columbus, Ohio anounced plans for a big expansion of our bike/jogging trails in Central, Ohio and without any tax hikes. The mayor wants to add another 60 miles of jogging trails to our current trail system. I'm very happy with hearing that since I'm a hard core running nut. Tulsa should get on ball like that too. OKC is also working on plans to build a big system of jogging trails. They already have a nice 10 mile loop trail around Lake Hefner it is wide and smooth, great for roller~blading, and the runners and cyclists love it too. Omaha, Nebraska has a huge system of jogging trails too. That means alot for the lifestyle of a city. Tulsa needs to get on the ball and not let the current system of trails fall in dis-reapir. or so it seems to me, thanx.[:)]
Make all the 5013c's pay their share of taxes........I'm tired of enhancing the Properties at 61st and Yale and the churches all around the town......
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Make all the 5013c's pay their share of taxes........I'm tired of enhancing the Properties at 61st and Yale and the churches all around the town......
That would really hurt Tulsa - the charities would just move. These charities draw a bunch of people in - who work here and pay taxes. Ministers and CEOs of charities pay taxes on their own income. Many people have moved here because of the megachurches. These people work, eat and play in Tulsa - many stay and make Tulsa home.
Yeah - let's blame it all on the charities, churches, synagogues and mosques. Let's discourage people like John 3:16 Mission from being in Tulsa.
We need to get more tax revenue by attracting people into the city - not chasing them out by new or higher taxes.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by restored2x
I doubt that Tulsa can convince young up-and-comers that Tulsa is the place to live. Afterwards, we'll have a really cool river - and still very few new jobs that these "up-and-comers" can or will do.
Why is everyone taking it for granted that if we develop the river - corporations, investments, yuppies, etc will automatically flock into Tulsa? What are the incentives?
I understand your skepticism. I'd like to point out an oft-overlooked facet of the Tulsa employment market, which is the dearth of young professionals with degrees to fill skill positions.
http://tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=070712_5_E1_hMore00440
There are three important things to understand about the current psychology of 20- and 30-something professionals. First, they consider themselves nationally mobile. Cities are like neighborhoods, and they want to choose a place that fits them. Second, they want amenities. Not just nice roads, but quality-of-life improvements. Third, and most important for Tulsa, after all their wanderings, eventually these peripatetic professionals want to settle in a place that feels like home.
Tulsa produces tons of these people. I'm one of them. We leave the state for higher education, start our careers in exciting, bustling places with lots of interesting jobs, but we watch from afar to see if Tulsa might be a place worth moving back to. We know the jobs are there, but we're waiting on our town to make sure the life we want is there.
Make the investment, and watch the results. With prodding, the city will rebound to the point that there is no doubting it is a warm, vibrant place to live.
I agree with you. There are some people who may make Tulsa their home (even if just until that next cool job in Seattle comes up) if there were more amenities.
That is a real possibility - but what is the city's plan to communicate with those young people? Is a PR plan in the works? Is that part of the budget? Where will these people stay?
IDEA: Spend 70-some million dollars on buying up the empty buildings downtown (instead of the new city hall) and sell lofts at incredibly affordable prices. Make low-cost loans available to the buyers for renovation. Have as part of the sales contract that they must make that their primary residence for at least 10 years. In 5 years, we will have built the tax base we needed and also have a thriving, prosperous downtown. (Instead of a 70-some million dollar debt and an old, empty rundown old city hall.)
If you could buy a cool loft for a reasonable price, renovate it as you see fit on a low-interest loan and live in a great progressive, forward-looking town - wouldn't you be more inclined to move back to Tulsa?
quote:
Originally posted by restored2x
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Make all the 5013c's pay their share of taxes........I'm tired of enhancing the Properties at 61st and Yale and the churches all around the town......
That would really hurt Tulsa - the charities would just move. These charities draw a bunch of people in - who work here and pay taxes. Ministers and CEOs of charities pay taxes on their own income. Many people have moved here because of the megachurches. These people work, eat and play in Tulsa - many stay and make Tulsa home.
Yeah - let's blame it all on the charities, churches, synagogues and mosques. Let's discourage people like John 3:16 Mission from being in Tulsa.
We need to get more tax revenue by attracting people into the city - not chasing them out by new or higher taxes.
No blame. Merely an enhancement to an already existing tax situation. OK compromise, set a threshold.
Would it hurt Tulsa to make every adjacent owner to city streets pay their share of keeping them in good shape? Does it bother you to know the wealthiest escape civic duty and responsibility through formation of "not for profit" entities? Are they part of the greater community or just "their" community? The funding would go for educating their neighbors children as well....
quote:
Originally posted by restored2x
IDEA: Spend 70-some million dollars on buying up the empty buildings downtown (instead of the new city hall) and sell lofts at incredibly affordable prices. Make low-cost loans available to the buyers for renovation. Have as part of the sales contract that they must make that their primary residence for at least 10 years. In 5 years, we will have built the tax base we needed and also have a thriving, prosperous downtown. (Instead of a 70-some million dollar debt and an old, empty rundown old city hall.)
If you could buy a cool loft for a reasonable price, renovate it as you see fit on a low-interest loan and live in a great progressive, forward-looking town - wouldn't you be more inclined to move back to Tulsa?
Actually, the city did (is?) spending about $12 million in seed money on private loft renovations downtown. It's not the real "splash" that downtown needs, but it's something. There are also some ownership (almost all rentals) and affordability (almost all high end) issues with their plan that they should have considered prior to giving the dough away. I like your ideas better; it's like a homesteading program. Slap together one of those deliberately sloppy, weird, ad campaigns featuring the Flaming Lips and you've got yourself a 21st century "land run". Every hipster dufus in the country would want a part of Tulsa. Cool and cheap is getting hard to find in this country; Tulsa's due.
quote:
Originally posted by restored2x
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by restored2x
I doubt that Tulsa can convince young up-and-comers that Tulsa is the place to live. Afterwards, we'll have a really cool river - and still very few new jobs that these "up-and-comers" can or will do.
Why is everyone taking it for granted that if we develop the river - corporations, investments, yuppies, etc will automatically flock into Tulsa? What are the incentives?
I understand your skepticism. I'd like to point out an oft-overlooked facet of the Tulsa employment market, which is the dearth of young professionals with degrees to fill skill positions.
http://tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=070712_5_E1_hMore00440
There are three important things to understand about the current psychology of 20- and 30-something professionals. First, they consider themselves nationally mobile. Cities are like neighborhoods, and they want to choose a place that fits them. Second, they want amenities. Not just nice roads, but quality-of-life improvements. Third, and most important for Tulsa, after all their wanderings, eventually these peripatetic professionals want to settle in a place that feels like home.
Tulsa produces tons of these people. I'm one of them. We leave the state for higher education, start our careers in exciting, bustling places with lots of interesting jobs, but we watch from afar to see if Tulsa might be a place worth moving back to. We know the jobs are there, but we're waiting on our town to make sure the life we want is there.
Make the investment, and watch the results. With prodding, the city will rebound to the point that there is no doubting it is a warm, vibrant place to live.
I agree with you. There are some people who may make Tulsa their home (even if just until that next cool job in Seattle comes up) if there were more amenities.
That is a real possibility - but what is the city's plan to communicate with those young people? Is a PR plan in the works? Is that part of the budget? Where will these people stay?
IDEA: Spend 70-some million dollars on buying up the empty buildings downtown (instead of the new city hall) and sell lofts at incredibly affordable prices. Make low-cost loans available to the buyers for renovation. Have as part of the sales contract that they must make that their primary residence for at least 10 years. In 5 years, we will have built the tax base we needed and also have a thriving, prosperous downtown. (Instead of a 70-some million dollar debt and an old, empty rundown old city hall.)
If you could buy a cool loft for a reasonable price, renovate it as you see fit on a low-interest loan and live in a great progressive, forward-looking town - wouldn't you be more inclined to move back to Tulsa?
City Hall is moving, get over it. It wouldnt be 70 mill if we didnt move a huge chunk of that would have to go to repairs and upkeep of the old buildings. All investments carry risk. But they also have more potential rewards.
If you dont like the grass in Tulsa go look and see how bad it is in the burbs, its been just as bad or worse along the roads there. And at least we have curbs on more of our roads.
A lot of the people I know my age who come and visit Tulsa inevitably ask things like....
Why nothing along the river? This would be a great place to hang out etc. (Tulsa has been here now how long and what kind of riverwalk or private development have we managed during this time?) What kind of bike trails do you have here? Where is the arts district? Why is downtown so dead? Its a beautiful downtown it should be bustling, I could see living here if it were. What are some of the nightlife spots and hangouts? I work at, teach at, go to school at a university, am working for a higher degree so I can progress with my career, etc. Do they have what I need here educationally in order to move? (usually its a no).
All of those things are basic infrastructure to the people I know. They will drive on gravel roads or in dune buggies as long as they have some place worth getting to. It doesnt matter if your driving on pure gold if you have no place to go and cant be around people like yourself doing the kinds of things they like to do. Make some cool spaces and they will move here and fund the building of better roads and mowing the grass.
The young guy downtown who is building the clubs and restaurants like Mc Nellies, knows what those people like. Most people arent trailblazers like him. They want to move into a ready made environment. But he could use a bit of help. Make some great public spaces to compliment what the developers are and could be doing, and they will move here and fund the building of better roads and mowing the grass.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by restored2x
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by restored2x
I doubt that Tulsa can convince young up-and-comers that Tulsa is the place to live. Afterwards, we'll have a really cool river - and still very few new jobs that these "up-and-comers" can or will do.
Why is everyone taking it for granted that if we develop the river - corporations, investments, yuppies, etc will automatically flock into Tulsa? What are the incentives?
I understand your skepticism. I'd like to point out an oft-overlooked facet of the Tulsa employment market, which is the dearth of young professionals with degrees to fill skill positions.
http://tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=070712_5_E1_hMore00440
There are three important things to understand about the current psychology of 20- and 30-something professionals. First, they consider themselves nationally mobile. Cities are like neighborhoods, and they want to choose a place that fits them. Second, they want amenities. Not just nice roads, but quality-of-life improvements. Third, and most important for Tulsa, after all their wanderings, eventually these peripatetic professionals want to settle in a place that feels like home.
Tulsa produces tons of these people. I'm one of them. We leave the state for higher education, start our careers in exciting, bustling places with lots of interesting jobs, but we watch from afar to see if Tulsa might be a place worth moving back to. We know the jobs are there, but we're waiting on our town to make sure the life we want is there.
Make the investment, and watch the results. With prodding, the city will rebound to the point that there is no doubting it is a warm, vibrant place to live.
I agree with you. There are some people who may make Tulsa their home (even if just until that next cool job in Seattle comes up) if there were more amenities.
That is a real possibility - but what is the city's plan to communicate with those young people? Is a PR plan in the works? Is that part of the budget? Where will these people stay?
IDEA: Spend 70-some million dollars on buying up the empty buildings downtown (instead of the new city hall) and sell lofts at incredibly affordable prices. Make low-cost loans available to the buyers for renovation. Have as part of the sales contract that they must make that their primary residence for at least 10 years. In 5 years, we will have built the tax base we needed and also have a thriving, prosperous downtown. (Instead of a 70-some million dollar debt and an old, empty rundown old city hall.)
If you could buy a cool loft for a reasonable price, renovate it as you see fit on a low-interest loan and live in a great progressive, forward-looking town - wouldn't you be more inclined to move back to Tulsa?
City Hall is moving, get over it. It wouldnt be 70 mill if we didnt move a huge chunk of that would have to go to repairs and upkeep of the old buildings. All investments carry risk. But they also have more potential rewards.
If you dont like the grass in Tulsa go look and see how bad it is in the burbs, its been just as bad or worse along the roads there. And at least we have curbs on more of our roads.
A lot of the people I know my age who come and visit Tulsa inevitably ask things like....
Why nothing along the river? This would be a great place to hang out etc. (Tulsa has been here now how long and what kind of riverwalk or private development have we managed during this time?) What kind of bike trails do you have here? Where is the arts district? Why is downtown so dead? Its a beautiful downtown it should be bustling, I could see living here if it were. What are some of the nightlife spots and hangouts? I work at, teach at, go to school at a university, am working for a higher degree so I can progress with my career, etc. Do they have what I need here educationally in order to move? (usually its a no).
All of those things are basic infrastructure to the people I know. They will drive on gravel roads or in dune buggies as long as they have some place worth getting to. It doesnt matter if your driving on pure gold if you have no place to go and cant be around people like yourself doing the kinds of things they like to do. Make some cool spaces and they will move here and fund the building of better roads and mowing the grass.
The young guy downtown who is building the clubs and restaurants like Mc Nellies, knows what those people like. Most people arent trailblazers like him. They want to move into a ready made environment. But he could use a bit of help. Make some great public spaces to compliment what the developers are and could be doing, and they will move here and fund the building of better roads and mowing the grass.
I am "over it". The point of the original thread was to discuss fiscal responsibilty - the city hall move was a specific point made by the OP. That is why I am expressing my opinion. Could the money heve been used more wisely? Some say yes - some say no.
I know its water under the bridge - but the thread is a discussion on the water that's passed under the bridge. If I didn't want to talk about that - then I would have not posted here.
So - its not a matter of "getting over it". Its a matter of responding to the correct discussion. Telling people who are responding and discussing this to "get over it" can be perceived as a "shut up". You may think the thread is dumb - that's OK. Many of us feel like this discussion is very enlightening and informative.
Then again - we don't know it all.
There are important things on the River in Tulsa.
1. The Refineries that provide a very large portion of the revenue for the City
2. Public Service Electric Plant that provides power for parts of the City
3. Sewage Treatment Plant that processes a large amount of solid waste from the citizens of the City.
4. McMichael Concrete now Mid Continent Concrete that provides the majority of concrete used in construction in the City.
5. Alliance Transportation that moves concrete and aggregate material for construction purposes.
To attempt to blend in public areas and retail shops to coexist with those heavy industrial businesses that are noisy and produce obnoxious fumes, dust and odors does not seem logical to many. Without those heavy industrial businesses it would be difficult to construct the buildings, pave the streets, provide power to the businesses, and remove the solid waste from the employees and customers.
I beleve one of the main reasons for locating these heavey industrial businesses on the West side of the Arkansas River was for a few reasons. One to contain dust that would settle in the river, two to contain a major fire when or if the refineries were to explode, and three to subdue the noise from the residential and retail areas.
The Poll from KOTV
The Oklahoma Poll 500 Registered Voters
282 Million Dollar River Plan
92% Were Aware of the River Plan
52% Would Vote Against the River Plan
39% For It
9% Had no clue or refused to answer
Most important to voters polled that day...
32% Roads
23% Crime
9% Immigration
2% River
Listening to a 41 year old radio talk show host on the AM talk radio today. Today is his birthday and he was reflecting back from his early years to today. He reminded me why our roads are in such bad shape.
According to what we were taught as kids, by this time in history, we were all supposed to be flying around in our cars, not rolling on wheels. :)
quote:
Originally posted by restored2x
I am "over it". The point of the original thread was to discuss fiscal responsibilty - the city hall move was a specific point made by the OP. That is why I am expressing my opinion. Could the money heve been used more wisely? Some say yes - some say no.
That "fiscal responsibility" deal, to me it's slightly misguided because we really have cut back the last several years. It's just now, getting somewhat better. Everyone wants their city to be "fiscally responsible", some want "fiscal responsibility" to infinity, kind of a "if your starving just starve some more" kind of deal. I don't think Tulsa can afford that for very long.
OKC is still kind of wasteland, because it didn't move earlier. It has a few decent things about it, they're making some good moves, but if you get down in the nuts and bolts of the city it's got problems that we haven't really dealt with yet. I don't want to be OKC.
It seems to me, that Tulsa, even though it did well in the 90s, Tulsa still went downhill (unless you count the expansion of South Tulsa as progress). There are various reasons, but there seemed to be little private investment in downtown other than your major corporations, Williams/OTC, that type of thing. I may be wrong, I missed a bunch of year there. But I was here in the beginning of the 90s, and the end of the 90s. Didn't seem that much had changed for the better.
And CL's right, the river deal and OTC; s'not a gamble it's an investment. With every investment there's risk that something won't go as planned, but IMO they are good moves strategy-wise. Might take a few years, but they'll pan out.
Now if I were to borrow money to buy a house and I had enough income to make the monthly payment and based on real estate's historic performance of about 8% a year I could say that borrowing the money constituted an investment.
Unfortunately Tulsa's self improvement schemes don't have a good record. And I am doubtful that city hall and the river really qualify as solid investments.
Tulsa has had a series of schemes that were supposed to save Tulsa going all the way back to urban renewal in the 60s and early 70s: Williams Center and Main Street mall to name two.
I am confident that Tulsa received some benefit from these past schemes even it if the only benefit was the income it provided for workers and business. And given the fact that Tulsa is a company town that lost its company, she certainly could have done worse.
Is the river a solid investment? AMP's points about the risks of mixing industry and recreation are good. No one has really addressed Tulsa's dirty weakness – the Refineries cause the city and river to stink. Regardless I would support the river plan if we could first address our streets and other basic responsibilities.
Increasing the sales tax also raises fairness issues. When we consider increasing the city's income we need to remember that sales tax is a regressive tax and it hits poor and elderly harder than the rest of us. I have called for the elimination of sales tax on groceries and I think we should face up to the difficult task of developing income from sources other sales tax.
I understand Swake's point about capital budgets and operating budgets and it appears that we have a major structural defect in our funding of operating budgets that must be addressed.
Discretionary items like city hall and the river really can wait while we focus on meeting our most basic obligations.
Waterboy's prediction that our city council and mayor might find that there is a price to pay for the city hall move seems to be born out by the polls reflecting citizen support for street improvement instead of discretionary items.
Anyway, All of you folks that are aching to see the river plan implemented are like the young married couple that goes shopping for a mansion when they have no savings for a down payment and not enough income to make the monthly payments. Like that couple, we need to develop a solid financial plan and delay gratification until our financial situation improves.
And then there was some noise in Washington from Inhofe. Now Inhofe's tease of finding more federal money is a step in the right direction even though it is too little too late. And it sounds like Coburn is going to oppose Inhofe's meager efforts in that regard. God save us from Coburn. God lead Tulsa down the path of fiscal responsibility. The polls look like a majority get it.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
The polls look like a majority get it.
Did the majority get the "gay marriage ban" right too? You may not be, but I'm fully aware who is on your side.
You want to sit here and act like no one knows what they're talking about, where were you when all this latest activity started? Where were you when arguably the biggest local Neocons on the block were saying "we're at the point where we'll be cutting flesh and bone. The fat is gone." I don't think you know, even marginally, what you're talking about.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
The polls look like a majority get it.
Did the majority get the "gay marriage ban" right too? You may not be, but I'm fully aware who is on your side.
You want to sit here and act like no one knows what they're talking about, where were you when all this latest activity started? Where were you when arguably the biggest local Neocons on the block were saying "we're at the point where we'll be cutting flesh and bone. The fat is gone." I don't think you know, even marginally, what you're talking about.
Well Lord knows I've been wrong before. I hear and understand your argument. I simply do not agree with you on this issue. And I have tried to make plain that I don't think there is any fat to cut. And I certainly don't think that the majority in any Oklahoma poll support gay people. All gay people in Oklahoma are painfully aware of that.
I'm with ya.
And that was probably a low blow, I apologize. We probably should leave God, gays, and the majority out this discussion.
And I'll have to disagree with you too. This town for a long time shot down nearly every attempt for public improvement. Got em jack and squat. I'm trying to avoid the slide here.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Now if I were to borrow money to buy a house and I had enough income to make the monthly payment and based on real estate's historic performance of about 8% a year I could say that borrowing the money constituted an investment.
Unfortunately Tulsa's self improvement schemes don't have a good record. And I am doubtful that city hall and the river really qualify as solid investments.
Tulsa has had a series of schemes that were supposed to save Tulsa going all the way back to urban renewal in the 60s and early 70s: Williams Center and Main Street mall to name two.
I am confident that Tulsa received some benefit from these past schemes even it if the only benefit was the income it provided for workers and business. And given the fact that Tulsa is a company town that lost its company, she certainly could have done worse.
Is the river a solid investment? AMP's points about the risks of mixing industry and recreation are good. No one has really addressed Tulsa's dirty weakness – the Refineries cause the city and river to stink. Regardless I would support the river plan if we could first address our streets and other basic responsibilities.
Increasing the sales tax also raises fairness issues. When we consider increasing the city's income we need to remember that sales tax is a regressive tax and it hits poor and elderly harder than the rest of us. I have called for the elimination of sales tax on groceries and I think we should face up to the difficult task of developing income from sources other sales tax.
I understand Swake's point about capital budgets and operating budgets and it appears that we have a major structural defect in our funding of operating budgets that must be addressed.
Discretionary items like city hall and the river really can wait while we focus on meeting our most basic obligations.
Waterboy's prediction that our city council and mayor might find that there is a price to pay for the city hall move seems to be born out by the polls reflecting citizen support for street improvement instead of discretionary items.
Anyway, All of you folks that are aching to see the river plan implemented are like the young married couple that goes shopping for a mansion when they have no savings for a down payment and not enough income to make the monthly payments. Like that couple, we need to develop a solid financial plan and delay gratification until our financial situation improves.
And then there was some noise in Washington from Inhofe. Now Inhofe's tease of finding more federal money is a step in the right direction even though it is too little too late. And it sounds like Coburn is going to oppose Inhofe's meager efforts in that regard. God save us from Coburn. God lead Tulsa down the path of fiscal responsibility. The polls look like a majority get it.
If you understand the issues that Tulsa faces, then get this. First, a metropolitan area is much healthier with a healthy central city. I can't think of a single growing and active metro without a strong central city or pair of cities.
The closest area to that situation that I can think of is Northwest Arkansas and that is a small city and is very much a company town. Outside of the impact of Wal-Mart aspect that region remains rural and poor.
I can think of many metros that struggle that lack a central city or have a weak central city. Detroit, Quad Cities, Hampton Roads, and St Louis come quickly to mind.
Metro Tulsa needs a healthy and growing Tulsa. To be that Tulsa has to compete better with it's own suburbs. People choose where to live based on cost of housing, schools, safety, proximity to jobs and area amenities.
I have never heard anyone say they moved to have great streets. And anyway most suburban streets are as bad or worse than urban ones. Safety is not a real issue in the vast majority of Tulsa. Tulsa can't compete in low cost new housing, no land. (Thanks again by the way to Chris Medlock for blocking the annexation of the area next to booming Owasso).
The three issues left are proximity to jobs, which Tulsa should win in most cases, schools and amenities. Amenities go right to heart of this, the river plan builds something most suburbs can't (that's why BA is against the plan). And then there are schools. Cities and counties really don't have anything to do with schools, the districts are run independently, but schools are largely funded by property taxes and the plan helps TPS there in two huge ways. First a half billion dollar commercial development is going to pay a LOT of property taxes and second by helping with overall property values by making the city a more desirable place to live.
The suburbs still should support the plan, just because again what is good for the central city is good for the metro as a whole, Broken Arrow is being short sighted and stupid.
quote:
Originally posted by AMP
To attempt to blend in public areas and retail shops to coexist with those heavy industrial businesses that are noisy and produce obnoxious fumes, dust and odors does not seem logical to many. Without those heavy industrial businesses it would be difficult to construct the buildings, pave the streets, provide power to the businesses, and remove the solid waste from the employees and customers.
I beleve one of the main reasons for locating these heavey industrial businesses on the West side of the Arkansas River was for a few reasons. One to contain dust that would settle in the river, two to contain a major fire when or if the refineries were to explode, and three to subdue the noise from the residential and retail areas.
I can't let these go. The reason for the location is two fold. The land was cheap because no one considered river bank property very valuable. And two, the industry needed a source of water for running the steam powered refinery and a drain for their effluent. Concrete production requires water for mixing and dust settlement. They also dumped left over cement from the trucks along the banks. Once the refinery located along the river, all their contractors, suppliers and labor did too. Even though they no longer use the water from the river they did then.
Commercial development will not be merging with a lot of that industry, they will be supplanting them. Especially the trucking interests that hold the best land on the west side between 41st and 51st.
It may be that the taxes on groceries are a regressive tax. But until that is changed....
I went to one of the meetings the other night and heard what I also have heard on here and on the TW online. Basically "Why build a playground for the rich yuppy types" And " Clubs and restaurants downtown and along the river,, bike trails and things like that will not grow the economy" "A Riverwalk or Tulsa Landing will only have low paying jobs".
One point that ties both those above statements together is this. YP people like me spend a lot of money. I can easily spend 300 dollars or more for me and a couple of friends to eat dinner. And people like me eat out a lot. We enjoy going out and having a "latte" or a nice meal. We buy fancy cars, expensive furniture, etc. We like rollerblading, bikeriding, jogging, great trail systems, park facilities etc.
If we have 600 million dollars of immediate road improvements someone is going to have to pay for them. The more people like me that you have here the less groceries those poor and elderly people will have to buy in order to pay for that 600 mill. Without us, and more of us, means more of a burden on the poor and elderly. Just how much groceries can they eat to make up for people like me leaving?
If they dont like this river tax, they sure as heck arent going to like the road tax and paying for it by themselves.
Great park facilities and a Tulsa Riverwalk, (with low paying jobs) will help attract more YP people who make and spend good money. Again, I can live anywhere. I and people like me can make money anywhere. The businessed come to where we are,and or we create and grow our own businesses. You already have roads downtown and around the river. Do some more things to get people down there to live, work, shop, and play. Increased density, and an increased density of YP types looking for a great environment will pay for those roads. Those roads are going to have to be paid for and repaired whether its only a few old and poor people or nobody at all. The more YPs thrown in the mix the better. One of me probalby pays more taxes for roads and police than 10 or 20 poor or elderly people combined.
Took a friend to the River Parks the other day. Question they always ask is. Why no development along your river? Why the facilities so lame? I love playing volleyball and we were over there. Guess the porta potties didnt impress him that much. Yep Tulsa is competitive alright. Look at these here world class facilities. Have ya ever seen such a glorious row of porta potties in your whole life? [xx(]
supplanting
noun
act of taking the place of another especially using underhanded tactics
Wondering how many Tulsans actually go to the River on purpose each year? I don't know of too many that do, but I guess there are a few. Just wonder how many of them are sober at the time.
I avoid that area of Tulsa along with attornies, nuclear waste and de-railing trains.
A pox on both your houses.
quote:
Originally posted by AMP
Wondering how many Tulsans actually go to the River on purpose each year? I don't know of too many that do, but I guess there are a few. Just wonder how many of them are sober at the time.
I avoid that area of Tulsa along with attornies, nuclear waste and de-railing trains.
Actually there is a good point in that first part about how many Tulsans actually go to the river each year. The point being that there should be a lot more going down there. If we had more health conscious people in this town or people that like running, jogging, bikeriding, volleyball, rollerblading, etc. there would be more people down there. The shame is that we dont have more of those types of people in this town and or cant seem to attract them. Another point is that if there were more and better facilities I bet more people would and could be encouraged to go and join their friends there in these activities. Also if there is more private development, oops I meant to say, if there actually was private development along the river this too would bring more people to the river to shop and eat and it would be nice to have more of it spruced up for when more of them do start coming.
quote:
Originally posted by AMP
Wondering how many Tulsans actually go to the River on purpose each year? I don't know of too many that do, but I guess there are a few. Just wonder how many of them are sober at the time.
I avoid that area of Tulsa along with attornies, nuclear waste and de-railing trains.
What?
Just where do you live?
I reside north of downtown Tulsa about 4.5 miles North West. My office is by Tulsa University.
Last time I was near the river was about 25 years ago. There were many drunk people drinking beer and smoking ciggrettes and stinking up the place. I was there for about five minutes before I got disgusted with all the drunks and funky people there. Never been back.
I was involved in a near fatal traffic accident along Riverside drive in the mid 80's and have avoided driving on that street ever since. Nothing there will ever attract me.
quote:
Originally posted by AMP
I reside north of downtown Tulsa about 4.5 miles North West. My office is by Tulsa University.
Last time I was near the river was about 25 years ago. There were many drunk people drinking beer and smoking ciggrettes and stinking up the place. I was there for about five minutes before I got disgusted with all the drunks and funky people there. Never been back.
I was involved in a near fatal traffic accident along Riverside drive in the mid 80's and have avoided driving on that street ever since. Nothing there will ever attract me.
You live in Tulsa and haven't been by Riverparks in 25 years?
Well, you know, come to think of it $200M isn't that much for a city Tulsa's size. And whatever it will cost us to move to new city hall isn't that much.
I understand your prior points about the river ultimately adding to the tax base and I am convinced there might be some benefit.
I have also heard the city making noise about needing to develop more revenue for operating budgets, that it is ham strung by the current set up. I would say that is a bigger issue than the river and more important.
But the river has momentum and private money pledged so, and it's not that big of a deal and would really be a wonderful amenity for Tulsans.
We just need city operating budgets that are realistic and that make regular contributions to reserves to maintain the city's property which will eventually all have to be rebuilt or replaced.
We have to face the fact that no one else does the job that government does and that it costs money and we are responsible all of us to one degree or another.
It is not acceptable for Tulsa to depend on volunteers to fulfill her basic obligations. We need to fully fund government. It might be possible to make an income tax pretty painless with a high income threshold and progressive. Sometimes I think your average Joe is ready to face fiscal reality again.
I would ask you also to consider another task that faces us -- finding a replacement for the company that left the company town. Quality jobs that pay well would work magic for drawing and retaining talented workers.
I don't understand the political behavior of the Tulsa County citizens. Vision 2025 passed, with a 4/10 cent tax to be given straight to a single company to entice them to build manufacturing jobs. Many of those same voters are adamantly against any tax increase at all that would provide infrastructure that would help Tulsa's unique identity and culture to effloresce. Many young professionals want to live in a unique urban environment that is open to a diverse business climate. Many companies like to open offices in those same locations.
It boggles my mind that there are so many educated people I have met in the Tulsa area who pride themselves on being politically conservative, and who say they are so pro-business, against government's interference with capitalism, that voted for a plan to increase taxes to give millions of dollars in government incentives to a single company! Those same people are explaining to me why their conservative nature would never permit them to vote for this river tax-- and alleged government takeover of the right of individual property developers.
I personally would much rather spend tax dollars on the river than give my money to Boeing, or any other corporate bailout, for that matter. We already have pledged $600 million for street improvements, yet we're against revitalizing the urban parts of Tulsa, thus promoting more sprawl? The population of Tulsa's city proper has decreased by about 10,000 in the past seven years, but the metro area has grown at a healthy rate. Hmmmmmm, that's odd... Could that possibly mean that perhaps we are actually creating more of a burden on our street infrastructure budget by failing to curtail any suburban flight? This is typical of Tulsa's foresight. Missed opportunities have historically cost Tulsa about as much as the oil bust of the 80s did.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
I don't understand the political behavior of the Tulsa County citizens. Vision 2025 passed, with a 4/10 cent tax to be given straight to a single company to entice them to build manufacturing jobs. Many of those same voters are adamantly against any tax increase at all that would provide infrastructure that would help Tulsa's unique identity and culture to effloresce. Many young professionals want to live in a unique urban environment that is open to a diverse business climate. Many companies like to open offices in those same locations.
It boggles my mind that there are so many educated people I have met in the Tulsa area who pride themselves on being politically conservative, and who say they are so pro-business, against government's interference with capitalism, that voted for a plan to increase taxes to give millions of dollars in government incentives to a single company! Those same people are explaining to me why their conservative nature would never permit them to vote for this river tax-- and alleged government takeover of the right of individual property developers.
I personally would much rather spend tax dollars on the river than give my money to Boeing, or any other corporate bailout, for that matter. We already have pledged $600 million for street improvements, yet we're against revitalizing the urban parts of Tulsa, thus promoting more sprawl? The population of Tulsa's city proper has decreased by about 10,000 in the past seven years, but the metro area has grown at a healthy rate. Hmmmmmm, that's odd... Could that possibly mean that perhaps we are actually creating more of a burden on our street infrastructure budget by failing to curtail any suburban flight? This is typical of Tulsa's foresight. Missed opportunities have historically cost Tulsa about as much as the oil bust of the 80s did.
The window on river development is moving towards shut. So much controversy between city and county but now they link arms and say its time for the river? The time is almost past. But I love lost causes. Its the American way. The fence is wobbling and I'm about to fall. Perhaps there are more pressing needs, but if it becomes a choice for more and better roads vs. imperfect river development? Screw the cars.
At least part of this plan would benefit Tulsa streets: new Riverside Drive.
quote:
Originally posted by AMP
Listening to a 41 year old radio talk show host on the AM talk radio today. Today is his birthday and he was reflecting back from his early years to today. He reminded me why our roads are in such bad shape.
According to what we were taught as kids, by this time in history, we were all supposed to be flying around in our cars, not rolling on wheels. :)
Wow. I'm the same age and was told the same thing.... for years, I thought Tulsa was home of the Jetson's apt. building....
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/UniversityClubTower.jpg/100px-UniversityClubTower.jpg)
Seems here while back there was a development along the river. Believe it was destroyed and the people put on the streets.
One can dream of what it is to want to spend $300 for a meal and unable to find a restaurants that will provide the serving of a $300 meal.
.
It gives one deep thought when Tulsa, as an aging town, with resident's trying to survive on SS at less than $500 a month and paying almost 10% already on food and other life support. All tax increased takes from these their quality of life. They are the ones that live in cold houses in the winter and hot houses in the summer. They have given so much to their children already that asking for more is an insult to our ways of life.
Then those who can spend $300 for a meal are the ones who should support the city fancies through a change in the taxing structure. The city will accept donations.
When we looks at the brown stinking river that is not approved for swimming, still has 30 miles of still water to drop the mud out before reaching the dam, the river with very unstable erosion of the banks that has had dikes installed, by the good fairy waving her wan we are going to change it to clear water liken to White River as it flows out of the bluff. In the last 70 years I have seen large parts of farms disappear into the river bed. Their title extends beyond the river banks. This may cause legations costing millions. Yep: "Yonder Cicero with a lean and hungry look."
Still this new generation that is developing the river could Urban Renewal the 71st street business area and install artificial turf for soccer fields on the wide street. Then furnish the present merchants free river bank lands to move their business to.
Yes Virginia, our priorities are shore whacked up.
. .
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Seems here while back there was a development along the river. Believe it was destroyed and the people put on the streets.
One can dream of what it is to want to spend $300 for a meal and unable to find a restaurants that will provide the serving of a $300 meal.
.
It gives one deep thought when Tulsa, as an aging town, with resident's trying to survive on SS at less than $500 a month and paying almost 10% already on food and other life support. All tax increased takes from these their quality of life. They are the ones that live in cold houses in the winter and hot houses in the summer. They have given so much to their children already that asking for more is an insult to our ways of life.
Then those who can spend $300 for a meal are the ones who should support the city fancies through a change in the taxing structure. The city will accept donations.
When we looks at the brown stinking river that is not approved for swimming, still has 30 miles of still water to drop the mud out before reaching the dam, the river with very unstable erosion of the banks that has had dikes installed, by the good fairy waving her wan we are going to change it to clear water liken to White River as it flows out of the bluff. In the last 70 years I have seen large parts of farms disappear into the river bed. Their title extends beyond the river banks. This may cause legations costing millions. Yep: "Yonder Cicero with a lean and hungry look."
Still this new generation that is developing the river could Urban Renewal the 71st street business area and install artificial turf for soccer fields on the wide street. Then furnish the present merchants free river bank lands to move their business to.
Yes Virginia, our priorities are shore whacked up.
. .
You just described most of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Not to mention plaines rivers all over the midwest. The Illinois is clear, but hardly unspoiled. People develop these rivers, swim in them, boat on them and generally admire those communities that manage them well. Are we not up to the task? Do we need to wait till everyone's basic needs are taken care of? When has that ever happened?
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Seems here while back there was a development along the river. Believe it was destroyed and the people put on the streets.
One can dream of what it is to want to spend $300 for a meal and unable to find a restaurants that will provide the serving of a $300 meal.
.
It gives one deep thought when Tulsa, as an aging town, with resident's trying to survive on SS at less than $500 a month and paying almost 10% already on food and other life support. All tax increased takes from these their quality of life. They are the ones that live in cold houses in the winter and hot houses in the summer. They have given so much to their children already that asking for more is an insult to our ways of life.
Then those who can spend $300 for a meal are the ones who should support the city fancies through a change in the taxing structure. The city will accept donations.
When we looks at the brown stinking river that is not approved for swimming, still has 30 miles of still water to drop the mud out before reaching the dam, the river with very unstable erosion of the banks that has had dikes installed, by the good fairy waving her wan we are going to change it to clear water liken to White River as it flows out of the bluff. In the last 70 years I have seen large parts of farms disappear into the river bed. Their title extends beyond the river banks. This may cause legations costing millions. Yep: "Yonder Cicero with a lean and hungry look."
Still this new generation that is developing the river could Urban Renewal the 71st street business area and install artificial turf for soccer fields on the wide street. Then furnish the present merchants free river bank lands to move their business to.
Yes Virginia, our priorities are shore whacked up.
. .
Dont know what development your talking about.
As for asking more from the poor and elderly. If we dont grow our economy and population the demographics are going to keep shifting to it being more and more poor and elderly. The roads will still have to be fixed. Then who is going to be left footing the bill? If its hard on them now, just wait till that 600 million or so road bill hits them and there are less 300dollar a meal people here to help them pay for it. Each one of those people paying for 300 dollar a meals, fancy cars, buying new homes filling them with new furniture, etc. are paying a lot more to fix the roads than a dozen poor and elderly. If you want it to only be the poor and elderly shoudering the total load, thats really going to cost them then. We need to reverse the population drain, high paying job and income earners drain, and the aging demographic shift. If you can re design the way the city collects funds for roads and such that could help. But right now its a sales tax and we need more "big spenders" buying 300dollar meals. The poor and elderly arent going to be able to do it alone and the roads and crime will only get worse and worse and in the end their tax burden even higher.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by AMP
To attempt to blend in public areas and retail shops to coexist with those heavy industrial businesses that are noisy and produce obnoxious fumes, dust and odors does not seem logical to many. Without those heavy industrial businesses it would be difficult to construct the buildings, pave the streets, provide power to the businesses, and remove the solid waste from the employees and customers.
I beleve one of the main reasons for locating these heavey industrial businesses on the West side of the Arkansas River was for a few reasons. One to contain dust that would settle in the river, two to contain a major fire when or if the refineries were to explode, and three to subdue the noise from the residential and retail areas.
I can't let these go. The reason for the location is two fold. The land was cheap because no one considered river bank property very valuable. And two, the industry needed a source of water for running the steam powered refinery and a drain for their effluent. Concrete production requires water for mixing and dust settlement. They also dumped left over cement from the trucks along the banks. Once the refinery located along the river, all their contractors, suppliers and labor did too. Even though they no longer use the water from the river they did then.
Commercial development will not be merging with a lot of that industry, they will be supplanting them. Especially the trucking interests that hold the best land on the west side between 41st and 51st.
I think the location was chosen because Red Fork was where the oil was. Tulsa got a bridge up pretty quickly and that established a settlement pattern that really hasn't changed much: oil fields and worker housing on one side, and management housing on the other. I think this pattern was established a long time ago.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by AMP
Listening to a 41 year old radio talk show host on the AM talk radio today. Today is his birthday and he was reflecting back from his early years to today. He reminded me why our roads are in such bad shape.
According to what we were taught as kids, by this time in history, we were all supposed to be flying around in our cars, not rolling on wheels. :)
Wow. I'm the same age and was told the same thing.... for years, I thought Tulsa was home of the Jetson's apt. building....
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/UniversityClubTower.jpg/100px-UniversityClubTower.jpg)
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1278332,00.html
The World is very different ever since the robot uprising of the mid-90s....
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=2029231258
Short Answer: Shadows is right.
Long Answer:
Thank you Shadows. Your post today reads like poetry. Your parallel metaphor of the homeless camp on the river hits home.
It is unconscionable to continue to increase sales tax when we know that Oklahoma leads the nation in hunger. I've written about all of Tulsa's toothless White people who have never been to the dentist, can't conjugate verbs and vote Republican.
People, say that establishing a city income tax is not doable, wouldn't survive a vote. So, what do we do instead? We continue to pile in on poor folks with excessive sales taxes, as we have done since 1980 because it is EASY.
Shadows, as a Democrat that has seen my party lose elections because we have tried to craft policies that benefit working people I want to say to you that poor Whites are an enormous part of the problem. They have made it possible for Republicans to win elections and implement policies that benefit only the wealthy.
What's going on has gone on for a long time now and I'm not sure how we are going to catapult ourselves over this immoral log jam. But we must try to return some fairness to our system.
Artist, if you knew your rich friends a little better, you would know that wealthy folks have attorneys that advise them on trusts and other strategies that leave them paying much less tax than you might guess.
The middle and lower class carry far more than their share of the burden of community life thanks to the greed at the top.
The injustice now is so extreme and so obvious and has hit the middle class as well as the lower class. But this won't last forever.
We need to try to get Tulsa on a sound financial footing without forever turning to sales tax.
The river is a calculated risk that probably won't do much of what its promoters are promising. I understand why you won't vote for it. But we have gone so far down this path of soaking the poor that I don't know that another .4 of a cent is going to be noticeable -- but it has to stop here.
Folks, I think if you really reflected on it, you would agree that our river is not worth as much as one precious human life and the cold and heat and hunger that Shadows speaks of is real and it is happening today in our sometimes not so beautiful city.
I certainly hear you about the way taxes seem to work in our city. Even though on average Oklahomans pay far less than most states, it appears as though we pay much more. That perception problem alone probably hurts us. Someone visiting or new to town buys something at a store and looks at their purchase receipt and goes WOW! taxes are high here. A person from here goes to another state pays for something and gets a suprise in the opposite direction. But neither of them adjust for the other taxes that are immediately unseen. (like in behavioral modification one knows that an immediate reward or punishment is more effective than one coming long after an act, even if the later punishment or reward is somewhat greater).
I wish I knew what the solution was to our city and states "poor problem". Education is one key and if I had my druthers I would rather spend this upcoming river tax and road tax on that instead. And the disparities that exist within schools here is just the opposite of what it should be. The schools in areas where there are more at risk children should have more money and teachers than the wealthier school districts imo. But that would happen only over the dead body of some soccer mom.
As for the rich paying less taxes than you think. They may be able to do some tings and make their income look less, etc. but they still pay more sales tax and property taxes. Plus I wasnt really talking about the rich I was talking about your YP low six figure types who tend to spend a lot of money and generate wealth. A person who goes to Mathis Brothers and pays 5,000 for a couch or something is going to generate more taxes for roads, police, etc. than 250 people buying a 20 dollar chair at the thrift store.
I in no way think the river is going to be a panacea for all our problems.
There are a lot of things going on in this town that show promise and hope for turning things around.
The new colleges we finally have that are fleshing out and will begin attracting and keeping more of educated youth there.
The new health facilities and programs to help the poor. I think our new School superindendent is showing some promise.
Downtown reinventing itself in several areas and beginning to hopefully attract more urban dwellers,businesses, visitors, increasing population in areas that need help. (Might as well get people to move to areas where we already have infrastructure, your paying for those roads and cops to patrol them whether there are peple there or not.)
Both the colleges and downtown having synergies generating new businesses.
We have wanted something done with the river for a looong time. This plan isnt funding everything but its a very good start with a generous amount from donations and hopefully some major developers perched to do their thing.
All of these things, and more that are going on are going to really anchor the citiy, flesh it out. Its like we are going through a major transition and not doing it the easy way because we are coming out of a looong downturn at the same time. But when we come out on the other side of this... I hesitate to say it, but I think we are going to have a really wonderful city thats going to be good for everyone.
It seems before that we have wasted moments when things were just starting to get better with the economy to take some risks and make progress. Everything was ok, but then the over all economy faltered again and just as things were getting going here, all the planned developments and such never materialized and we fell further than we had been before. Its not ok to just be ok. I am afraid of what will happen if we dont take chances this time. How much further will we fall when the economy starts to slide down this next time. And it will. You have to know that. We will end up losing more companies, more jobs, have worse roads, hurting the poor even more.
The way people are complaining about things leads one to get the feeling that people dont realize we are right in the middle of what could be our last oil/energy boom time. Its a good economy right now. These are the good times and you know what happens after that. We need to take advantage of it. You think the poor are hurting now, just wait. If we dont do anything differently this time what would make you think we wouldnt see yet further decline like we have the last several cycles? I would rather take some chances, and try to push ourselves up a notch rather than continue to just let things, "go with the flow", let everything just meander along as we usually do hoping natural development will be good enough. That wont make the city any more special than any other city. Any place can do that. Its those extra things that take more work and effort that seperate you from the crowd. The sacrifices of the moment that can pay off continuously in the future.
I cannot recall any nation, country, county or city that has taxed or bonded themselves into prosperity.
If there is clientele available in sufficient numbers to buy $300 dollar meals there would be a land run by the private sector to the river banks to install restaurants and associated business. It is the private investor who takes the risk and after all the ballyhoo is over then it becomes a calculated risk on the billfolds of the investors.
The river is not a viable location for a major building boom in the retail market. They use of figures to convince the populist that there is a pot of gold attached to the revenue bonds that will be sold to start the development that has the hidden interest in millions of dollars making the total much more than is reported. Money, as the city uses it is a commodity that has to be paid for. (No sales taxes on that commodity)
While there is presumed a need to further tax the poor with limited incomes when many CEO's live with all the perks such a free cars with expenses paid, leased tax exempt clothing, while we charge sales taxes on school supplies. The city duplicates these perks in some city departments.
It is better to complete the dreams we have started than to start more dreams. We cannot stabilize any city budget until we find out if the dreams are going to produce the income that will be needed. Look at the amount of road taxes collected on the sales of gasoline that is given back to the city to maintain its streets. It is a shame it is eaten up by bloated salaries as the streets fall in ruins.
The Indian Nations has found a cash cow in their casinos which has opened the doors to the courts on their claims to the river. With this new windfall there may be several old treaties from the "trail of tears" area that may need to be addressed when the river is used for profit.
We are rolling the dice on the 2025 issue. Lets wait and see if we come up with a pair of sevens.
As the country boy would say when looking at the arena "Wonder how much hay it would hold".
Many of you had your way in the 90s on civic projects and Tulsa suffered for it. When you weren't looking, more and more Tulsans left this city...
We're talking about a 1/4 of a cent per dollar tax here.
For Shadows to link a pretty expensive river project to every societal problem and meander over all sorts of historical crappola he thinks he knows about, Mr. Shadows has engaged in pure lunacy...
I've lived in Chicago long enough to know BS when I see it... and it's no surprise that Hometown has fallen for it...
The combination of Shadows' ramblings and Friendly Bear's conspiracy around every corner is taking me from the uncommitted catagory to supporting this "river tax."
I see a lot of talk about these river projects somehow bringing in new development and raising our tax base. But how exactly will these projects do this? Do we actually know what the $60 million of property acquisition is for? Do the plans include space along the river for retail and entertainment development? Where can I find more details? The descriptions I see in the Whirled don't explain very much and leave me leaning against the proposal because all I see is getting water flowing in the river and some undefined property acquisitions...
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
I see a lot of talk about these river projects somehow bringing in new development and raising our tax base. But how exactly will these projects do this? Do we actually know what the $60 million of property acquisition is for? Do the plans include space along the river for retail and entertainment development? Where can I find more details? The descriptions I see in the Whirled don't explain very much and leave me leaning against the proposal because all I see is getting water flowing in the river and some undefined property acquisitions...
At the bottom of this page is a link to the Kaiser plan....
http://ww3.tulsachamber.com/news.asp?id=10&newsid=97
Here is the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan. The Kaiser Plan is essentially the first phase of that over all Master Plan.
http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/default.htm
Here is a link that goes down into a little more detail of one small part of the Kaiser Plan and also gives some info about water flow and the dams.
http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/Reports/Tulsa%20Wave%20Final%20April%202007.pdf
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
I see a lot of talk about these river projects somehow bringing in new development and raising our tax base. But how exactly will these projects do this? Do we actually know what the $60 million of property acquisition is for? Do the plans include space along the river for retail and entertainment development? Where can I find more details? The descriptions I see in the Whirled don't explain very much and leave me leaning against the proposal because all I see is getting water flowing in the river and some undefined property acquisitions...
At the bottom of this page is a link to the Kaiser plan....
http://ww3.tulsachamber.com/news.asp?id=10&newsid=97
Here is the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan. The Kaiser Plan is essentially the first phase of that over all Master Plan.
http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/default.htm
Here is a link that goes down into a little more detail of one small part of the Kaiser Plan and also gives some info about water flow and the dams.
http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/Reports/Tulsa%20Wave%20Final%20April%202007.pdf
Thank you. I look forward to spending some time studying those.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
I cannot recall any nation, country, county or city that has taxed or bonded themselves into prosperity.
Not that I am for raising taxes for everything. If I had my druthers I would change some things in this plan to make it less costly. And perhaps there are some other ways to fund it that would cost less to the taxpayers as well.
And it does seem that the city relying so heavily on sales tax to fund things is problematic.
However in response to your statement. Oklahomans as we have said over and over, have the lowest tax burden of any state. We also have some of the worst roads and bridges, highest rates of; crimes of many types, divorce, poverty, homelessness, child abuse neglect and death, hunger, obesity, tobacco use, poor infrastructure,...
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/pf/0704/gallery.tax_friendliest/8.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/51.html
One ranking I have noticed is that Oklahoma has a high percentage of gov workers per population which would be interesting to look at. I dont think we should willy nilly just raise taxes. But we have always wanted something done with the river, the economy is looking up for Tulsa, we have some generous doners and some private developers ready to do their thing. We currently have some of the lowest over all taxes in the nation. Sounds like as good time to get the river and the roads done as any.
Having just come from a gathering where the river got into the discussion a builder/developer made a comment on developing the river. He suggest that a public issue of stock be issued at $1.00 per share with 282 million shares outstanding where that way all those who see such a windfall in the development would have a chance in participating in selling lots by forming a taxing district to encourage the locating business on its banks.
Those who were pushing the river development would have some thoughts if they were putting out their own money. I would have to believe that would be a solution when those who had such faith in the success was money wise supporting it.
When I look at the designs submitted I feel that we are not all talking about the same river with is contaminated waters and the clear blue water that are in the posted renditions' of the river.
For a few more hundred million dollars we could scrub the water as it leaves the Keystone dam and have that nice blue water.
I believe that Philips built a test lake where they showed the sanitary sewer water could be scrubbed and reused for drinking. We might look into that and have clear water in the river.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Having just come from a gathering where the river got into the discussion a builder/developer made a comment on developing the river. He suggest that a public issue of stock be issued at $1.00 per share with 282 million shares outstanding where that way all those who see such a windfall in the development would have a chance in participating in selling lots by forming a taxing district to encourage the locating business on its banks.
Those who were pushing the river development would have some thoughts if they were putting out their own money. I would have to believe that would be a solution when those who had such faith in the success was money wise supporting it.
When I look at the designs submitted I feel that we are not all talking about the same river with is contaminated waters and the clear blue water that are in the posted renditions' of the river.
For a few more hundred million dollars we could scrub the water as it leaves the Keystone dam and have that nice blue water.
I believe that Philips built a test lake where they showed the sanitary sewer water could be scrubbed and reused for drinking. We might look into that and have clear water in the river.
You no speeka english?!
I believe that river development is critical to the city's survival and growth, but also have problems with the funding aspects via the increased sales tax. It seems like that no matter how much money we "give" to the government entities, it is never enough.
One problem I have with developing new entertainment venues, is how much discretionary income is available to support these new destinations? If you look at the parking lots of all the casinos around town, it seems like a large part of the discretionary income has found a home. This is going to be a difficult audience to convince that they need to spend their money elsewhere. The dollars being spent now will be spread over a wider area. What long-term effect will this have on the economy?
This has historically been a difficult town to keep entertainment and eating establishments in business. And with a lot of the major businesses either relocating or cutting upper level jobs, it will be more difficult to attract and keep entertainment/dining choices that cater to the upper income brackets.
I believe it would be more beneficial to create a business-friendly environment that will bring jobs back to Tulsa, and automatically raise the tax base. River development in and of itself is not going to encourage businesses to move here.
Just wondering, for example, why Google and Gatorade chose to locate in Pryor? Was Tulsa considered and dismissed as a possibility? It seems we are losing ground for some reason, with more companies moving out than choosing to move in.
JMHO,
Nick
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
I see a lot of talk about these river projects somehow bringing in new development and raising our tax base. But how exactly will these projects do this? Do we actually know what the $60 million of property acquisition is for? Do the plans include space along the river for retail and entertainment development? Where can I find more details? The descriptions I see in the Whirled don't explain very much and leave me leaning against the proposal because all I see is getting water flowing in the river and some undefined property acquisitions...
At the bottom of this page is a link to the Kaiser plan....
http://ww3.tulsachamber.com/news.asp?id=10&newsid=97
Here is the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan. The Kaiser Plan is essentially the first phase of that over all Master Plan.
http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/default.htm
Here is a link that goes down into a little more detail of one small part of the Kaiser Plan and also gives some info about water flow and the dams.
http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/Reports/Tulsa%20Wave%20Final%20April%202007.pdf
Again. Thank you for providing those links. The problem is, none of those show us what is actually included in the proposal we are going to be voting on. (Unless it's somehow in the Chamber of Commerce link, but their information and maps are essentially unreadable.)
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Danger
I believe that river development is critical to the city's survival and growth, but also have problems with the funding aspects via the increased sales tax. It seems like that no matter how much money we "give" to the government entities, it is never enough.
One problem I have with developing new entertainment venues, is how much discretionary income is available to support these new destinations? If you look at the parking lots of all the casinos around town, it seems like a large part of the discretionary income has found a home. This is going to be a difficult audience to convince that they need to spend their money elsewhere. The dollars being spent now will be spread over a wider area. What long-term effect will this have on the economy?
This has historically been a difficult town to keep entertainment and eating establishments in business. And with a lot of the major businesses either relocating or cutting upper level jobs, it will be more difficult to attract and keep entertainment/dining choices that cater to the upper income brackets.
I believe it would be more beneficial to create a business-friendly environment that will bring jobs back to Tulsa, and automatically raise the tax base. River development in and of itself is not going to encourage businesses to move here.
Just wondering, for example, why Google and Gatorade chose to locate in Pryor? Was Tulsa considered and dismissed as a possibility? It seems we are losing ground for some reason, with more companies moving out than choosing to move in.
JMHO,
Nick
Different companies choose to locate particular facilities in different places for different reasons. (hows that for clarity?[:P]) For instance, on my way to Bartlesville there is a huge Wal-Mart distribution center. Its basically out in the middle of nowhere. On a highway, cheap land, who knows why that spot. I am sure they had their reasons and no matter how attractive this or that city was, their math came up with that spot. The Google thing I believe had something to do with cheap and plentiful electricity from a coal powered power plant, 4.5 cents per kilowat per hour, and some other reasons. It wasnt the kind of facility where it would matter if there were a city or anything else near it or not. As for The Gatorade...
" PepsiCo is building a $180- million manufacturing and distribution facility in Pryor's MidAmerica Industrial Park to produce Gatorade and Propel Fitness Water to serve South Central states. The plant, set to begin operations in September, is on a 165- acre (67- hectare) site and includes a 400,000- sq.- ft. (37,000- sq.m.) production facility and a 1.1- million- sq.- ft. (102,200- sq.- m.) distribution center.
Chris Weber, plant manager of the new facility, says the Pryor site was chose because it lies in the heart of the new facility's distribution area. The plant, the ninth Gatorade facility in the U.S., will ship its products via truck, with 500 to 700 trucks pulling in and out of the facility daily.".....
Are there many 165 acre spots near a highway you could build something like that in Tulsa, not exactly some tiny little thing you could just plop down in mid town. And I am sure the neighbors wouldn't want 5-700 trucks pulling in and out everyday.
Point is, yes perhaps a few of those types of things could be brought to Tulsa, but not every type of business facility is a perfect match for Tulsa.
Now I am not saying river development is the exclusive solution to what I am about to say. But neither are the roads.
One thing that I keep wondering about is this....
I have heard over and over from different business owners who have high paying, skilled and technical type jobs, even some manufacturing businesses needing skilled workers... That they cant find the people here to fill the positions and when they try to "import" these people, they often dont want to live here.
I specifically remember one business owner in the audience of a river meeting getting up and telling the story of how he had found a good canditate for a job position he had open. Flew the guy here, wined and dined him, offered him a great wage package. He said the guy looked around town and just said he couldnt live here. Makes it a little frustrating for this business owner to be here and perhaps at a disadvantage when competing with a similar company that is located where they can more easily get the people they need to work for them.
I keep hearing how anymore, companies go where the skilled labor is. The "creative class" type people not only create companies and jobs, companies and jobs go to where the creative class people are. I dont think trying to attract google computer farms and bottling plants is really the way to go in the long run anyway.
Even some skilled manufacturing jobs like those in need of welders are having a hard time finding workers here. But the lack of those types of workers is probably the result of very different reasons than our lack of our ability to attract the creative class types.... Or is it? Is there a connection?
From what I know of my friends that have visited here, long time friends who used to live here but have moved away, the common denominators as to why they dont want to live in Tulsa is that it doesnt offer the type of lifestyle they want. They want to live in a cool, hip, urban environment with lots to do and lots of people like them who like to to the same things they do etc. Is Tulsa hip, cool, "trendy". Is there anything the city government or taxpayers can do to create that or pump up the buzz a little? Has anyone noticed how Omaha of all places, sold themselves? They took what little they had, pumped it up, shined it up, I mean they put lipstick on that pig and sold that baby.
One thing that many of my friends also have in common is that they are hard working, really love getting out and enjoying life and are... ambitious. Is Tulsa a place that immediately comes to mind as a place to go if your ambitious and want to enjoy life?
Roads... fine, great trails and some nice things along the river.... sure, another thing to add to our "cool" and pretty place to live factor, along with revitalizing downtown and some mid-town areas. I frankly think the one best thing our city could do would be to invest in our colleges. Creating a great college town atmosphere, bringing in and keeping young educated people, college research facilities, an arts scene (and I am not talking opera and ballet), and all the other things that would go along with a large university, or two. That would be the best investment bar none.
Another thing that would really help is our attitudes. As in changing them. One of our biggest exports anymore seems to be negativity, despair, our whining and picking on ourselves and our home town. I have to admit, I have caught myself doing it on occasion. And as an artist I should know better. Image and perception really are important. I live on selling illusion. Is Omaha, or some of those other places, really all that? Or did they paint a convincing enough picture to get enough people to believe it? Is there something to be said about packaging and marketing? Something to be said about confidence and how you feel about yourself, and how others perceive you? Would it even change the actions we choose to take and where those different actions would lead us?
My reference to the two new businesses locating in Pryor was probably not well thought out, as I can see where they might have special requirements that Tulsa would have problems providing. They were just the two recent ones that came to mind as I was writing. I guess I am just frustrated by the lack of higher paying jobs moving in to sustain/grow the economy, and the ones that have moved out in the last few years.
It seems that the only companies that choose to locate here are call centers. Not that I have a problem with them per se, but the $8-12 per hour wage that most of the workers will earn does not leave them with any extra discretionary income after paying the normal housing, utilities, groceries, taxes, etc.
I agree that the cost of living in Tulsa is lower than most parts of the country, but even with jobs paying $8-12 per hour, it would be difficult to afford housing for a family. Almost all of the new construction in the area is over $200K, and there are a limited number of homes available in the lower price range in a decent area. $200K is more than likely out of reach for those in this salary range (especially now, with the mortgage market in a tumble). BTW, are there that many people who can afford to purchase the increasing number of $400K+ houses being built??
I agree that we need to concentrate on getting more university presence here. I don't believe there are many metropolitan areas without a 4-year university located within the area.
I have also read that the schools here have been an issue with companies that have considered Tulsa as their home. But our schools can't be in any worse shape than other areas of the country, can they?? I don't think this is just a "Tulsa" or "Oklahoma" problem, although I believe there is great room for improvement.
I don't think there is a simple solution to the problem, because the city's decline has been going on for quite awhile, and will have to be attacked from a lot of different angles.