Council Chairman Roscoe Turner has called for an agenda item to be a vote to support or not for the proposed county tax.
Roscoe is against the tax and has publicly stated his reason is distrust of the county.
I don't think this is the most important council business, but it will be interesting to see how the individual councilors feel about the issue.
Westcott called into "the KMR" this morning to state that the vote had taken him off-guard. I did hear later that a city representative will be put back on the board after Smaligo had put Selph on it.
Whole thing is starting to stinketh.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Council Chairman Roscoe Turner has called for an agenda item to be a vote to support or not for the proposed county tax.
Roscoe is against the tax and has publicly stated his reason is distrust of the county.
I don't think this is the most important council business, but it will be interesting to see how the individual councilors feel about the issue.
I hope you're kidding. Our City Council has been completely removed from consideration with regard to ANYTHING river.
The current proposal leaves only whatever representation can be mustered on the County Authority as our City's input into what gets developed, when and who can do it. As it stands, that's about 22% with the original amounting to only 33% for an entity who contributes 70% of all revenue.
It's way more than wrong.
I don't mean to belittle the situation of the council being left out of county business. I agree with you that should be fixed.
But what is the reason for a verbal support or non-support of a tax by another entity? Is council business needed for any part of the vote by the public? Why don't we have the council have a public hearing and vote on congressional issues or the state cigarette tax?
Asking elected officials their opinions before all the details are even fully discussed seems a little like posturing to me.
Councilor Turner has not been shy in his thoughts about the county. I don't blame him for doing this, but it is not as important as the other business of the city...you know, crime, street repair, neighborhood stabilization, etc.
He just wants to use a soapbox.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I don't mean to belittle the situation of the council being left out of county business. I agree with you that should be fixed.
But what is the reason for a verbal support or non-support of a tax by another entity? Is council business needed for any part of the vote by the public? Why don't we have the council have a public hearing and vote on congressional issues or the state cigarette tax?
Asking elected officials their opinions before all the details are even fully discussed seems a little like posturing to me.
Councilor Turner has not been shy in his thoughts about the county. I don't blame him for doing this, but it is not as important as the other business of the city...you know, crime, street repair, neighborhood stabilization, etc.
He just wants to use a soapbox.
O.K., we get you don't like Roscoe.
And, it was nice of the County to stay out of the annexation issue the way they did, too, especially since it wasn't formally any of their business.
Listen to Roscoe.(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p315/TYProle/Roscoe_driller.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I don't mean to belittle the situation of the council being left out of county business. I agree with you that should be fixed.
But what is the reason for a verbal support or non-support of a tax by another entity? Is council business needed for any part of the vote by the public? Why don't we have the council have a public hearing and vote on congressional issues or the state cigarette tax?
Asking elected officials their opinions before all the details are even fully discussed seems a little like posturing to me.
Councilor Turner has not been shy in his thoughts about the county. I don't blame him for doing this, but it is not as important as the other business of the city...you know, crime, street repair, neighborhood stabilization, etc.
He just wants to use a soapbox.
Is RecycleMichael
REALLY as naive as he acts?
Methinks he is really too clever by-half.
The Tulsa Project,
It's Tulsa Time, and
Vision 2025 Tax Grabbers certainly thought it was important for THEM to get a unanimous support of those Tax Proposals by the Tulsa City Council.
Remember those carefully focused PHOTO-OP shots of the Nine Nincompoops posing in their best JCPenney suits showing their
THUMBS-UP support for those Tax-and-Spend schemes?
Hmmmmh?
It matters because someone voted for each of those councilors.
And, the moral authority deriving from their elected position gives them an automatic FORUM to be
LISTENED to.
Oh, it definitely MATTERS........
[:P]
I like Roscoe fine.
I appreciate the attention he gives to his district and he has always been very nice to me personally.
But I still think this is just grandstanding. I don't blame him, but that doesn't mean I should just be quiet when I have the occassional opportunity to disagree with him.
What purpose does this council vote on Thursday do besides provide a forum for him to bash the County?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
O.K., we get you don't like Roscoe.
And, it was nice of the County to stay out of the annexation issue the way they did, too, especially since it wasn't formally any of their business.
Annexing county property into the city limits is very much the business and interest of the county. You expected the county commissioners to stay out?
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
O.K., we get you don't like Roscoe.
And, it was nice of the County to stay out of the annexation issue the way they did, too, especially since it wasn't formally any of their business.
Annexing county property into the city limits is very much the business and interest of the county. You expected the county commissioners to stay out?
The County has no legal standing on City annexation, other than to threaten the Mayor. They did, however, have quite a few opinions, which were made widely known.
The City Council involvement in river development within the City of Tulsa should be not just more, it should be almost absolute, to the same degree any other construction occurs today. The current proposal cuts them completely out and you wish for them to just sit by because it doesn't concern them? It concerns them to a larger degree than did the County's interest in annexation. Or, should. The Mayor has already sold out. This will show us where the Council is on it.
Some of us actually think any new County Authority designed to rule the river is at least as big a problem as anything ever done by the Council.
It's conceptually wrong for it to proceed, much less on the premise being proposed.
In fact, it's possible today for the Council to not just log positions on this, they could actually pass a resolution which would make the County unable to proceed even if voters passed the plan, which is very unlikely anyway.
This plan has so many flaws, it's DOA.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I like Roscoe fine.
I appreciate the attention he gives to his district and he has always been very nice to me personally.
But I still think this is just grandstanding. I don't blame him, but that doesn't mean I should just be quiet when I have the occassional opportunity to disagree with him.
What purpose does this council vote on Thursday do besides provide a forum for him to bash the County?
I suppose its on par with censuring the President--doesn't really accomplish a lot, but sure gets your message across in a politically damaging way.
But it can always backfire.
I'm curious to see how the vote plays out. Any predictions?
Any predictions?
^
6against 3for
Better odds than the Lottery I guess......?
If there was say.... an "autographed Roscoe pen" on the table........We could lay odds on the names.
Here is the Tulsa World coverage...
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070808_1_A15_hAcit01814
Proposal condemns river tax
By P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
8/8/2007
A city councilor's resolution supports Arkansas River development, but not through a partnership with the county.
City Councilor Roscoe Turner will seek a vote Thursday on a council resolution that supports river development but opposes a proposed 0.4 percent county sales tax to fund it. During a council committee meeting Tuesday, Turner said he is not interested in joining with the county to do any work on the river. The County Commission has called for a countywide vote Oct. 9 to approve a $282 million public funding package to develop a portion of the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan.
Turner ignored suggestions by other councilors to wait and see what action county commissioners take this week that could negate the concerns listed in his resolution. "I have not been, nor am I now, in a waiting mood," he said. "We played let's wait awhile when we were working on (annexing) the fairgrounds. "Every time something comes up we don't want to do, it's 'let's wait awhile,' " he said, "and I'm not interested in it."
Turner said that even though everyone agrees that the Arkansas River needs to be developed, "the only way we seem to think we can get it done is for the county to get it done." "We are a city that is capable of making its own decision as to how, when, where to obtain the funds and spend them," he said. Turner said 70 percent of the vote on regional issues comes from Tulsa voters, "but we're not supposed to have any say-so over what happens. I still say we have everything to say about what happens on the river in the city of Tulsa."
Turner's resolution criticizes the county for reversing the initial composition of the public trust to administer the river tax by removing one of the three slots proposed for Tulsa. Last week, county commissioners voted 2-1 to remove one of the Tulsa mayor's two appointees to the nine-member trust and give it to the chairman of the board of directors for the Indian Nations Council of Governments. But County Commissioner Randi Miller, who was the dissenting voter, said commissioners will vote again Thursday on whether to reinstate the mayor's appointee and make the INCOG chairman an advisory member only. The amount of money each city would get for land acquisition also will be clarified, she said. Miller said the trust would acquire the land, then turn it over to the respective city to develop.
Councilor Jack Henderson said the only reason the county is considering reversing its decision on the trust "is because there is some pressure that the city of Tulsa may not support this." Henderson also wanted to know the status of a proposed river development by a Missouri developer. Councilors Cason Carter and Bill Christiansen said the developer of Branson Landing is still interested in Tulsa and in developing the west bank of the river.
Mayoral spokeswoman Sheryl Lovelady confirmed that Mayor Kathy Taylor spoke to the developer Monday and that once the city acquires the land, the developer will participate in a proposal process for developing it. Carter, Christiansen and Councilor Rick Westcott all said Turner's resolution is premature. "I think it is inappropriate, and I think it breeds hostility with the county and the city," Carter said. "I think it is confusing in nature."
Turner said he doubts that he will get the votes to pass his resolution, "but there is one thing I can do: I can work like everything to get it (the river-tax proposal) to fail."
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
O.K., we get you don't like Roscoe.
And, it was nice of the County to stay out of the annexation issue the way they did, too, especially since it wasn't formally any of their business.
Annexing county property into the city limits is very much the business and interest of the county. You expected the county commissioners to stay out?
I guess the Mayor of Broken Arrow should mind his own business too. BTW, if increasing sales taxes is such a problem for the Arabian Horse Show, why are the County Commissioners pushing one? This is an issue of trust, and we're roughneckin' for truth.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
O.K., we get you don't like Roscoe.
And, it was nice of the County to stay out of the annexation issue the way they did, too, especially since it wasn't formally any of their business.
Annexing county property into the city limits is very much the business and interest of the county. You expected the county commissioners to stay out?
I guess the Mayor of Broken Arrow should mind his own business too. BTW, if increasing sales taxes is such a problem for the Arabian Horse Show, why are the County Commissioners pushing one? This is an issue of trust, and we're roughneckin' for truth.
I also believe this is an issue of truth and credibility. The lack of the former in leadership has led to a crisis of the latter.
Everyone I mention this to seems surprised and befuddled about what we're voting on and when. I predict 3:1 failure.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
O.K., we get you don't like Roscoe.
And, it was nice of the County to stay out of the annexation issue the way they did, too, especially since it wasn't formally any of their business.
Annexing county property into the city limits is very much the business and interest of the county. You expected the county commissioners to stay out?
I guess the Mayor of Broken Arrow should mind his own business too. BTW, if increasing sales taxes is such a problem for the Arabian Horse Show, why are the County Commissioners pushing one? This is an issue of trust, and we're roughneckin' for truth.
I also believe this is an issue of truth and credibility. The lack of the former in leadership has led to a crisis of the latter.
Everyone I mention this to seems surprised and befuddled about what we're voting on and when. I predict 3:1 failure.
And funny, the TN poll is still in favor. I guess we are a bunch of walking (or is that swimming?) anachronisms.
They didn't vote tonight.
Councilor John Eagleton made a motion to continue this vote till next week and it passed 6 to 3 with the councilors from districts one, two and three dissenting.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
They didn't vote tonight.
Councilor John Eagleton made a motion to continue this vote till next week and it passed 6 to 3 with the councilors from districts one, two and three dissenting.
Wellll.... That means by the inverse effect of the vote... my numbers may have gotten me one large box of "Big Bob Dick's" Cookies....
Oh....! lightly sprinkled with Cinnabar.[B)][}:)]
In the present news the maximum permitted flow down the river has caused a half million dollars damage to the banks at Jenks. I believe the cfs is only a third of the 86 flow. The county says they don't have any money to stabilize the banks to protect the present planned development there. This is only a very small part of the proposed river improvements when compared to 42 miles of river banks.
When Tulsa is to provide 70% of the cost of the river project and cannot find money to fix the roof or caulk the window on their city hall, how are they going to maintain the river developments banks in the future?
Who's obligation will it be to maintain the river banks?
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
In the present news the maximum permitted flow down the river has caused a half million dollars damage to the banks at Jenks. I believe the cfs is only a third of the 86 flow. The county says they don't have any money to stabilize the banks to protect the present planned development there. This is only a very small part of the proposed river improvements when compared to 42 miles of river banks.
When Tulsa is to provide 70% of the cost of the river project and cannot find money to fix the roof or caulk the window on their city hall, how are they going to maintain the river developments banks in the future?
Who's obligation will it be to maintain the river banks?
The obligation will be the county River Parks Authority I guess. And yes, that was about a third of the earlier flood releases. I predicted two years ago that the decision not to harden the walls with ANYTHING around Riverwalk would be a terrible mistake. Besides just being plain ugly. They didn't even haul off metal debris. Stupid.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
In the present news the maximum permitted flow down the river has caused a half million dollars damage to the banks at Jenks. I believe the cfs is only a third of the 86 flow. The county says they don't have any money to stabilize the banks to protect the present planned development there. This is only a very small part of the proposed river improvements when compared to 42 miles of river banks.
When Tulsa is to provide 70% of the cost of the river project and cannot find money to fix the roof or caulk the window on their city hall, how are they going to maintain the river developments banks in the future?
Who's obligation will it be to maintain the river banks?
The obligation will be the county River Parks Authority I guess. And yes, that was about a third of the earlier flood releases. I predicted two years ago that the decision not to harden the walls with ANYTHING around Riverwalk would be a terrible mistake. Besides just being plain ugly. They didn't even haul off metal debris. Stupid.
They were hoping to get a low water dam built in the area. Part of his original plans were to have a boat dock where the theater is to ferry people to the aquarium and to development on the other side of the river. The Kaiser plan has bank stabilization and hardening in it for certain areas. Some areas within Tulsas section will still be parks and nature preserves and will not have them. Plus some areas are not the wide sandy river bottom where the river would meander into, like by Turkey Mountain.
I worry about Kings Landing. If you ever go look behind it, especially when the water is low, its quite a high sheer drop and just sand there. They stabilize the other side and the river may start to then cut into the opposite side. A good storm and that whole shopping center... plop, right into the river.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
In the present news the maximum permitted flow down the river has caused a half million dollars damage to the banks at Jenks. I believe the cfs is only a third of the 86 flow. The county says they don't have any money to stabilize the banks to protect the present planned development there. This is only a very small part of the proposed river improvements when compared to 42 miles of river banks.
When Tulsa is to provide 70% of the cost of the river project and cannot find money to fix the roof or caulk the window on their city hall, how are they going to maintain the river developments banks in the future?
Who's obligation will it be to maintain the river banks?
The obligation will be the county River Parks Authority I guess. And yes, that was about a third of the earlier flood releases. I predicted two years ago that the decision not to harden the walls with ANYTHING around Riverwalk would be a terrible mistake. Besides just being plain ugly. They didn't even haul off metal debris. Stupid.
They were hoping to get a low water dam built in the area. Part of his original plans were to have a boat dock where the theater is to ferry people to the aquarium and to development on the other side of the river. The Kaiser plan has bank stabilization and hardening in it for certain areas. Some areas within Tulsas section will still be parks and nature preserves and will not have them. Plus some areas are not the wide sandy river bottom where the river would meander into, like by Turkey Mountain.
I worry about Kings Landing. If you ever go look behind it, especially when the water is low, its quite a high sheer drop and just sand there. They stabilize the other side and the river may start to then cut into the opposite side. A good storm and that whole shopping center... plop, right into the river.
I know you did some work for them and he's a swell guy, but that doesn't excuse
what Gordon and the city of Jenks allowed to happen.
Sure they expected a low water dam. They told the tenants it was eminent even though the location had just been determined, no engineering studies had been done,they weren't even sure of the design! Apparently there was no funding for it either as the 2.6 million most people thought was going to build it was just for engineering.
So why was there no wall constructed, rip-rap or anything done to protect the edge of the shopping center from erosion or collapse? Because it would cost them money. They gambled that the water wouldn't damage it before the taxpayers were on the hook for paying for it. You would think that was a bad gamble but undoubtedly it will end up paid for by the county instead of the city or the developer. If you're going to bed with these people you ought to know what they are like. They actually put people at risk. If it had collapsed with pedestrians on it we would be on CNN every hour for a week.
Artist, they didn't even clean up the banks. I was never given an audience with Gordon even though I was prepared to provide water taxi service two years ago. He sent me an e-mail if I remember that said it was too early and he would consider it at a later date. The idea that he was talking a boat dock and ferries is the same way I talk about doing a stand up routine....maybe some day.
I suppose Kings Crossing is doing the same thing.
Low water dams as being designed are to be lowered in the time of flood releases from Keystone. Their design is not to deter the necessary flow down the river. Flood of greater magnitude of 86 are predicted and are expected with the climatic changes that we are encountering in the present year. The only thing the low water dams will do is increase the depth of the flooding as in no way will the water be contained in the present channel nor stop the continued erosion.
The mechanics of lowering the low water dams will require continues maintenance as the sand has an abrasive effect on all working parts.
As it has been pointed out the River Parks Authority will assume the authority to take over the maintenance. Who will maintain and fund the River Parks Authority ? The maintenance of the proposed (either plan) will run into millions of dollars. One would assume that Tulsa would be one of the largest contributor to the River Parks Authority to pay for such maintenance of the river banks and dams.
Believe this is the same Tulsa that cannot find enough money to fix their roof or calk the window in the city hall.
QuoteOriginally posted by shadows
Low water dams as being designed are to be lowered in the time of flood releases from Keystone. Their design is not to deter the necessary flow down the river. Flood of greater magnitude of 86 are predicted and are expected with the climatic changes that we are encountering in the present year. The only thing the low water dams will do is increase the depth of the flooding as in no way will the water be contained in the present channel nor stop the continued erosion.
The mechanics of lowering the low water dams will require continues maintenance as the sand has an abrasive effect on all working parts. /quote]
It is ok for you to be against the river improvement tax, but please try and discuss things you know about. You have been shown on this forum in many threads to completely make up information about stormwater facts and this is no different.
The design of the low water dams will take into account high flow levels during occassional high releases from Keystone. There is absolutely no chance of any design to increase the depth of flooding. The opposite will be true.
If there is one thing that I have the most confidence in with the study and design of the INCOG Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan is that flooding issues were completely studied. The best hydrologists in the country were involved from everywhere from the city to the Corps of Engineers.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
In the present news the maximum permitted flow down the river has caused a half million dollars damage to the banks at Jenks. I believe the cfs is only a third of the 86 flow. The county says they don't have any money to stabilize the banks to protect the present planned development there. This is only a very small part of the proposed river improvements when compared to 42 miles of river banks.
When Tulsa is to provide 70% of the cost of the river project and cannot find money to fix the roof or caulk the window on their city hall, how are they going to maintain the river developments banks in the future?
Who's obligation will it be to maintain the river banks?
The obligation will be the county River Parks Authority I guess. And yes, that was about a third of the earlier flood releases. I predicted two years ago that the decision not to harden the walls with ANYTHING around Riverwalk would be a terrible mistake. Besides just being plain ugly. They didn't even haul off metal debris. Stupid.
They were hoping to get a low water dam built in the area. Part of his original plans were to have a boat dock where the theater is to ferry people to the aquarium and to development on the other side of the river. The Kaiser plan has bank stabilization and hardening in it for certain areas. Some areas within Tulsas section will still be parks and nature preserves and will not have them. Plus some areas are not the wide sandy river bottom where the river would meander into, like by Turkey Mountain.
I worry about Kings Landing. If you ever go look behind it, especially when the water is low, its quite a high sheer drop and just sand there. They stabilize the other side and the river may start to then cut into the opposite side. A good storm and that whole shopping center... plop, right into the river.
I know you did some work for them and he's a swell guy, but that doesn't excuse
what Gordon and the city of Jenks allowed to happen.
Sure they expected a low water dam. They told the tenants it was eminent even though the location had just been determined, no engineering studies had been done,they weren't even sure of the design! Apparently there was no funding for it either as the 2.6 million most people thought was going to build it was just for engineering.
So why was there no wall constructed, rip-rap or anything done to protect the edge of the shopping center from erosion or collapse? Because it would cost them money. They gambled that the water wouldn't damage it before the taxpayers were on the hook for paying for it. You would think that was a bad gamble but undoubtedly it will end up paid for by the county instead of the city or the developer. If you're going to bed with these people you ought to know what they are like. They actually put people at risk. If it had collapsed with pedestrians on it we would be on CNN every hour for a week.
Artist, they didn't even clean up the banks. I was never given an audience with Gordon even though I was prepared to provide water taxi service two years ago. He sent me an e-mail if I remember that said it was too early and he would consider it at a later date. The idea that he was talking a boat dock and ferries is the same way I talk about doing a stand up routine....maybe some day.
I suppose Kings Crossing is doing the same thing.
I always wondered why they never finished doing anything right down to the river. I thought it might be that it was not on his property that it was part of river parks and would be river parks or the cities responsibility to do the shoreline modifications. However if the developer left junk down there and were supposed to clean it up, someone should have got on to them and made them do that. Whose responsibility would it be to make them clean it up?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Who's obligation will it be to maintain the river banks?
The obligation will be the county River Parks Authority I guess. And yes, that was about a third of the earlier flood releases. I predicted two years ago that the decision not to harden the walls with ANYTHING around Riverwalk would be a terrible mistake. Besides just being plain ugly. They didn't even haul off metal debris. Stupid.
They were hoping to get a low water dam built in the area. Part of his original plans were to have a boat dock where the theater is to ferry people to the aquarium and to development on the other side of the river. The Kaiser plan has bank stabilization and hardening in it for certain areas. Some areas within Tulsas section will still be parks and nature preserves and will not have them. Plus some areas are not the wide sandy river bottom where the river would meander into, like by Turkey Mountain.
I worry about Kings Landing. If you ever go look behind it, especially when the water is low, its quite a high sheer drop and just sand there. They stabilize the other side and the river may start to then cut into the opposite side. A good storm and that whole shopping center... plop, right into the river.
I know you did some work for them and he's a swell guy, but that doesn't excuse
what Gordon and the city of Jenks allowed to happen.
Sure they expected a low water dam. They told the tenants it was eminent even though the location had just been determined, no engineering studies had been done,they weren't even sure of the design! Apparently there was no funding for it either as the 2.6 million most people thought was going to build it was just for engineering.
So why was there no wall constructed, rip-rap or anything done to protect the edge of the shopping center from erosion or collapse? Because it would cost them money. They gambled that the water wouldn't damage it before the taxpayers were on the hook for paying for it. You would think that was a bad gamble but undoubtedly it will end up paid for by the county instead of the city or the developer. If you're going to bed with these people you ought to know what they are like. They actually put people at risk. If it had collapsed with pedestrians on it we would be on CNN every hour for a week.
Artist, they didn't even clean up the banks. I was never given an audience with Gordon even though I was prepared to provide water taxi service two years ago. He sent me an e-mail if I remember that said it was too early and he would consider it at a later date. The idea that he was talking a boat dock and ferries is the same way I talk about doing a stand up routine....maybe some day.
I suppose Kings Crossing is doing the same thing.
I always wondered why they never finished doing anything right down to the river. I thought it might be that it was not on his property that it was part of river parks and would be river parks or the cities responsibility to do the shoreline modifications. However if the developer left junk down there and were supposed to clean it up, someone should have got on to them and made them do that. Whose responsibility would it be to make them clean it up?
I don't think it is from the shopping center construction. This is debris left over from a half century or more of sand mining, oil drilling, public dumping etc. I haven't been there this summer but unless the high flow disgorged the stuff, its still there. Good luck on finding those entities and making them clean it up. But in the end it is Gordon who built the center and just like any homeowner should make sure it is safe, clean and attractive.
I am not clear on who owns the banks. You can own to the normal water level I think. RPA may own it or just hold an easement for their path. I bet the provider of the mortgage knows though and from remarks on here that is probably the city of Jenks. But don't expect the city, the county, the state or the developer to step up and do the right thing. There may be precedent here.
Riverwalk and Kings Crossing are following established cost shifting developer practices that have increasingly favored them for decades. This is my understanding of the process. Rather than pay the real cost of developing, which would include their impact on surrounding roads and utilities, they provide only minimal infrastructure. All the while they are asking for tifs, preferential loans, subsidized loans and grants. The authorities, anxious to have new revenues, defer the cost of widening, drainage improvements etc. until a revenue stream starts to come from the development. Sometimes they never seem to find enough revenue and the taxpayer is screwed. Sometimes the commercial development is a bust and the taxpayer is screwed. The taxpayer bears the cost of infrastructure one way or the other, but by deferring it to the city the developer asserts that he can keep his costs low, profits higher and ostensibly provide cheaper purchase price to the homeowner or cheaper rent to the commercial tenant. But its an illusion. Like rebates on car loans.
For an example, drive down one of the wonderful roads bounded by 169 to Yale and 81st to 111th street south. Gorgeous walled off developments that increased the tax base but also the infrastructure needs. What happened to their infrastructure improvements? The system failed to provide. These homes are served by congested two-lane blacktops with no curbs and dangerous open ditches on each side. They flood easily and are impossible during snow and ice. They are free of potholes for the most part but some are nigh on 20yrs old and still have open ditches and congested intersections.
River development is travelling the same road. Shame on the insurance companies, the corps of engineers, the fire department (who has to do rescue work at the river), the developer, and the city/county/state who all put visitors at risk by not insisting on the hardening of soft bluffs below these developments. They hold the homeowner who installs an in-ground swimming pool to higher standards and requirements than these shopping center developers even though both the swimming pool and the river are attractive nuisances.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Who's obligation will it be to maintain the river banks?
The obligation will be the county River Parks Authority I guess. And yes, that was about a third of the earlier flood releases. I predicted two years ago that the decision not to harden the walls with ANYTHING around Riverwalk would be a terrible mistake. Besides just being plain ugly. They didn't even haul off metal debris. Stupid.
They were hoping to get a low water dam built in the area. Part of his original plans were to have a boat dock where the theater is to ferry people to the aquarium and to development on the other side of the river. The Kaiser plan has bank stabilization and hardening in it for certain areas. Some areas within Tulsas section will still be parks and nature preserves and will not have them. Plus some areas are not the wide sandy river bottom where the river would meander into, like by Turkey Mountain.
I worry about Kings Landing. If you ever go look behind it, especially when the water is low, its quite a high sheer drop and just sand there. They stabilize the other side and the river may start to then cut into the opposite side. A good storm and that whole shopping center... plop, right into the river.
I know you did some work for them and he's a swell guy, but that doesn't excuse
what Gordon and the city of Jenks allowed to happen.
Sure they expected a low water dam. They told the tenants it was eminent even though the location had just been determined, no engineering studies had been done,they weren't even sure of the design! Apparently there was no funding for it either as the 2.6 million most people thought was going to build it was just for engineering.
So why was there no wall constructed, rip-rap or anything done to protect the edge of the shopping center from erosion or collapse? Because it would cost them money. They gambled that the water wouldn't damage it before the taxpayers were on the hook for paying for it. You would think that was a bad gamble but undoubtedly it will end up paid for by the county instead of the city or the developer. If you're going to bed with these people you ought to know what they are like. They actually put people at risk. If it had collapsed with pedestrians on it we would be on CNN every hour for a week.
Artist, they didn't even clean up the banks. I was never given an audience with Gordon even though I was prepared to provide water taxi service two years ago. He sent me an e-mail if I remember that said it was too early and he would consider it at a later date. The idea that he was talking a boat dock and ferries is the same way I talk about doing a stand up routine....maybe some day.
I suppose Kings Crossing is doing the same thing.
I always wondered why they never finished doing anything right down to the river. I thought it might be that it was not on his property that it was part of river parks and would be river parks or the cities responsibility to do the shoreline modifications. However if the developer left junk down there and were supposed to clean it up, someone should have got on to them and made them do that. Whose responsibility would it be to make them clean it up?
I don't think it is from the shopping center construction. This is debris left over from a half century or more of sand mining, oil drilling, public dumping etc. I haven't been there this summer but unless the high flow disgorged the stuff, its still there. Good luck on finding those entities and making them clean it up. But in the end it is Gordon who built the center and just like any homeowner should make sure it is safe, clean and attractive.
I am not clear on who owns the banks. You can own to the normal water level I think. RPA may own it or just hold an easement for their path. I bet the provider of the mortgage knows though and from remarks on here that is probably the city of Jenks. But don't expect the city, the county, the state or the developer to step up and do the right thing. There may be precedent here.
Riverwalk and Kings Crossing are following established cost shifting developer practices that have increasingly favored them for decades. This is my understanding of the process. Rather than pay the real cost of developing which would include their impact on surrounding roads and utilities, they provide only minimal infrastructure. All the while they are asking for tifs, preferential loans, subsidized loans and grants. The authorities anxious to have new revenues defer the cost of widening, drainage improvements etc. until a revenue stream starts to come from the development. Sometimes they never seem to find enough revenue and the taxpayer is screwed. Sometimes the commercial development is a bust and the taxpayer is screwed. The taxpayer eventually bears the cost of infrastructure one way or the other, but by deferring it to the city the developer asserts that he can keep his costs low, profits higher and ostensibly provide cheaper purchase price to the homeowner or cheaper rent to the commercial tenant. Buts its an illusion. Like rebates on car loans.
For and example, drive down one of the wonderful roads bounded by 169 to Yale and 81st to 111th street south. Gorgeous walled off developments that increased the tax base but also the infrastructure needs. What happened to their infrastructure improvements? The system failed to provide. These homes are served by congested two-lane blacktops with no curbs and dangerous open ditches on each side. They flood easily and are impossible during snow and ice. They are free of potholes for the most part but some are nigh on 20yrs old and still have open ditches and congested intersections.
River development is travelling the same road. Shame on the insurance companies, the corps of engineers, the fire department (who has to do rescue work at the river), the developer who puts visitors at risk, the city/county/state for not insisting on the hardening of soft bluffs below these developments. They hold the homeowner who installs an in-ground swimming pool to higher standards and requirements than these shopping center developers. Both the swimming pool and the river are attractive nuisances.
Excellent analysis, Waterboy.
When the city ended in the mid-60's the Special Property Assessments for the funding road widening, from that point forward the large property owners (the Warren Financial Interests?), and the developer/builders started their uninterrupted 40-year FREE RIDE on infrastructure improvement.
What Tulsa has been allowed to happen to its citizens for the past 40 years borders on criminal.
WE pay for suburban road-widening, 25 years AFTER total saturation development has occurred and we've had to live with suburban GRIDLOCK for decades, until finally using the Itty-Bitty Third-Penny sales tax, which since 1980 has picked out pocket of over $1,000,000,000.
However, with the percentage of the third-penny devoted to road construction and intersection widening allowed to also fall, until now it represents on 28% of the Third-Penny spending. The remainder being siphoned off to buy police cars, firetrucks, police helicopters, and for other "capital" expenditures.
Tulsa also has gotten hosed by our state legislature, with the benign neglect of our very own
LOCAL state senators and representatives, who have allowed our fair share of highway road money to be spent in rural areas, allowing 4-lane highways to be built between Cordell and No-Where, or between Sulpher and No-Where.
Ad Nauseum et Ad Infinitum.
A double-barrelled hose job.And, as usual, Tulsa taxpayer are paying the freight.
I call it: The Tulsa PREMIUM.
It's going to be interesting to see what new lows are stooped in the attempt to pass this thing.
Recycle quoted:
"It is ok for you to be against the river improvement tax, but please try and discuss things you know about. You have been shown on this forum in many threads to completely make up information about stormwater facts and this is no different.
The design of the low water dams will take into account high flow levels during occassional high releases from Keystone. There is absolutely no chance of any design to increase the depth of flooding. The opposite will be true.
If there is one thing that I have the most confidence in with the study and design of the INCOG Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan is that flooding issues were completely studied. The best hydrologists in the country were involved from everywhere from the city to the Corps of Engineers." (quote:/)
Having been around the river for well over three quarters of a century and watch the erosion and deterring of the river banks as it has meandered back and forth, and going through the INCOG plan my comment would be "Not for real". The by pass with the white water installation blows ones mental capacity. Only a person sitting at a desk could come up with such a design. They should take a small boat and explore the banks when there was no generating water being released at Keystone. When the flood gates are closed then a inspection of the banks should be made. The present release is a miniature flood to past floods and anticipated floods of the future.
It is assuring to know that the city hydrologists and Corps are working together. Their design (Corps)in storm water controls were not followed by the city. The science of hydrology and the science of predicting the weather are of one breed with the dikes at New Orleans, flooding a complete segment of the city, designed sitting at a desk. The low water dams will create a death trap such as was blown up below the Keystone dam.
The water has been approved as one where it is clean enough to swim in. A short time ago two children died from an illness caught by playing in a splash pad in the same water we drink.
True, I am against making the river a ribbon of concreted channels.
Nature through the centuries has created the river and we do not have the right to change it. If we do it will fight back like it has with the Mississippi river.
Recycle quoted:
It is ok for you to be against the river improvement tax, but please try and discuss things you know about. You have been shown on this forum in many threads to completely make up information about stormwater facts and this is no different.
====================================
If you would be so kind as to point out where I created false facts about storm water runoff I will be able to sustain such facts. Under some circumstances I will not be able to name the one who furnished the information as many are holding jobs now or have retired thus that information will be of the anonymous nature of the person making the statement. I have hundreds of pictures and sheets of information gathered from the meeting that I have had with the corps, storm water management, FEMA and the advisory board as well as tapes of persons who have been affected by the flooding.
Or is it your purpose to just flame?
How about your statement that Mingo Creek has filled up half it's capacity in the last twenty years?
That is so incorrect, it is laughable.
Bringing up the deaths of the two kids in stagnant water in your argument about the river is so unrelated, it is despicable.
Shadows quote... " The low water dams will create a death trap such as was blown up below the Keystone dam."
No they wont, these dams have an entirely different design. They are speciffically designed to be safe and not have the "undertow and rolling" effect of the old dams, including the way the Zink dam is now which will be rebuilt to get rid of the "death trap" effect.
Shadows quote... "The by pass with the white water installation blows ones mental capacity."
Can you give us some reasons why you think this?
Shadows quote... "A short time ago two children died from an illness caught by playing in a splash pad in the same water we drink.
I think you are either intentionally mischaracterizing the incident or don't know what your talking about. And what does that have to do with the river and this discussion about the river? Are you suggesting the drinking water is less safe than the water in the river?
Recycle:
In consideration of your close relationship to the SWM and failure to keep up with the changing of the pervious to the impervious surfaces, the impact the capacity of the out flow of the of the basin, the failure to maintain the channel and the removal of the settlement carried by the runoff used to fill in the floodway basin, it easy for one unfamiliar and without examining the extent of the continuing restricting of the storm water sewer, it is not uncommon for one to sit at a desk and say that is not happening.
At least you find amusement in the reality that there are people who have suffered and will continue to suffer because of the politics that have been involved.
There was a poster that related that he had swum in the Arkansas River with no ill effects. In the line of thought that was being published my intent was that without extended explanations I might point out the incident of the boy's death from effects of approved conditions of the source of our drinking water. The water has had very heavy concentration in lime deposits.
Therefore the condition could exist in boating incidents whereas it is quite often that boaters do leave the boat and enter into the water whether by choice or accident.
Artist:
As there seems to be no design for the low water dams, any obstruction that is placed in the river has an adverse effect on the water flow and does create undertows in time of floods. It also creates confidence in boaters and beach comers in high water flows, where as the ponds will need to a lifeguard standing by. A twig in the river can change the depth of the river, when being used to dispense flood waters as well as change the courses within the river.
As to the riprap that is to be used to create the white water course taking the water from up stream to speed up the flow, due to the sand is heavier than the water, by the nature of the river the crevasses that create the white waters will fill with sand and the turbulence creating riprap making the waves will disappear until the sand is dredged out.
The relationship to the comparing the quality of water is founded on the inability for any entity to insure that they do not create a water source that contains an unidentifiable threat to those they are dedicated to protect.
We paint many pictures that are fancies which cannot be associated with nature in the real world.
The average cfs must include the high flow along with generating flow and the no flow during the past dry period. The building another dam to compensate as a holding tank in time of no releases of Keystone, with the high fluctuation of its water level will create another hazard.
For a city that is taking on more maintenance cost that cannot fix our city hall roof or calk the windows, the maintenance of the river should be looked into very closely.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
At least you find amusement in the reality that there are people who have suffered and will continue to suffer because of the politics that have been involved.
Please explain how you continue to suffer from flooding on Mingo creek.
I think I have figured out why you hate government so much. When the city bought out the flooded houses along Mingo Creek in the 1980s, they didn't buy yours. You are still pissed that the city bought out some of your neighbors at a good price and wouldn't buy your home.
I guess the motion failed three for and six against.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I guess the motion failed three for and six against.
Rico gets the cigar. He called it a week ago.
Rico knows too much.
He is either the luckiest guy or he has ways of making things happen his way.
I am just glad he uses his power for good.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Rico knows too much.
He is either the luckiest guy or he has ways of making things happen his way.
I am just glad he uses his power for good.
Maybe he is receiving e-mail messages that were not intended for him or...oh nevermind
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Rico knows too much.
He is either the luckiest guy or he has ways of making things happen his way.
I am just glad he uses his power for good.
Lets make this more interesting and do the percentage of County votes for and against....
[}:)]
County will vote no. 44% for, 56% against.
All of those that feel this is a "smart" move need to take a good long look at the "Trinity" project in Dallas......
The City of Dallas took $246. Million approved by the voters in 1998 and has come up with Federal, State, and other matching funds to the tune of One Billion Dollars..
There was no rush to build....There were no ultimatums placed on them by "donors?" "philanthropists?"....
They took their time and have a plan that is good no matter how you look at it.
One thing about plans.... They are kinda like concrete.
Very easy to pour.... But very hard to change once in place.
Have a look at Trinity River Corridor Project (//%22http://www.trinityrivercorridor.com%22)
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
All of those that feel this is a "smart" move need to take a good long look at the "Trinity" project in Dallas......
The City of Dallas took $246. Million approved by the voters in 1998 and has come up with Federal, State, and other matching funds to the tune of One Billion Dollars..
There was no rush to build....There were no ultimatums placed on them by "donors?" "philanthropists?"....
They took their time and have a plan that is good no matter how you look at it.
One thing about plans.... They are kinda like concrete.
Very easy to pour.... But very hard to change once in place.
Have a look at Trinity River Corridor Project (//%22http://www.trinityrivercorridor.com%22)
Thats tiiiiny compared to Tulsas river and what Tulsa is trying to do. Plus who knows how much development it will have spurred in 10 years. However I completely agree that we should have thought this plan through bettter. I am just not sure how the federal matching thing works. They said they tried with the dams but have failed. And now they are saying that if you do more, the government will take more attention and be more likely to give you matching funds. I am not sure what they are saying? If we vote for the plan we will THEN be more likely to get matching grants? But that doesnt sound quite right. But it also doesnt sound quite right that the government would allocate matching grants until there was something to match?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Thats tiiiiny compared to Tulsas river and what Tulsa is trying to do.
Tiny? The web site states it encompasses about 44,000 acres, or 20% of the total land area in the city of Dallas.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
County will vote no. 44% for, 56% against.
That would be my guess. I predict Wescott, Barnes, and Troyer won't be returned to office. I thought it was completely dishonest for these Councilors to mislead the public by stating that the resolution would deny the public the right to vote on this. Shameful. I also find it very ironic that Maria recently was part of a panel in a forum on ethics, yet she did not abstain from this vote, due to the fact that the Kaiser foundation is very involved with Kendall-Whittier. I wonder if conflicts of interest were discussed at that forum? I wonder if that influenced her vote?
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
At least you find amusement in the reality that there are people who have suffered and will continue to suffer because of the politics that have been involved.
Please explain how you continue to suffer from flooding on Mingo creek.
I think I have figured out why you hate government so much. When the city bought out the flooded houses along Mingo Creek in the 1980s, they didn't buy yours. You are still pissed that the city bought out some of your neighbors at a good price and wouldn't buy your home.
One could not be more wrong in the assumptions that you associate with the buyout of property in the flood area. It was long ago paid for and the current taxes are paid and there is no need for selling.
The flood of 84 was on the forecast of a 20% chance of rain so any predictions of such chance of rainfall makes persons who are subject of flooding keeping a eye on the sky.
As posted it is very easy to sit at a desk and not see the way the creek has been abused which is passed on to the other owners by more flooding.
As to the vote: any councilor that comes out against the city hall bureaucracy has a hard time finding the funding equal to that of his opponent at election at time. Ask the councilor who tried to recycle in her district or Medlock
This was interesting:
Trinity River Corridor Project Survey Now On-Line: Take part in the Trinity River Corridor Project Survey, designed to gauge public awareness and obtain resident input on the project.
An ongoing effort to receive input from the public as well as guage the success of current activity.
I notice they have boat launches. How bizarre.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Thats tiiiiny compared to Tulsas river and what Tulsa is trying to do.
Tiny? The web site states it encompasses about 44,000 acres, or 20% of the total land area in the city of Dallas.
How big is the river they are trying to work with? How much water flow and water flow range do they have to contend with? How big and costly will their dams be? How wide an expanse do their bridges have to cross?
If its the river I have seen its more like what we would call a creek here. The size of our river, the type of river, and many other factors we have to contend with, can make many of the things we do on our river more expensive. Thats what I meant.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Shameful. I also find it very ironic that Maria recently was part of a panel in a forum on ethics, yet she did not abstain from this vote, due to the fact that the Kaiser foundation is very involved with Kendall-Whittier. I wonder if conflicts of interest were discussed at that forum? I wonder if that influenced her vote?
Ridiculous and unfounded slander against the councilor. The neighborhood association she is a member of went to the city and asked for a assistance in code enforcement. The city had no money, but the Tulsa Community Foundation stepped in (and in many other places) and helped. Maria did not receive anything personally. She did her job as a councilor and worked for a solution for her constituents. Everything she did was completely open and in public.
I also heard that you were yelling at her at the neighborfest in front of her kids on Tuesday night. Very classy.
How can you serve as an officer in the Oklahoma Democratic Party and write such untruths and allegations against democrats?
You are out of control and should resign your party post.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Shameful. I also find it very ironic that Maria recently was part of a panel in a forum on ethics, yet she did not abstain from this vote, due to the fact that the Kaiser foundation is very involved with Kendall-Whittier. I wonder if conflicts of interest were discussed at that forum? I wonder if that influenced her vote?
Ridiculous and unfounded slander against the councilor. The neighborhood association she is a member of went to the city and asked for a assistance in code enforcement. The city had no money, but the Tulsa Community Foundation stepped in (and in many other places) and helped. Maria did not receive anything personally. She did her job as a councilor and worked for a solution for her constituents. Everything she did was completely open and in public.
I also heard that you were yelling at her at the neighborfest in front of her kids on Tuesday night. Very classy.
How can you serve as an officer in the Oklahoma Democratic Party and write such untruths and allegations against democrats?
You are out of control and should resign your party post.
Maria and I did talk at Mayorfest, no one was yelling. Why would you you make it sound like you heard this from someone else when you were standing nearby? I haven't lied about a damn thing, this stuff is common knowledge. All I've done is point out the obvious. Besides, why else would she vote in support of something she had such misgivings about, and I qoute "I wish we could be the ones driving this, not the county. That, to me, is dangerous". If that is indeed her opinion, why would she vote to express her opinion of support for this? Her comments and corresponding contradictory vote open up these questions of ethics and whether those connections might have influenced her vote. The dishonesty lays squarely on the shoulders of the Councilors who tried to misrepresent this vote as a vote to deny the voters the right to vote on the county river tax. Maria herself admitted this fact, right before she voted against the resolution citing that misrepresentation as a reason for voting against the resolution, and I quote "The tax, I have nothing to do with that tax, they(the voters) will vote on that tax, it's out of my hands". Then she stated "I won't support the resolution because I think we should give it to the people, they should decide how we do this". This was a vote to support river development and opposing a county controlled sales tax to support it, which judging from Maria's own remarks seems to be what she says she supports, why vote against it?
I am confused by Maria's vote. If she doesn't like the idea of the county running this project or the substance of the project, then why did she vote against the motion? If this was its meaning-"Council Chairman Roscoe Turner has called for an agenda item to be a vote to support or not for the proposed county tax", then it had nothing to do with the people having a chance to vote for or against the project. Merely an opinion by the council members of the merit of the project presented.
I don't suspect any undue influence though, just her fear of looking anti-river development when she is obviously not.
The bottom line seems to be that since the city did not take the lead in presenting a package of INCOG plans and a method of executing them, then the county was more than willing to do so. Tulsa leadership, both city and county, is killing any momentum for river development. Everyone should peruse the Trinity river project in Fort Worth that Rico found and note the differences in presentation. It has real and ongoing public input and looks really inviting. www.trinityrivercorridor.com
Five years ago, a local attorney rode on one of my boat tours and was pretty frank in saying, "When the right players are lined up to profit from river development, it will happen. I love your operation, but you aren't one of them." I think they're lined up pretty well now.
edit: I realize now he meant the correct aligning of political/social/commercial interests.
There is no "question of ethics" or dishonesty. Stop saying there is.
All that councilor did was to speak her mind and try to explain her understanding of both sides of the issue. Would you rather have the councilors not discuss, just vote?
I am sure she heard from constituents who said they wanted to vote on this river improvement tax. You don't want a vote, instead you want to bully and complain and create a soapbox.
It is ok for you to be opposed to this ballot measure. Having people like you against it pushes people like me to be more likely to believe the other side. You remind me of the street preachers who just stand on a corner and yell biblical phrases. I doubt very many of them lead people to attend church, and probably instead make the undecided be afraid of even starting.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
There is no "question of ethics" or dishonesty. Stop saying there is.
All that councilor did was to speak her mind and try to explain her understanding of both sides of the issue. Would you rather have the councilors not discuss, just vote?
I am sure she heard from constituents who said they wanted to vote on this river improvement tax. You don't want a vote, instead you want to bully and complain and create a soapbox.
It is ok for you to be opposed to this ballot measure. Having people like you against it pushes people like me to be more likely to believe the other side. You remind me of the street preachers who just stand on a corner and yell biblical phrases. I doubt very many of them lead people to attend church, and probably instead make the undecided be afraid of even starting.
You can keep repeating the mantra that this resolution would somehow deny the public the right to vote, no one believes that bald faced lie. It is completely asinine to suggest that opposition to this river tax is the equivalent of voter intimidation. What I expect from my Councilor is a clear answer on whether or not she supports this tax. I expect her to have the intestinal fortitude to make that distinction instead of riding the fence and then giving a dishonest answer to explain why she would vote against the resolution. If the voters of District 4 wanted a walking contradiction for a Councilor, we wouldn't have driven Baker out of the seat.
Face it, Councilors weaselled out of their responsibilities.
A County measure which removes normal protocol of the Council approving construction projects stomps on their territory in a big way.
They had no spine to stand up to it, or for their constituancies.
Bye-bye councilors.
When we finish off the County on this deal, we'll be back to replace them, too.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
There is no "question of ethics" or dishonesty. Stop saying there is.
All that councilor did was to speak her mind and try to explain her understanding of both sides of the issue. Would you rather have the councilors not discuss, just vote?
I am sure she heard from constituents who said they wanted to vote on this river improvement tax. You don't want a vote, instead you want to bully and complain and create a soapbox.
It is ok for you to be opposed to this ballot measure. Having people like you against it pushes people like me to be more likely to believe the other side. You remind me of the street preachers who just stand on a corner and yell biblical phrases. I doubt very many of them lead people to attend church, and probably instead make the undecided be afraid of even starting.
You can keep repeating the mantra that this resolution would somehow deny the public the right to vote, no one believes that bald faced lie. It is completely asinine to suggest that opposition to this river tax is the equivalent of voter intimidation. What I expect from my Councilor is a clear answer on whether or not she supports this tax. I expect her to have the intestinal fortitude to make that distinction instead of riding the fence and then giving a dishonest answer to explain why she would vote against the resolution. If the voters of District 4 wanted a walking contradiction for a Councilor, we wouldn't have driven Baker out of the seat.
Double A, as an initial matter, I am someone who believes very strongly in the need for ethics and transparency in government, and I think we have a long way to go on many levels of government. I also think you probably feel the same way and don't have any intent to further unethical behavior. But, the reality is that the situation you are talking about has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with a politician serving her constituents (whether you agree with that action or not). By using the "ethics" card, you are not only starting false rumors, but you are also playing right into the hands of unethical people who seek to cheapen the idea of ethics by blurring the lines between ethical and non-ethical behavior, thereby allowing them to profit by making decisions that can steer money in their direction.
Regarding the vote, while I respect your right to vote against the county river tax, I think it is wrong to expect the city councilors to stand in the way of a county initiative submitted to the vote of the county voters. First, it would be presumptuous for the City Council to tell the voters that they should vote "no". If the voters don't like the proposal, they will vote "no". That is especially the case if the councilor believes that her constituents would vote "yes" or at least would support the implementation of the plan. Moreover, the councilors have to work with the county on many things, and it is in our best interests that their relationship not spiral into a wholly-antagonistic affair. I don't think that the councilors' statements reflected anything other than these eminently reasonable points.
I know that you are a zealous advocate for your cause, and I respect that. But you have to be careful with your assertions because, by crying "wolf" on everything you disagree with, your calls will have less effect on the truly important things.