It is all for the children as they are the ones who will struggle to pay for the fantasy of developing the river.
The propaganda machines are being cranked up again to sell Tulsa's master storm sewer into an American update of the Thames River. It is all being dedicated to the production of thousands of jobs and billions in income from sales in the retail market where there is no evidence that present merchants don't have available. This will also include restaurants and hamburger establishments for the obesity part of the society we are already afflicted with.
A 20 cent increase on sales economy as long as one has it but the increase of the economy is affixed to the alleged prosperity that is robbing the limited incomer's of much needed funds If they are at the checkout with a total of merchandise, including sales taxes of $50.20 and have only $50.00, the clerk will tell them they must put something back. They cannot put the 20 cents sales tax back.
Do any of the posters believe that Lloyds' of London would issue an insurance policy that would guarantee to the citizens that they would receive 75% of the projected billions of dollars of the projected income to the city? From where are these people to come from that cannot buy in their locality? Three Wal-Mart supper stores on the river would take care of all retail need of river visitors.
As the propagandas move forward with the figures, that seem to come from out of state predictors paid by the bureaucracies, on the presumption of such a great development of the storm sewer, the city is under examination by person from water pollution control out of the OKC office, who are requiring permits to continue to use the river for dumping storm water sewerage and in the future may require the city to even treat this storm water before it is empted into the river.
The amount of money is only for basic improvement to the river and the total cost of developing it through the final stages, could reach into billions of dollars.
We have hundreds of miles of shore lines on the lakes in NE sector of Oklahoma. They lie within a short radius of Tulsa. Maybe we should build us another lake like Brick Town in OC which would eliminate billions of dollars in bank stabilization in Tulsa's running sand box.
The phrase "It is for the children" has not been used up to now. It will be for the children as they are the ones who will be paying for the final development along with the upkeep through their adult years.
The TW today shows they are oiling the bearing to start the output the citizens are to expect in the future.
God, you're crazy. I love it.[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
God, you're crazy. I love it.[}:)]
Crazy? Crazy like a Fox............
[^]
The river plan is not going to make anyone fatter.
Nor is it going to bankrupt anyone, I believe the extra cost per household was on the order of $200 per year.
Nor is it going to add a pile of debt our children will have to deal with, as it is funded by a defined tax. That is to say, it has a payment schedule and a source of revenue. Unlike the federal government, municipalities in Oklahoma can not have general unfunded debt loads. I do not think the river parks project will lead to the "collapse of the U.S. economy and world-wide ecomonic [sic]depression"
and yes, Lloyds of London will insure anything, its simply a matter of price. But I do not trust the figures that are thrown around, so I give you props for that point.
I will probably vote yes because I am willing to fork over a couple hundred bucks to try and bring back something special to the city of Tulsa... it doesn't appear that many of the elite in our community are going to do it anymore. Looks like you are voting "no" because it will make people fat and lead to a global economic downturn. Check.
Basically, there are plenty of reasons to oppose the River Plan, hyperbole and conjecture are not needed to make the argument.
I wasn't going to respond to anyone who referred to the river as a storm sewer. But CF's response does merit attention.
Yes, $200 bucks ain't much if that was the entire cost. The hidden costs are giant and unfunded.
There is a promise of maintenance for the facilities funded by the foundations. Just a promise. But even if they do come through, long term there are serious expenses that aren't being discussed. Maintenance of the rest of the project is sketchy. Issues of policing, insurance, legal defense of riparian rights, security, unforeseen infrastructure, clean-up of existing debris and pollution in the river from past abuses, zoning, and even more that I outlined during the past three years.
Just imagine for a moment that its 5 years hence and everything thats been promised has been accomplished and scads of people are visiting and using the river. Its kind of scary. Anyone building a house or buying a car knows its the stuff you didn't think about that costs you dearly.
I still think we need the development and don't care much about the fat getting fatter, but ignoring these issues is very expensive indeed.
This calculator I have keeps coming up with the 125,000 water meters, which I paid $80 for a FOIA copy on my tape from their main drive, is the number that is being kicked around. Now this little computer I have keeps coming up with $200 X 7 X 125,000=175,000,000 dollars. 175,000,000 + 111,000,000 debt services may be a little short of the 382,000,000. I guess that I should go dig the old Monroe out of the shelves in the garage.
If one don't believe that those promoting this has anything in monetary gains I got some stock in Animal care insurance that I would like to sell them at a bargain.
The printout that is being given for the river improvement is for only a slight portions of the anticipated cost. The interest on the revenue bonds can run as much as 80% of the total cost. No figure has been given that could be cast in concrete as the total cost.
Did anyone ever hear about the one cent sales tax that was to expire in 5 years, to be used for infrastructure improvements?
Seems we are in the span of 20 years of it being collected and some people are still gripping about pot holes in the streets.
Half a billion dollars now to move the sewerage plant is added on the cost of the river.
What is it; "If you fool me once; If you fool me twice; If you fool me three times then you can continue to fool me forever."
No I don't believe that it will cause a world recession but a single grain of sand has been used to measure the centuries of time where empires failed.
Least we not forget all cities that grew in size were built on rivers so they could drain their water into the river thus from the beginning they have been used for storm sewers. For years they were also used as sanitary sewers as that was an easy way to dispose human waste.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Least we not forget all cities that grew in size were built on rivers so they could drain their water into the river thus from the beginning they have been used for storm sewers. For years they were also used as sanitary sewers as that was an easy way to dispose human waste.
Cities also grew up around rivers because they were a source of drinking water, irrigation and power. As was this river. Stop living in the past. River development is going to happen. Better to use your insights and your calculator to effect better development than to try to stop it.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Least we not forget all cities that grew in size were built on rivers so they could drain their water into the river thus from the beginning they have been used for storm sewers. For years they were also used as sanitary sewers as that was an easy way to dispose human waste.
I don't even bother to jog on Riverside south of 51st street anymore; at least in the summer time. The stench from the sewer pipes is enough to make you pass out.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Least we not forget all cities that grew in size were built on rivers so they could drain their water into the river thus from the beginning they have been used for storm sewers. For years they were also used as sanitary sewers as that was an easy way to dispose human waste.
I don't even bother to jog on Riverside south of 51st street anymore; at least in the summer time. The stench from the sewer pipes is enough to make you pass out.
Quite true. There is a lift station that has to be vented in that area. Too bad cause its a nice curvy path there. Would they put up with that if it were near the newer areas of town?
We discussed moving that treatment plant this past winter and it caused quite a ruckus. Now it appears it may be reconsidered if they put a pedestrian bridge nearby. They could at least vent the gasses elsewhere or scrub them.
Venting to a charcoal filter or up high (say through a flagpole) is not an option? Moving the entire lift,a s I recall, was prohibitively expensive. There has to be innovative ways to correct the problem.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I wasn't going to respond to anyone who referred to the river as a storm sewer. But CF's response does merit attention.
Yes, $200 bucks ain't much if that was the entire cost. The hidden costs are giant and unfunded.
There is a promise of maintenance for the facilities funded by the foundations. Just a promise. But even if they do come through, long term there are serious expenses that aren't being discussed. Maintenance of the rest of the project is sketchy. Issues of policing, insurance, legal defense of riparian rights, security, unforeseen infrastructure, clean-up of existing debris and pollution in the river from past abuses, zoning, and even more that I outlined during the past three years.
Just imagine for a moment that its 5 years hence and everything thats been promised has been accomplished and scads of people are visiting and using the river. Its kind of scary. Anyone building a house or buying a car knows its the stuff you didn't think about that costs you dearly.
I still think we need the development and don't care much about the fat getting fatter, but ignoring these issues is very expensive indeed.
If this passes, it will spur tons of private development, much more than the $111 million pledged up front. I think the private businesses will maintain their own properties. As far as the public portions, i.e. the dams and infrastructure. I agree that those will take public maintenance, but the tax revenue from the private businesses would hopefully be able to cover that and more.
I see the roads in the core of Tulsa as a separate issue. Go to south Tulsa and the roads are great and maintained well. I-44 will soon be the same...the newer parts of it already are.
I think downtown and midtown roads and highways are in bad shape because of more than just bad management. I think it has a lot to do with the logistics of making major repairs there. Can you imagine the traffic nightmare a major renovation of any of the highways around downtown would take?
quote:
Originally posted by jackbristow
I see the roads in the core of Tulsa as a separate issue. Go to south Tulsa and the roads are great and maintained well. I-44 will soon be the same...the newer parts of it already are.
I think downtown and midtown roads and highways are in bad shape because of more than just bad management. I think it has a lot to do with the logistics of making major repairs there. Can you imagine the traffic nightmare a major renovation of any of the highways around downtown would take?
That's an interesting take on the situation. Never thought of that.
I always thought that south Tulsa roads were so much better than midtown and downtown (and north) because that's where the money and political power is. 71st between Lewis and Yale is really nice. Why don't other neighborhoods get the same treatment? With what they spent on widening and "art" sound barriers, they could've just fixed or widened that stretch and used the remainder of the money in a more humble neighborhood.
Why are they so special? They have money. And they vote. It's not like that neighborhood is historic or anything - just rich.
That's the way of the world - the rich keep getting richer. Who pays to paint those walls anyway?
Maybe it is as simple as logistics - I'm admittedly paranoid when it comes to government.
D'ja ever notice those sound barrier walls along 71st never seem to get the graffiti midtown/downtown walls get? Are they raising more respectful children?[:P]
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
D'ja ever notice those sound barrier walls along 71st never seem to get the graffiti midtown/downtown walls get? Are they raising more respectful children?[:P]
I guess if ya can't build a grafitti-proof wall - you just build grafitti-proof kids. Stepford Wives - but kids, yeah, Stepford Kids in South Tulsa!
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
D'ja ever notice those sound barrier walls along 71st never seem to get the graffiti midtown/downtown walls get? Are they raising more respectful children?[:P]
Reminds me of the scene in The Naked Gun where they were testing the "anit" graffiti walls...
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Venting to a charcoal filter or up high (say through a flagpole) is not an option? Moving the entire lift,a s I recall, was prohibitively expensive. There has to be innovative ways to correct the problem.
Yes there are innovative ways. To the tune of $50mm to $500mm according to the Tulsa World yesterday.
This is one of the issues I've raised over on development after a story in the Tulsa World talked about the stench issue yesterday.
We have a sewage treatment plant and associated structures and processes stretching from about W. 45th street to just south of I-44 on the west bank. Then there are sludge drying beds at the 71st St. bridge.
What I envision happening with this development plan, is new commercial development will take place, tennants will complain about the odor, then we could be on the hook for $50mm to $500mm to abate the problem.
It's just like developers who build homes under an existing major airport flight path, then the new neighbors complain about all the noise and expect the rest of the tax payers to absorb the cost of remediation.
Developable area between 51st & the pedestrian bridge are surrounded on both ends by a refinery and sewage plant. From 31st to 11th it's got a refinery on either end.
That's one reason I'm going to vote "no". The costs won't end with this development. It's not even close to a slam dunk.
How would one feel sitting down to one of those $300 dollar meals and the smell of the human waste is stronger than the smell of the T-bone you are trying to eat.
Imagine the waiter holding the white cloth over his nose when placing the tray with your bill on the table.
If we must have a river project we should get a quote on moving the river. That could be cheaper.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
How would one feel sitting down to one of those $300 dollar meals and the smell of the human waste is stronger than the smell of the T-bone you are trying to eat.
Imagine the waiter holding the white cloth over his nose when placing the tray with your bill on the table.
If we must have a river project we should get a quote on moving the river. That could be cheaper.
Bankers who are the financiers of
Developer Dreams look at one key aspect of a proposed development:
They look at the
ABSORPTION rate of the type of facility being developed.
Whether the development is Retail, Commercial Office, Residential, Industrial, or Mixed-use, the bankers carefully study whether their is adequate
DEMAND to ABSORB the new development.
On something as mammoth as what is being proposed in the Kaiser River Tax, where is the
ANALYSIS to show that this supposed EXPOSION in river development has the demand to Absorb what will be newly built?
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
How would one feel sitting down to one of those $300 dollar meals and the smell of the human waste is stronger than the smell of the T-bone you are trying to eat.
Imagine the waiter holding the white cloth over his nose when placing the tray with your bill on the table.
If we must have a river project we should get a quote on moving the river. That could be cheaper.
Bankers who are the financiers of Developer Dreams look at one key aspect of a proposed development:
They look at the ABSORPTION rate of the type of facility being developed.
Whether the development is Retail, Commercial Office, Residential, Industrial, or Mixed-use, the bankers carefully study whether their is adequate DEMAND to ABSORB the new development.
On something as mammoth as what is being proposed in the Kaiser River Tax, where is the ANALYSIS to show that this supposed EXPOSION in river development has the demand to Absorb what will be newly built?
They may look at it but they don't seem to be understanding what they see. All over south Tulsa new shopping centers and housing developments have been built even though existing housing and shopping was adequate. The result was that the existing centers have been leapfrogged and suffer as new development sucks the business farther and farther south.
One might surmise that its the profit from the business of loaning money that keeps them doing that.
quote:
They may look at it but they don't seem to be understanding what they see. All over south Tulsa new shopping centers and housing developments have been built even though existing housing and shopping was adequate. The result was that the existing centers have been leapfrogged and suffer as new development sucks the business farther and farther south.
One might surmise that its the profit from the business of loaning money that keeps them doing that.
New stores are built because different business people come in and see a potential business opportunity. They build something they think is better than what is there or in a place where they think there is demand. It's capitalism. There is no ultimate authority who determines where stores are needed. Owners decide based on the market.
Those loans make the banks money, yes, but the banks aren't the ones opening the businesses. People who want to make a profit and have a successful business are. Welcome to the free market. It's called competition.
quote:
Originally posted by jackbristow
quote:
They may look at it but they don't seem to be understanding what they see. All over south Tulsa new shopping centers and housing developments have been built even though existing housing and shopping was adequate. The result was that the existing centers have been leapfrogged and suffer as new development sucks the business farther and farther south.
One might surmise that its the profit from the business of loaning money that keeps them doing that.
New stores are built because different business people come in and see a potential business opportunity. They build something they think is better than what is there or in a place where they think there is demand. It's capitalism. There is no ultimate authority who determines where stores are needed. Owners decide based on the market.
Those loans make the banks money, yes, but the banks aren't the ones opening the businesses. People who want to make a profit and have a successful business are. Welcome to the free market. It's called competition.
Don't be condescending. I responded to his saying that banks require studies showing that areas are not overbuilt. They may do that but they're more interested in your ability to repay the loan. Loaning money is what keeps them in business. I am quite familiar with capitalism, free markets and competition.