County Commission votes 3-0.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070802_1__Tulsa36326
I take it the quick vote means they are optimistic about the outcome.
Thanks for the news.
I think I'm leaning more towards a no than a yes on this one......
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
I think I'm leaning more towards a no than a yes on this one......
Wow, that's a shock.
What a waste.. I agree with one of the comments there, well several but the one mentioning the polls on this. On every news channel I've flipped through and seen polls on the TV-channel-poll-voting people of Tulsa are AGAINST this plan/tax hike.
So why does it make sense to run it through the voting process?
Because having nearly 40% "for", 2+ months ahead of election, without the ad push, is pretty good.
It's not doomed yet. Wait until the details start to get out, and that $111 million private contribution starts running through peoples minds.
If it passes, will we have to rename the River Kaiser River or BOK River?
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Because having nearly 40% "for", 2+ months ahead of election, without the ad push, is pretty good.
It's not doomed yet. Wait until the details start to get out, and that $111 million private contribution starts running through peoples minds.
And the $57 for commerical land aquision and site prep.
Gwen and Medlock were whining about wanting Branson Landing here and why can't we have it instead.
It's not instead you lying fools, it's part of the damn plan, and you know it.
Less than half a cent for close to a Billion dollars in river development, if not over a Billion.
Good points.
For now I'm sticking with a no but I'd like to see what comes out in the next 2 months. Something could surely change my mind.
Maybe Kaiser should drop a little more money on this for his tax breaks and we can just call it Kaiser Landing.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
I think I'm leaning more towards a no than a yes on this one......
Wow, that's a shock.
Not to me it's not.....
As a young professional, trust me, this will NOT keep my peers in town. If anything, this will run us out even faster. We don't want to disturb a beautiful natural river for something such as Riverwalk in Jenks. We want a lively downtown, interesting clubs and restaurants, NOT "cookie cutter" Jenks up and down the river. I'd vote for quality roads in a heartbeat. Ours currently resemble roads from third world countries.
I'm not optimistic. That poll the other day showed a 52 percent negative against it.
Those are awfully high bad numbers to overcome.
People are sick of the bad roads, and want money spent on those instead. Plain and simple.
No one concerned that the City of Tulsa lost a seat on the Authority? I heard from one Councilor that Smaligo's move may cost the support of the Council, and that the Mayor is pretty hacked.
Still on the fence. I feel that this will have a net positive effect on our local economy. And so, I see it as an investment. One that will raise our image and quality of life.
But it feels a lot like an impulse buy. Sure, it's "on sale" (huge private match), but I fear that it really puts the squeeze on the City's ability to go back to the voters on things like streets. I don't want a 8.9% sales tax (is that right?), but if we choose it, we'll survive. I worry though that it makes it a little harder for the City to go back to the voters for the extra penny (or more) to make the streets passable. And I'm sure that that one can't be put off for 10 more years.
If the County were looking at property taxes, I'd be much more willing to embrace this thing. Can one of you conservative types explain why property taxes are a sacred cow? And it'd be particularly helpful if the answer amounted to something more than, "Because I'm a stingy cheapskate!"[;)]
Get ready for a ton of commercials. Kaiser is planning on spending 1 million to buy pass this project.
I'll be voting no.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Still on the fence. I feel that this will have a net positive effect on our local economy. And so, I see it as an investment. One that will raise our image and quality of life.
But it feels a lot like an impulse buy. Sure, it's "on sale" (huge private match), but I fear that it really puts the squeeze on the City's ability to go back to the voters on things like streets. I don't want a 8.9% sales tax (is that right?), but if we choose it, we'll survive. I worry though that it makes it a little harder for the City to go back to the voters for the extra penny (or more) to make the streets passable. And I'm sure that that one can't be put off for 10 more years.
If the County were looking at property taxes, I'd be much more willing to embrace this thing. Can one of you conservative types explain why property taxes are a sacred cow? And it'd be particularly helpful if the answer amounted to something more than, "Because I'm a stingy cheapskate!"[;)]
I'll make a deal, either the county lets the city have property taxes or the whole state switches to a fair-tax system.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Still on the fence. I feel that this will have a net positive effect on our local economy. And so, I see it as an investment. One that will raise our image and quality of life.
But it feels a lot like an impulse buy. Sure, it's "on sale" (huge private match), but I fear that it really puts the squeeze on the City's ability to go back to the voters on things like streets. I don't want a 8.9% sales tax (is that right?), but if we choose it, we'll survive. I worry though that it makes it a little harder for the City to go back to the voters for the extra penny (or more) to make the streets passable. And I'm sure that that one can't be put off for 10 more years.
If the County were looking at property taxes, I'd be much more willing to embrace this thing. Can one of you conservative types explain why property taxes are a sacred cow? And it'd be particularly helpful if the answer amounted to something more than, "Because I'm a stingy cheapskate!"[;)]
I'll make a deal, either the county lets the city have property taxes or the whole state switches to a fair-tax system.
I would tend to agree with that......
There's a recent post on this board saying Oklahoma currently has the "lowest" tax burden in the nation. If that is true, how can the river tax and an eventual street/bridge tax (both projects will be a definite positive to the entire region) be a bad thing??? Thinking long-term, I'd vote for both!
I'll be sure to keep the board up to date on how the powers that be choose to force me and my fellow lemmings into following their directive. [;)]
I give it a much, much better chance of passing as a special election. It's one thing to get 40 notaxniks to show up at a meeting; it's another thing to get 40,000 of them to go vote on a single-issue ballot. This vote won't be about popularity, it will be about publicity. If I recall, that's how they finally started getting school bond issues passed - take them off the statewide ballots and make it a single-issue vote, where the nays were more likely to stay home than the yays.
quote:
Originally posted by midtownnewbie
There's a recent post on this board saying Oklahoma currently has the "lowest" tax burden in the nation. If that is true, how can the river tax and an eventual street/bridge tax (both projects will be a definite positive to the entire region) be a bad thing??? Thinking long-term, I'd vote for both!
Yes, it's true...for the last two years running. http://taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/475.html
Now, the street deal is a GO Bond isn't it?
Do Go Bonds add to the sales tax? I was under the impression they do not.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Now, the street deal is a GO Bond isn't it?
Do Go Bonds add to the sales tax? I was under the impression they do not.
They are tied to property tax
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought I saw somewhere that the City was also getting ready put up another GO Bond for city streets. Close to the total of River package. I'll have to look for it.
quote:
Originally posted by midtownnewbie
There's a recent post on this board saying Oklahoma currently has the "lowest" tax burden in the nation. If that is true, how can the river tax and an eventual street/bridge tax (both projects will be a definite positive to the entire region) be a bad thing??? Thinking long-term, I'd vote for both!
Apparently these people haven't been to New Hampshire.
quote:
Originally posted by DwnTwnTul
As a young professional, trust me, this will NOT keep my peers in town. If anything, this will run us out even faster. We don't want to disturb a beautiful natural river for something such as Riverwalk in Jenks. We want a lively downtown, interesting clubs and restaurants, NOT "cookie cutter" Jenks up and down the river. I'd vote for quality roads in a heartbeat. Ours currently resemble roads from third world countries.
Natural River?... Since when? Keystone dam stops and starts flows of water. Releases it at peak rate hours to generate electricity. That water doesnt get to Tulsa until late night. Then it stops during the day. (except when we have had these high rains of course) The rest of the time the river is barely navigable for the fish. This plan will keep more water in the river flowing during more times than it would naturally, even without the Keystone dam. The Sand Springs dam will be built higher to capture some of the water at night, then will release it during the day so that there will be a more constant flow. The Zink dam will be redesigned to improve the ability of fish to migrate. The other dams will be designed to take them into consideration as well. The more regular water flow and other things will improve the habitat for many other animals too. It will not be "cookie cutter Jenks" up and down the river. Many places are designated wildlife habitats and can not be developed. The largest chunks of the river are public park space. There are only a few places designated for private development. The one area most likely to be developed, across from downtown, will not be like the Riverwalk in Jenks. The Tulsa landing proposal alone will cost 10 times both phases of the Riverwalk and is supposed to be more urban in design with living, multi level parking garages, etc.
BTW, you sound a bit too ignorant to be any YP I know. Perhaps someone needs to look into having your YP card revoked, and you might as well bring in your arm bands too. [:P]
I will be voting hell no on this tax.
In public and private conversations with public officials and private parties over the last few days I have suggested a mixed sales tax/GO bond. I advocated a short public review process that would evaluate several tax or other options and that would promote public involvement and education.
The specific proposal that I made yesterday to the CC was 2/10 county sales tax and GO Bonds for each Rivercity: Sand Springs, Tulsa, Jenks and Bixby.(I am told that GO bonds for cities only require 50% + 1 while county GO bonds require 60%). I argued this would be the most fair, with those whose property who would be most affected paying more. Also this would add an element of progressiveness to the tax burden--with property owners nearest the river development paying for the development from the increased value of their property.
I suggested that home and business owners near Maple Ridge or Brookside or at the 96th and Riverside commercial node could and should pay more than the remote sales tax payer in Broken Arrow or Owasso.
I felt a tax plan similar to this would have a better chance of passing.
Comm. Perry told me that he found my suggestion attractive and would have pushed it if he had more time, but that time ran out.
I proposed this mixed tax plan for several reasons:
1. Fairness--some form of progressive taxation.
2. Letting the Rivercities have a direct role and more control over the development.
3. Freeing up the other 2/10 of sales tax burden to be used for other purposes as determined by each municipality, if necessary.
4. An opportunity to get more people, especially in Broken Arrow, Owasso, North/East/West Tulsa to support river development if they felt the tax plan was more fair--not just Mid-town/South Tulsa/Jenks/ & Bixby.
I am very concerned that activated voters in the areas not directly impacted by the river will defeat a county-wide sales tax. The voter participation in Broken Arrow and Owasso is very high, much higher than Sand Springs and West Tulsa.
I want the river to be developed and the INCOG plan is a good one, developed with lots of public participation. How we pay for the development has not had the same level of public input. It is too bad that we moved so fast on this tax plan. I hope this fast sales tax plan will not spell defeat for river development.
I will support the plan adopted yesterday and work for its passage. River development of the type proposed, especially with the private donations, is important for metro Tulsa. This plan is so good it will overcome any personal concerns I have for the tax package or who will be in charge, County vs. City.
I hope my concerns that it will be defeated are not correct. I urge you to look at the merits of the plan and vote for the river sales tax--even if you have reservations. It is a small price to pay for the future of our area.
Everyone already pays a street tax. It's called the third-penny sales tax. That is what started third-penny in the first place. But because it got side tracked, now they want a new street tax.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by DwnTwnTul
As a young professional, trust me, this will NOT keep my peers in town. If anything, this will run us out even faster. We don't want to disturb a beautiful natural river for something such as Riverwalk in Jenks. We want a lively downtown, interesting clubs and restaurants, NOT "cookie cutter" Jenks up and down the river. I'd vote for quality roads in a heartbeat. Ours currently resemble roads from third world countries.
Natural River?... Since when? Keystone dam stops and starts flows of water. Releases it at peak rate hours to generate electricity. That water doesnt get to Tulsa until late night. Then it stops during the day. (except when we have had these high rains of course) The rest of the time the river is barely navigable for the fish. This plan will keep more water in the river flowing during more times than it would naturally, even without the Keystone dam. The Sand Springs dam will be built higher to capture some of the water at night, then will release it during the day so that there will be a more constant flow. The Zink dam will be redesigned to improve the ability of fish to migrate. The other dams will be designed to take them into consideration as well. The more regular water flow and other things will improve the habitat for many other animals too. It will not be "cookie cutter Jenks" up and down the river. Many places are designated wildlife habitats and can not be developed. The largest chunks of the river are public park space. There are only a few places designated for private development. The one area most likely to be developed, across from downtown, will not be like the Riverwalk in Jenks. The Tulsa landing proposal alone will cost 10 times both phases of the Riverwalk and is supposed to be more urban in design with living, multi level parking garages, etc.
BTW, you sound a bit too ignorant to be any YP I know. Perhaps someone needs to look into having your YP card revoked, and you might as well bring in your arm bands too. [:P]
Live in a glass house? Thanks for quoting me from other threads, but some innacuracies you added.
(The rest of the time the river is barely navigable for the fish.) The fish do just fine. When is the last time you floated this river to guage its depth? You don't even like boats. The river is pretty close to natural operation thanks in part to the Corps. mimicking natural flows over the last century of measurement. Its not a mistake that the river always has some flow in it and continues to meander and pool. If by natural you mean flooding huge areas of the metro, well no, we don't let it do that anymore.
(The more regular water flow and other things will improve the habitat for many other animals too.) So now we're improving on nature by damming it up to create park spaces and pretty visages? Rather arrogant attitude. Someone get this guy a bible. Which particular animals are going to see improvements? The turkey buzzards that feed off the sand bars that will be covered up by a SS dam that is too large?
Besides your naive belief that Branson Landing is going to 'be all that", you now appoint yourself official determiner of whose YP and whose not calling others too ignorant to be in the club? You're over 40 buddy and on the downside of YP status.
Broken Arrow people are primarily against the river plan because they say it impacts Tulsa and not them... Funny, I wonder how big Broken Arrow would be right now if Tulsa didn't exist...
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Everyone already pays a street tax. It's called the third-penny sales tax. That is what started third-penny in the first place. But because it got side tracked, now they want a new street tax.
T'aint enough. I read the last third penny request, it's still basic stuff, streets, sewer rehab, stormwater...it hasn't been sidetracked. It's just simply not enough to keep pace with our aging infrastructure.
We built lots and lots of streets over the last 50 years...and they are wearing out.
quote:
Originally posted by Bledsoe
I suggested that home and business owners near Maple Ridge or Brookside or at the 96th and Riverside commercial node could and should pay more than the remote sales tax payer in Broken Arrow or Owasso.
huh? they come and use the infrastructure but scoot back out to the burbs with less of a tax burden? i don't think so... this is exactly why we need a City Income Tax just like we had in KC...
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Bledsoe
I suggested that home and business owners near Maple Ridge or Brookside or at the 96th and Riverside commercial node could and should pay more than the remote sales tax payer in Broken Arrow or Owasso.
huh? they come and use the infrastructure but scoot back out to the burbs with less of a tax burden? i don't think so... this is exactly why we need a City Income Tax just like we had in KC...
That's right, Bruno. A maple ridger or brooksider who works downtown uses Tulsa streets, and streets in general, a lot less that a BA resident who works in downtown Tulsa. "Remote" people should be taxed accordingly. Gas tax, for instance.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Everyone already pays a street tax. It's called the third-penny sales tax. That is what started third-penny in the first place. But because it got side tracked, now they want a new street tax.
T'aint enough. I read the last third penny request, it's still basic stuff, streets, sewer rehab, stormwater...it hasn't been sidetracked. It's just simply not enough to keep pace with our aging infrastructure.
We built lots and lots of streets over the last 50 years...and they are wearing out.
Of the $71M third penny budget, $40M goes to streets. $31M goes to non-street projects.
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/Budget/documents/Ordinance21254.pdf
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Of the $71M third penny budget, $40M goes to streets. $31M goes to non-street projects.
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/Budget/documents/Ordinance21254.pdf
Yeah, I understand. And those non-street projects are other essentials like stormwater, sewer, water and other capital costs. Some have argued that rolling stock, e.g., cop cars, fire trucks, police helicopters (whirling stock?), should not have been in there, but I disagree. At any rate, I still don't know how you can look at that stuff and say that the third penny has been "side-tracked". It's pretty clear that this is stuff that the city needs, there's not a lot of controversy there. Problem is, a lot of infrastructure from previous booms is wearing out, and so, since we're not booming now, we're going to have to figure out a way to pay to fix that stuff. It's not an obscure concept. Most of us know that older cars are more expensive to maintain. That's why I say, "t'aint enough".
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by DwnTwnTul
As a young professional, trust me, this will NOT keep my peers in town. If anything, this will run us out even faster. We don't want to disturb a beautiful natural river for something such as Riverwalk in Jenks. We want a lively downtown, interesting clubs and restaurants, NOT "cookie cutter" Jenks up and down the river. I'd vote for quality roads in a heartbeat. Ours currently resemble roads from third world countries.
Natural River?... Since when? Keystone dam stops and starts flows of water. Releases it at peak rate hours to generate electricity. That water doesnt get to Tulsa until late night. Then it stops during the day. (except when we have had these high rains of course) The rest of the time the river is barely navigable for the fish. This plan will keep more water in the river flowing during more times than it would naturally, even without the Keystone dam. The Sand Springs dam will be built higher to capture some of the water at night, then will release it during the day so that there will be a more constant flow. The Zink dam will be redesigned to improve the ability of fish to migrate. The other dams will be designed to take them into consideration as well. The more regular water flow and other things will improve the habitat for many other animals too. It will not be "cookie cutter Jenks" up and down the river. Many places are designated wildlife habitats and can not be developed. The largest chunks of the river are public park space. There are only a few places designated for private development. The one area most likely to be developed, across from downtown, will not be like the Riverwalk in Jenks. The Tulsa landing proposal alone will cost 10 times both phases of the Riverwalk and is supposed to be more urban in design with living, multi level parking garages, etc.
BTW, you sound a bit too ignorant to be any YP I know. Perhaps someone needs to look into having your YP card revoked, and you might as well bring in your arm bands too. [:P]
Live in a glass house? Thanks for quoting me from other threads, but some innacuracies you added.
(The rest of the time the river is barely navigable for the fish.) The fish do just fine. When is the last time you floated this river to guage its depth? You don't even like boats. The river is pretty close to natural operation thanks in part to the Corps. mimicking natural flows over the last century of measurement. Its not a mistake that the river always has some flow in it and continues to meander and pool. If by natural you mean flooding huge areas of the metro, well no, we don't let it do that anymore.
(The more regular water flow and other things will improve the habitat for many other animals too.) So now we're improving on nature by damming it up to create park spaces and pretty visages? Rather arrogant attitude. Someone get this guy a bible. Which particular animals are going to see improvements? The turkey buzzards that feed off the sand bars that will be covered up by a SS dam that is too large?
Besides your naive belief that Branson Landing is going to 'be all that", you now appoint yourself official determiner of whose YP and whose not calling others too ignorant to be in the club? You're over 40 buddy and on the downside of YP status.
Waterboy,
I could not have said it any better. Thank you!
The Artist,
As for revoking my YP card, I was referring to myself as an actual professional with a Masters degree who is 30 years old. I don't believe that is something that can be revoked.
However, since you mentioned it, I did attend a meeting for us young professionals where those arm bands were distributed. Needless to say, I was not impressed. One person asked, "If we have all these new gathering locations and private developments, isn't that going to require more places for people to park, distracting from the natural beauty of the park as it is today?" It was answered quite arrogantly with, "That's a byproduct we'll just have to endure."
The point I hope to make to Tulsa County voters is that our river is beautiful in its own way as it is today. Could it be improved? Yes, but so could our roads, our schools, and our economy, to name a few. All these things are in much worse shape than our river. All of which can be improved without river enhancement.
If my roof has a leak, I'm not going to let it get worse and instead work on my landscaping (even if "Kaiser landscaping" offers to foot a 3rd of my landscaping bill).
PRIORITIZE TULSA!
I'm not sure "Kaiser Lanscaping" will foot a third of the bill but he will offer you a sign for your yard....[;)]
The millions involved in the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan and the millions involved in Taylor Palace should certainly attract those individuals who know or learn that Oklahoma has the highest level of structurally deficient bridges in the Nation. We are number ONE in something. We have more structually deficient bridges than any other state in the nation. We'll might get them to the river, but the bridges may fail.
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
I'm not sure "Kaiser Lanscaping" will foot a third of the bill but he will offer you a sign for your yard....[;)]
B-OK Worker:
Will you have to actually WAIT for the Kaiser River Tax sign?
Or, will it perchance just miraculously APPEAR in your yard, as if by magic??
Opt-out job ejection switch set to ON?
[:O]
Hell FB, I have volunteered to chair the "River Tax Sign in Every BOk Lemming's Yard" campaign...
Shall I PM you if I end up with a couple of extras from "former" employees?
For anyone that missed it, Coburn was quoted in today's paper as saying he would not support the bill Inhofe is pushing that contains federal money for the river.
God save us from Coburn. So bad he makes Inhofe look good.
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
huh? they come and use the infrastructure but scoot back out to the burbs with less of a tax burden? i don't think so... this is exactly why we need a City Income Tax just like we had in KC...
Wait a minute...I'm trying to remember the last time Tulsa voters agreed to raise their sales taxes in order to build some recreational facility in Owasso that would primarily benefit Owasso's businesses and people. The answer to that would be - never.
I think a new river project would clearly be beneficial to the city of Tulsa, but it's not quite clear how that project would improve business or property values in, say, Collinsville.
And can anyone imagine saying, "Hey, honey, let's go for a bike ride along the river, then load them on the truck, drive to Owasso for dinner, and then go home to south Tulsa!"
This project's beneficial effects for suburban communities is largely imaginary.
I will be voting no because of Smalligo's devious amendment crowning John Selph the river fuhrer and the fact that they are wasting $176,000 dollars on a special election instead of waiting a few months to put it on the ballot when the presidential primary is held in February.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
If it passes, will we have to rename the River Kaiser River or BOK River?
Or the QuikTrip River? Where do I get my "no river tax" signs?
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
huh? they come and use the infrastructure but scoot back out to the burbs with less of a tax burden? i don't think so... this is exactly why we need a City Income Tax just like we had in KC...
Wait a minute...I'm trying to remember the last time Tulsa voters agreed to raise their sales taxes in order to build some recreational facility in Owasso that would primarily benefit Owasso's businesses and people. The answer to that would be - never.
I think a new river project would clearly be beneficial to the city of Tulsa, but it's not quite clear how that project would improve business or property values in, say, Collinsville.
And can anyone imagine saying, "Hey, honey, let's go for a bike ride along the river, then load them on the truck, drive to Owasso for dinner, and then go home to south Tulsa!"
This project's beneficial effects for suburban communities is largely imaginary.
wait a minute... i'm trying to remember just how owasso got to be what it is now and figure out how long it would have taken to become what it is today without being a suburb of tulsa... the answer to that would be never... give me back my water line you ****ers...
Ok apparently my sense of humor needs a little work. But I did add the " [:P] " guess the word "ignorant" was the wrong choice however. I apologize. And yes I am no YP anymore they tore my card up when I hit 40. Guess I am still trying to figure out which new club I will join... the "grouchy old geezer" club or the "kind and wise old sage" club. Descisions descisions.
As for... "the rest of the time the river is barely navigable for the fish". Should have said, some of the time, so I have heard... It does seem to me that there are times when the river barely has any water in it at all. Often looks like there are shallow meanders, some of which do not even connect to each other. Plus the Zink dam, I have heard, is not easy for the fish to get around either.
My thought on the new dams "improving on nature" and what we have now. Is that they will help aerate the water more with the added stepped structures. Water flowing at more times and more constantly will help the fish and the things that eat them. I was told, and no I havent looked it up to confirm, but have seen pictures, that before there was a Keystone Dam sometimes during the summers and certainly during drought spells the river would completely dry up. I also keep hearing them say that they will work to clean up and improve some of the natural habitat areas. Plus do things that will recreate some habitats that may be displaced, promote the growth of and protect some habitats. Havent seen any plans or specifics, just repeating what they are saying. You are saying that the buzzards may be harmed with the lake. Would be interested in looking into that as well.
Oh and did the really distribute arm bands? I was just being facetious. lol
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
huh? they come and use the infrastructure but scoot back out to the burbs with less of a tax burden? i don't think so... this is exactly why we need a City Income Tax just like we had in KC...
Wait a minute...I'm trying to remember the last time Tulsa voters agreed to raise their sales taxes in order to build some recreational facility in Owasso that would primarily benefit Owasso's businesses and people. The answer to that would be - never.
I think a new river project would clearly be beneficial to the city of Tulsa, but it's not quite clear how that project would improve business or property values in, say, Collinsville.
And can anyone imagine saying, "Hey, honey, let's go for a bike ride along the river, then load them on the truck, drive to Owasso for dinner, and then go home to south Tulsa!"
This project's beneficial effects for suburban communities is largely imaginary.
wait a minute... i'm trying to remember just how owasso got to be what it is now and figure out how long it would have taken to become what it is today without being a suburb of tulsa... the answer to that would be never... give me back my vision2025 money you ****ers...
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
For anyone that missed it, Coburn was quoted in today's paper as saying he would not support the bill Inhofe is pushing that contains federal money for the river.
God save us from Coburn. So bad he makes Inhofe look good.
Good for Coburn. At least he knows pork when he smells it, even if it is to help his buddy Inhofe get re-elected. Or maybe it could be the fact that Oklahoma's roads and bridges are in critical condition so that is where our resources should be focused, instead of the folly of unnecessary river "econocomic" development.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Ok apparently my sense of humor needs a little work. But I did add the " [:P] " guess the word "ignorant" was the wrong choice however. I apologize. And yes I am no YP anymore they tore my card up when I hit 40. Guess I am still trying to figure out which new club I will join... the "grouchy old geezer" club or the "kind and wise old sage" club. Descisions descisions.
As for... "the rest of the time the river is barely navigable for the fish". Should have said, some of the time, so I have heard... It does seem to me that there are times when the river barely has any water in it at all. Often looks like there are shallow meanders, some of which do not even connect to each other. Plus the Zink dam, I have heard, is not easy for the fish to get around either.
My thought on the new dams "improving on nature" and what we have now. Is that they will help aerate the water more with the added stepped structures. Water flowing at more times and more constantly will help the fish and the things that eat them. I was told, and no I havent looked it up to confirm, but have seen pictures, that before there was a Keystone Dam sometimes during the summers and certainly during drought spells the river would completely dry up. I also keep hearing them say that they will work to clean up and improve some of the natural habitat areas. Plus do things that will recreate some habitats that may be displaced, promote the growth of and protect some habitats. Havent seen any plans or specifics, just repeating what they are saying. You are saying that the buzzards may be harmed with the lake. Would be interested in looking into that as well.
Oh and did the really distribute arm bands? I was just being facetious. lol
I understand you're willingness to trust that the players are watching out for the habitats of the river. Most everyone is depending on second hand info being relayed to assuage any fears that may pop up. I no longer depend upon the kindness of these strangers. All I can say is, that very, very few people have even been on this river for its length through the county, so whatever is said by planners and administrators is generally believed to be true. How would you know without first hand experience or a variety of opinions from others not associated with this group? If we embrace the pretty pictures, we want to trust them. I don't.
Someone is feeding you information. I'm not being conspiratorial, but the efforts to "educate" the public are obvious, even quoted in the World. The vision has been described to the soldiers from the top. It is the job of the rank and file to execute that vision. "education" is their weapon.
They use such unrelated stories, such as the river completely drying up, as some sort of defense that we are improving nature. If it did dry up in the past then it was for a reason, that is if you believe that nature is logical. It also flooded in the past, yet a city was able to grow from a grungy rail head to "the oil capital of the world" BEFORE the Keystone Dam was ever built. Think about that for a few moments.
Same thing with aeration. We don't see massive fish kills on this river due to lack of dissolved oxygen. It is only where we put in a low water dam that the river stagnates, the fish cannot migrate upstream and they begin to feed near the storm drains. So we create the problem, then want accolades for solving it. And for what? No real commercial activity on or around Zink lake for over 25years that couldn't already have been there.
Therefore we are obstructing natures way by forcing a river to be a lake. Not for a basic human need, but for its alleged future commercial viability. I submit we have shown that we're not very good at such stuff here in Tulsa. We're shoppers, investors, diners and whiners. Face it, most Tulsans only want river development if it means bars and restaurants.
I'm not opposed to huge public projects like the TVA, Pensacola dam and such. The benefit/cost ratios were correct. But I am hesitant to support cosmetic changes to accomodate commercial goals. I like what Sam Kennison said when he had the balls to make fun of a human tragedy in a north African country where thousands were dying of starvation and drought because the land they lived on for generations could not support their population growth. "Here's a thought...move to somewhere there's food and water!" Here's another thought, stop fighting nature and work with her. Its a plaines river, not a lake. If you want otherwise, go somewhere else.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
County Commission votes 3-0.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070802_1__Tulsa36326
I'm voting No. If developing the river is such a good thing, then why haven't private interests stepped up and gotten it taken care of? Am I missing something? Is there some reason why you or I couldn't have gone ahead years ago (or right now) and acquired some riverfront land, built a restaurant or some other entertainment venue, and reaped the benefits of private enterprise?
Don't even get me started on the streets. Charles Hardt ought to be fired. Anyone could preside over the decay of city streets as well has he has. I'm not interested in hearing about how the funding is out of his control; if he can't get the job done with the funding that is given to him, he should have quit out of self respect.
quote:
Originally posted by Markk
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
County Commission votes 3-0.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070802_1__Tulsa36326
I'm voting No. If developing the river is such a good thing, then why haven't private interests stepped up and gotten it taken care of? Am I missing something? Is there some reason why you or I couldn't have gone ahead years ago (or right now) and acquired some riverfront land, built a restaurant or some other entertainment venue, and reaped the benefits of private enterprise?
They have. Riverwalk. To a lesser extent, Westport Apartments. There is demand, but the issue is the same as streets. Infrastructure. You have to have easy access to the riverfront land and utilities to serve them. That's expensive. Those things have pretty much been ignored for 25years because of...Control. Once the county or the authority has control of all land along the river, then development according to their wishes, as outlined in the INCOG plan will proceed. Its not that they are control crazy, its that they are hesitant to provide infrastructure without some promise of tax revenues.
Then there's the problem of zoning. Who can build what? This new plan doesn't address that. Just provides an overall plan of development that allows alot of different stuff.
We don't make real estate developers pay for widening of arterials around their housing additions. We wait till the developments start generating taxes, then we tear up the roads and widen them. Thats the way govt. thinks here. Maybe everywhere for all I know.
Lots of stuff has kept private development along the river. IMO these are the obvious ones.
I'm officially jumping off the fence. I originally supported this plan because I just wanted something to happen in my lifetime about the river. But the negatives outweigh the positives imo. The tipping point for me is a close look at what the plan buys and how it is paid for.
We could use a good bridge connecting Brookside to West Tulsa at 41st. Especially if West Tulsa is to get any bang for their buck out of river development. Surprise, its not included in the plan. Instead we get $30 million allotted for two pedestrian bridges, one at 41st. What pedestrians would be using it?! We already have 2 1/2 pedestrian bridges that get little use.
We have a pedestrian bridge over Zink Lake that is primarily populated with non english speaking fishermen (attracted by the low water dam) and a few joggers. We have a bridge converted to a pedestrian bridge adjacent to Riverwalk in Jenks. Even the fishermen don't use it (no dam, no shade). Just occassional joggers. Then of course there's the 11th Street bridge which has been promised for a decade to be pedestrian, retail or something. Its a favorite hangout of druggies, drunks and homeless.
And there is no return on these investments. No fees, no taxes, no commercial development on either end (but they look nice when lighted at Christmas). The tourism attraction is dubious.
Yeh, lets spend $30 mill for two more of these. If these pedestrian bridges are such a good investment why aren't those IVI private bridge builders jumping all over the idea? Cause it sucks and will be a net outflow of public $ for a small group of bikers and runners.
Its like the planners were running out of stuff to spend money on.
If that is not enough to kill it we add in millions for "connecting streets studies". Uh, is this all just too much of a sudden thing for you guys? Have you not had 50yrs to plan on how bridges, parks and low water dams might affect traffic and connectability? No details for that one are provided, we're just supposed to trust that it is necessary and can't be done without these millions.
I have watched as the low water dam cost has risen from 2.6 million (silly me, that was just for the engineering), 12-13 million and the recent estimates of 24 million!! We aren't even certain of the design yet because better ideas than concrete low water dams have been surfacing. Drop gates, inflatables, stair stepped. There is nothing to keep these dams from continuuing to balloon in cost once the tax is in place. Once the $48 million in low water dams is spent, we will then wonder why we didn't include some way to connect one lake to the next. No interconnectability. No boat docks, no piers. The irony to me is all we need do is rent bulldozers and pile rocks across the river like PSO did years ago. That shouldn't amount to the $90 million allotted to channelizing efforts.
Correct me if I'm wrong- Tulsa represents 70% of this county. In spite of the growth and money in the burbs, the bulk of sales tax receipts....are from the city. But this nearly half a billion dollars mainly drawn from Tulsa purchases, is controlled by three county commissioners (we elected one) being advised by an oversight committee with 70% of its members from outside of the city?! Even so, because it is a sales tax, there is no obligation by these three commissioners to spend the money the way it has been presented or even the same amounts. These are just guidelines. And the burbs get the two dams?! We get connector studies, channelization, pedestrian bridges and parklike gathering areas?! Poor agreement for Tulsa.
I know this won't be recieved with anything but animosity from supporters. You should know I'm not one of the anti-tax, anti-growth, conspiracy theorists that have stopped plans in the past. I don't care much about the condition of the roads either. I'm someone who knows a lot about the river and learned alot about the people involved with its development in the past few years. To be sure, there are some fine planning efforts put into this. I love the living river concept. The bulk of it is adding to the complexity of the river without adding any real flash. Lets get past this plan and get something that makes better sense.
you are wrong Waterboy...you should vote yes.
Tell me when we are going to get a better plan?
WHEN, if not now? I don't have, WE don't have time to wait anymore. This is a good plan, maybe not perfect, but good.
A vehicular bridge at 41st will come...eventually. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
A vehicular bridge at 41st will come...eventually. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Not if this vote passes. I was told by someone who would know that Mr. Cadieux does not want a four-lane road going through the middle of the gathering place he will be sponsoring at 41st and Riverside. The plan that is on the ballot is not compliant with the INCOG master plan on this point and will put another obstacle in the way of a vehicular bridge ever being built.
Lets see what they can so with the private money first.....I will be voting no....Waterboy sealed it for me......
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
The plan that is on the ballot is not compliant with the INCOG master plan on this point and will put another obstacle in the way of a vehicular bridge ever being built.
This is an important point for me as well. I see no point for a 41st street pedestrian bridge. Does anybody really want to walk across the river to get to the Sinclair Refinery?
I really want a bridge for cars at 41st street. It would be the one of most significant things to help west Tulsa that we would do in my lifetime. Think about connecting Webster High School, Reed Park and the west bank soccer fields with Brookside.
I want connectivity and we have made west Tulsa that land where no one goes by limiting access to it. Our city is truly a tale of two cities.
If you were to call someone and say "I am over in west Tulsa", they would say, "what are you doing over there?" A 41st street bridge for cars would change all that. A pedestrian only bridge is not a complete deal-breaker for me, but it ain't the way I would do it.
I asked the westside Councilor Rick Westcott this question at last Tuesday's Neighborfest. He too said he wants the full bridge, but said that there was room to do both. He tried to assure me that the pedestrian bridge would not completely rule out an auto bridge in the future.
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
you are wrong Waterboy...you should vote yes.
Tell me when we are going to get a better plan?
WHEN, if not now? I don't have, WE don't have time to wait anymore. This is a good plan, maybe not perfect, but good.
A vehicular bridge at 41st will come...eventually. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The guts are all there Kenosha. They just arranged the parts to make Frankenstein. It didn't take but 6 months to put this plan together, 6 months more of fine tuning could make a whale of a difference.
The bridge to me was just the one thing that exposed the weakness of the plan. That weakness has to do with not serving our needs but those of Cadieux et.al.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
The plan that is on the ballot is not compliant with the INCOG master plan on this point and will put another obstacle in the way of a vehicular bridge ever being built.
This is an important point for me as well. I see no point for a 41st street pedestrian bridge. Does anybody really want to walk across the river to get to the Sinclair Refinery?
I really want a bridge for cars at 41st street. It would be the one of most significant things to help west Tulsa that we would do in my lifetime. Think about connecting Webster High School, Reed Park and the west bank soccer fields with Brookside.
I want connectivity and we have made west Tulsa that land where no one goes by limiting access to it. Our city is truly a tale of two cities.
If you were to call someone and say "I am over in west Tulsa", they would say, "what are you doing over there?" A 41st street bridge for cars would change all that. A pedestrian only bridge is not a complete deal-breaker for me, but it ain't the way I would do it.
I asked the westside Councilor Rick Westcott this question at last Tuesday's Neighborfest. He too said he wants the full bridge, but said that there was room to do both. He tried to assure me that the pedestrian bridge would not completely rule out an auto bridge in the future.
+1
Yea I hate to say it, because I really want to see something happen, but I am going to go ahead and say that I am officially against this tax hike and river plan. I wanted something to happen and have argued for it, but as I have learned more and listened to the responses to my arguments, the balance keeps tilting further and further to this not being a good plan. The cons simply outweigh the pros.
I like the dams and I think we need to do all 3 of them for they each support the other. Sand Springs holds water to put flow into the rest of the river during the day, etc.
But I still think they should have been paid for by the 2025 tax. They keep arguing that it is not possible or intended. But I havent seen the proof in writing to prove otherwise. I dont think "what they intended" would hold water in a court of law. What mattered is what the voters voted for. If this new tax fails then I would be right there to push a lawsuit to make sure they built the two dams as promised with the 2025 tax.
The purchase of the west bank property for development doesnt sound so bad.
I would like the pedestrian bridges but I dont see how 30 mill for them is worth it at the moment. Too little benefit for too high a cost when there are other things, like the Pearl District Plan, that would BOTH beautify the city, improve park and recreational space, and promote actual growth.
I would also rather see the 15million for "downtown connectors" be added to the 30 mill for the Pearl District. What the heck are they really going to do to connect downtown with the river anyway? I remember seeing a rendering of a little waterfall thingey and decorative landscaping elements down one street. I was like, Why bother? It just wasnt worth the bother at all. Too rinky dink looking and not worth the 15 mill. Actually the two new park/ponds and the canal for the Pearl are not expected to cost a lot more than 15 mill. Property acquisition for high density development around the ponds and canal, 8 mill and 2 mill for streetscaping starting at the inner dispersal loop and going to TU. All still less than the cost of the pedestrian bridges in Tulsa and waaay more impact. The Tulsa bridges could be added later by Tulsa after everyone saw some actual private development happen.
And if they are going to block the planned 41st bridge on top of it with this plan. I think they are stepping way out of bounds.
Again, I would like to see the dams built and the "gathering places" and I dont mind paying for it, but... this just seems like a rushed plan and a mess of one too.
BTW where are our volleyball courts in this new 71st park area? I guarantee you more people go down there and play vball on a regular basis, lousy facilities and porta potties though it may be, than will go trapsing around those fountains and a pier. Make what is attracting people there now, better, and add more things. Its like they didnt even know it existed or cared.
I really wish they had given people a chance to comment on this plan, then made constructive changes, then put it up for a vote. It was like, here is the plan, take it or leave it no adjustments can be made.
If they had done...
One pedestrian bridge as a compromise perhaps, along with no 15 mill for the "connector" and instead use those funds for the Pearl District Plan. (It would have appeared as if the positive impact had greatly improved and on top of it the tax would have been less... or you could have made the amount the same and not done either Tulsa bridge at the moment and given a little something more to BA, Bixby and Owasso) Simply move the 41st park space a bit so that a 41st bridge could eventually be built. Leave our vball courts in with the new gathering area. Put some money aside to maintain the dams or at least the park space like the donors are doing to maintain the gathering places... and you would have had me. Funding issues aside.
Now one's mentioned it yet, but isn't Mr. Kaiser going to have the same income tax problem again next year as this year? And, the year after that? At least, similar.
For this deal to be rushed through in order to satisfy some unrelated income tax issue is obscene.
There is no urgency there, or with anything related to the river plan. In fact, if it were passed today and all the funds collected, it'd still be years before anything of significance could start.
But, THIS deal should not pass anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
The plan that is on the ballot is not compliant with the INCOG master plan on this point and will put another obstacle in the way of a vehicular bridge ever being built.
This is an important point for me as well. I see no point for a 41st street pedestrian bridge. Does anybody really want to walk across the river to get to the Sinclair Refinery?
I really want a bridge for cars at 41st street. It would be the one of most significant things to help west Tulsa that we would do in my lifetime. Think about connecting Webster High School, Reed Park and the west bank soccer fields with Brookside.
I want connectivity and we have made west Tulsa that land where no one goes by limiting access to it. Our city is truly a tale of two cities.
If you were to call someone and say "I am over in west Tulsa", they would say, "what are you doing over there?" A 41st street bridge for cars would change all that. A pedestrian only bridge is not a complete deal-breaker for me, but it ain't the way I would do it.
I asked the westside Councilor Rick Westcott this question at last Tuesday's Neighborfest. He too said he wants the full bridge, but said that there was room to do both. He tried to assure me that the pedestrian bridge would not completely rule out an auto bridge in the future.
No silly, there's a spectacular concrete plant, Arrow Trucking, and Tektube to look at when you walk across a 41st St. pedestrian bridge.
Anyone who can comment on it from this viewpoint:
quote:
you are wrong Waterboy...you should vote yes.
Tell me when we are going to get a better plan?
WHEN, if not now? I don't have, WE don't have time to wait anymore. This is a good plan, maybe not perfect, but good.
A vehicular bridge at 41st will come...eventually. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
is putting far too much faith into a plan with a lot of gaping holes in it. Kenosha, you aren't alone, that's what worries me about there being a larger majority who won't look closely and will trust this is best. Saying we need a river plan is one thing. Getting sucked into a plan that a very small handful of Tulsans are saying is the right way to do it, is basically giving away your equal rights as a taxpayer over the interests of a wealthy and influential few. We have plenty of time to wait for something better.
I really don't get the bed-wetting nature of this "want". This is not the type of expenditure which will make Tulsa a destination city, which is one of the biggest reasons cited for the need to develop our waterway(s).
Why vote for something which is imperfect?