I know that we have people who are for and against the upcoming vote on river improvements.
Rather than have a discussion of point and counter point, I was hoping we could have a thread of stand alone statements by the many posters on this forum.
I am hoping that some of you would take the time to put into words why you feel the vote is right or wrong to you. What I hope is some well-thought out personal opinions and not just random gushing or whining that we have already heard.
Take your time. Try to make it at least a couple of paragraphs but not a book. Make your case in the most reasoned argument possible. Please don't try to respond to the comments of others, instead just state your reasons.
I have not followed this proposal closely, but I leaning toward voting against it.
I have read something about a pedestrian bridge at 41st Street. I think that is poor planning. If we build a bridge there, it ought to be for vehicles and pedestrians.
I'm satisfied with the single dam we have now which creates Zink Lake. I'd rather not see two more dams built across the entire river. I think timed releases from Keystone (and/or a re-regulation dam downstream of Keystone), wing dams, or jetties make more sense economically and ecologically than two more dams blocking the flow of the river.
I think that these types of issues ought to be decided on a city by city basis, not county-wide. Even better would be private financing with very little or no public funding at all. I really hate sales taxes for these types of projects because they are by nature regressive and penalize the poorest taxpayers in order to provide infrastructure for the richest.
We have lots of land lying fallow in and around downtown Tulsa. In many areas, the infrastructure is already in place. We've already made the investment. Before we start messing with the natural beauty of the river, I'd prefer to see us re-develop brownfields and downtown where foul odors are much less of an issue. I'd like to see some trail improvements along the river, but otherwise I'm satisfied with it as it is.
What boo said.
I should add that whoever is trying to sell this is doing a poor job. The whole thing feels rushed and has a feeling of incompleteness, like it hasn't been thought through.
I'm also inclined to get the streets fixed and get downtown up and running more before we delve into river development. Let's finish some more pressing stuff first.
I would love to see the dams because I think they need to be done eventually and the dam part of this proposal seems well thought out. They have to release water in the afternoon at keystone because that is when peak rate hours are and by morning the water level goes down. So having the Sand Springs dam hold some of that water for release during the day sounds like a good idea. Plus all of these dams will be safer than the Zink dam is now and the Zink lake will be higher, yet allow for better fish migration and silt control. The Jenks Riverwalk and other things will only be that much nicer with the dam there. It will help "finish off" the area.
(1.) 15 million for downtown connector? What is that really? The only thing I ever saw in relation to that was a cheesy looking waterfall feature going down a street. There is no reason for that. Those types of things need a lot of upkeep, the city has enough trouble with the fountains it has. The streets leading to downtown look decent as it is. Adding rinky dink things that dont fit the character of the streets isnt going to "connect" downtown to the river. There is no need for it. Just clean and maintain them nicely and that will do. As that area continues to become better they will naturally act as nice connectors. I dont actually see what they are trying to connect, where, how is it supposed to work in reality, what will it really do? Plus, until they show us what that 15 million is for, how can we vote on it or have some input into what "it" will be? Does anyone really know what they are talking about using this 15 million for?
(2.) I think it could be a good idea to purchase the land on the west side of the river near downtown. However, what are they going to require of any developer? What type of development are they looking for whith a developer, quality, etc.? It would sure help confidence wise if we the people at least heard some comments on the subject. Whats more important to me though is...
What are they going to spend the money on after they sell the property? Does that money essentially become a blank check after they sell the property? They are promoting the deal as money to purchase property, but its more than that. What are they going to use the money for after they sell the property?
(3.) Bang for the buck, voters not wanting this large a tax. Both are related imo. If for example we got rid of the downtown connector and perhaps a pedestrian bridge, or didnt do the "Living River" concept. We could do the Pearl District which is supposed to cost around 50 million. If we vote for this tax, your not likely to get the Pearl done anytime within the next 20 years or so as far as I can tell.
I think leaving out a pedestrian bridge and the downtown connector and adding the Pearl District plan would get us a whoooole lot more bang for the voters buck. Imagine showing the plan we have now minus those things but then add the "pretty little pictures" showing the canals and lakes of the Pearl District and discussing how that could make such a large difference for redevelopment. So much more economic impact and "saleability" than a measly pedestrian bridge and downtown connector or even the 90million dollar "living river" part of this plan.
Basically I think this tax would have been more palitable if it had been about 200mill with the 117mill in private donations. Some of that private donation helping with say a new pedestrian bridge.
Or the 280 million minus a few smaller things for the moment but adding the Pearl District plan into it. I think people could see how something like that would have a much larger economic and "city well being" impact.
(4.) One other thing I really dont like is that they are taking out a well used venue, and as far as I can see, not replacing it. You can drive by 71st and riverside and see people playing vball there quite a bit. The 71st plan they have now, eliminates this and does not leave any room for it to be incorporated in the future. I was really hoping the plan would add to a well used spot,not completely take it away. They have a huge fundraiser there every year and the largest volleyball tournament in the state. http://www.tauw.org/tauw/Sandblazer_Information.asp?SnID=213366 Now that too has been eliminated. The new plan shows restaurants on a pier. I think, anyway, still dont have the details on that. Another example of... Sure wish I knew WHAT I was supposed to be voting for. lol.
But how neat would it have been to have the volley ball courts near an outdoor restaurant? It would have been fun and made both more enjoyable and more likely to be used. Why eliminate an obvious synergy like that? Its like they just didnt give a damn about the all people, group, teams, events, who have used that area for ages. I even had some friends who hired a coach to come down and help them so they could compete in the olympics. Why eliminate something thats already a "cool" factor for our city?
I have seen more people out playing volleyball at 71st, and more often, than I have ever seen at the Rivers Edge restaurant. Why eliminate one venue that is a success for one that may not be as successful? Especially when it could have been so easy to incorporate both and make them both more successful. The way they have it designed now at 41st and 71st there is no place for vball. We will have to ask the city to make us another spot where once again we will have a couple of porta potties, no water fountain and nothing but dirt to park on. Thats absurd.
If we are going to pay 280million dollars to improve the river. All those people deserve to get better than dirt and porta potties out of the deal.
I am still leaning no. The one thing that may push me to they yes side is considering the 117million we will be given with this deal. No matter how imperfect or poorly we may think some of the other parts of this plan may be handled, that 117 million could balance out those faults.
I am generally anti-tax increase, but I am leaning towards voting for this tax, despite my dislike of the main county commissioner pushing for it and a few other things. The two biggest parts I have debated over are the following:
1. The new dams+channeling will take care of priority #1 which is to keep water in the river. If the corps of engineers think it's a good idea then I'm not going to overanalyze it. Trying to meter the flow upstream can only work to a point.
2. The 41st bridge. They have it listed as pedestrian currently but there is also a decent amount of contingency funds. I'm pretty sure that if a private developer pushed for development of the west bank, that could be changed after the fact. I'd rahter have a pedestrian fund that could get vehicle traffic later than nothing at all.
The main thing for me is that this have been 40yrs in the making and I'm not willing to wait another 40. And unlike vision2025, there is tons of private money both from donors and developers that will not only match but exceed the public funds. Vision2025 was passed with the hope of private donors and development at a later date.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I am generally anti-tax increase, but I am leaning towards voting for this tax, despite my dislike of the main county commissioner pushing for it and a few other things. The two biggest parts I have debated over are the following:
1. The new dams+channeling will take care of priority #1 which is to keep water in the river. If the corps of engineers think it's a good idea then I'm not going to overanalyze it. Trying to meter the flow upstream can only work to a point.
2. The 41st bridge. They have it listed as pedestrian currently but there is also a decent amount of contingency funds. I'm pretty sure that if a private developer pushed for development of the west bank, that could be changed after the fact. I'd rahter have a pedestrian fund that could get vehicle traffic later than nothing at all.
The main thing for me is that this have been 40yrs in the making and I'm not willing to wait another 40. And unlike vision2025, there is tons of private money both from donors and developers that will not only match but exceed the public funds. Vision2025 was passed with the hope of private donors and development at a later date.
I'll vote
NO on October 9 against the Kaiser River Tax.
The duplicity of our annointed politicians conning us into paying AGAIN for construction of the two low-water dams approved in Vision 2025 is beyond immoral. Maybe Evil.
"River Development" is just a clever Snakey-Turncoat & Flake mantra coined for the local heavy construction cartel and their coterie of connected cronies.
They hope to ram-rod a new tax increase, and keep getting it renewed for the next 50 years. They plan to spend $1,000,000 to get $1,000,000,000,000's for decades to come.
What could be more foolish than moving sand around in a slow-moving prairie river?
Sorry if I'm sugar-coating my comments again.
VOTE NO October 9.[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I am generally anti-tax increase, but I am leaning towards voting for this tax, despite my dislike of the main county commissioner pushing for it and a few other things. The two biggest parts I have debated over are the following:
1. The new dams+channeling will take care of priority #1 which is to keep water in the river. If the corps of engineers think it's a good idea then I'm not going to overanalyze it. Trying to meter the flow upstream can only work to a point.
2. The 41st bridge. They have it listed as pedestrian currently but there is also a decent amount of contingency funds. I'm pretty sure that if a private developer pushed for development of the west bank, that could be changed after the fact. I'd rahter have a pedestrian fund that could get vehicle traffic later than nothing at all.
The main thing for me is that this have been 40yrs in the making and I'm not willing to wait another 40. And unlike vision2025, there is tons of private money both from donors and developers that will not only match but exceed the public funds. Vision2025 was passed with the hope of private donors and development at a later date.
I'll vote NO on October 9 against the Kaiser River Tax.
The duplicity of our annointed politicians conning us into paying AGAIN for construction of the two low-water dams approved in Vision 2025 is beyond immoral. Maybe Evil.
"River Development" is just a clever Snakey-Turncoat & Flake mantra coined for the local heavy construction cartel and their coterie of connected cronies.
They hope to ram-rod a new tax increase, and keep getting it renewed for the next 50 years. They plan to spend $1,000,000 to get $1,000,000,000,000's for decades to come.
What could be more foolish than moving sand around in a slow-moving prairie river?
Sorry if I'm sugar-coating my comments again.
VOTE NO October 9.
[:O]
I don't remember us voting a first time, other than for basic engineering work.
quote...Please don't try to respond to the comments of others, instead just state your reasons...unquote.
I just want to try it for one thread...
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote...Please don't try to respond to the comments of others, instead just state your reasons...unquote.
I just want to try it for one thread...
Sorry, Recycle, to be a Thread-crapper, but Sgrizzle broke your Commandment first, and is drinking the
Our River Tax Kool-Aid.
Tulsa County voters were
promised three river related projects as part of Proposition 4 of Vision 2025, quoting the actual ballot:
--Construct two low water dams on Arkansas River the locations of which will be determined in the Arkansas River Corridor Plan -- $5.6 million
--Zink Lake Shoreline Beautification -- $1.8 million
--Design and construct Zink Lake Upstream Catch Basin and silt removal -- $2.1 millionThe word was
CONSTRUCT. Not study. Not Engineer.
CONSTRUCT.We've already paid for the two low-water dams. ONCE was more than enough. TWICE is way too many.
[:O]
My manifesto will be dropping science like Galileo dropped the orange soon. Stay tuned.
I'll be voting no because:
1. randi miller disgusts me.
2. kathy taylor disgusts me.
3. I don't want the river messed with.
4. I don't want to ride my bike across a pedestrian brige at 41st street and look down at a poop basin!
I will probably be voting yes because:
1) Large Sums of Private Money
2) I enjoy the "developed" part of the river from 11th to 41st street very often. Especially the River's Edge area that is very heavily utilized by a diverse crowd of people
3) Damming/Channeling of the river to make it available for Kayak and canoes as well as other uses (think water taxi to Oktoberfest)
4) Aesthetics of a river with water in it
5) Prospects of actual select development along the river with cafe's, shops, and restaurants at the river appeals to me.
For those that want to keep the river natural, I wonder if we are looking at the same river. The river I see has its flow controlled by a massive dam just upstream, has its banks contained by rock dumped to stop erosion, and when it begins to run dry exposes 100 years of trash on its bottom. As it flows, it certainly has its beauty, but as I understand it the development along the banks will be select and not San Antonio like in its encompassing of the river.
- - -
I still might vote NO on the river because:
1) More tax! I generally think government handles money poorly.
2) Unanswered questions about funding for maintenance.
3) Uncertainty of the plans in general.
4) Distrust of the 'good ole' boy system' and fear it is in play.
I'm voting no:
1) This proposal has not had thorough enough examination of various issues and planning. It's been rushed way too fast. I would rather see a concrete, final plan before voting for funding. 4/10's of a cent isn't going to make a big difference in my lifestyle. I have an issue with giving the county a blank check when they really don't even know what all this entails.
2) There was provision for LWD's and Zink Lake improvements in V-2025. They crammed that in without fully understanding what the costs were, and now are trying to explain away that that was never really going to happen anyhow, and they have something so much better. Too much babble and double-talk.
3) Existing V-2025 funding and over-collections should be sufficient for Zink Lake improvements, and enough water appears to stay in the Zink Lake area to make it attractive for west bank development off W. 23rd St.
4) There is a stench issue with refineries and waste water treatment which will have to be dealt with. I see this as becoming a 30-year bottomless tax package.
5) After reviewing and actually visiting other developments and seeing what has made river or canal development attractive in other cities, the cozy feel of a small channel seems to be what all of those have in common. I'd prefer to see tributary development as that would allow for Bing Thom's concept of "waving to people on the other side".
6) To date, I've not heard this will be a general obligation bond which will require the collected funds to be used soley for the river.
7) I do not trust Randi Miller.
Plenty more reasons. If anyone is interested, they can look up my comments on the various river threads we've had under development.
I have spent too much time trying to craft just the right response. Especially since I have invested so much of my life and grey matter in the last decade to the subject. Then I realized, the city has done that too. We're all waiting for the perfect plan that will show our sophistication and creativity. Well, this plan is not it. In fact if you want a plan at all, don't vote for this one or any one.
But if you want to log in to a process, this is the opportunity. There will be many questions to answer, problems to solve and the end result may not look like the original plan. Guess what? That's a description of any successful business adventure. Ask around.
I have come to the conclusion that this current river plan may be one of the best presented in the process thus far. And as many of you know that is a turnaround for me. In fact I have come full circle from embracing it, to questioning it, opposing it and now welcoming it. Recently, I had a chance to talk with Kirby Crowe of PMG about the proposal, specifically the "living river" component. I was pleasantly surprised. It is very exciting for kayak & canoe usage. My fears that the natural operation of the river would be hammered into oblivion in favor of eye candy for lazy, fair weather shoppers, have been somewhat assuaged. This stretch will be recreating the river's natural rhythms and ecosystems in a condensed area. It will harden the banks of the meandering, fast channel providing habitats for otters, herons, eagles and the rest of the wildlife that thrive on the river. I could see it as a participatory learning experience as well as a great opportunity for adventurous kayaking. Now the pedestrian bridge makes some sense. Especially if it could be enlarged if future development requires it. This segment is the gold inlay on the jewel and is probably going to have equal impact with the low water dams but is getting far less attention. Tulsans should embrace with exuberance this participatory habitat.
My biggest concern has been that these impounds would be connected in some way so that one could start a canoe trip at Sand Springs and end up in Jenks without having to pull your boat out and reload. The current plan shows the ability to do just that with narrow passages at the Zink lake. Planners listened and responded.
There is always something to dislike about such a grand vision and this one is no different. But like v2025 this plan has something for everyone to like. The vision is well defined, the planners have displayed good insight, and the timing is right if not a little slow in coming. Now my biggest concern is that the public is not getting a clear picture of the "cool" factor this plan will have and the impact to the community.
Instead they are being distracted by the financial details, competing inner city development plans and personal political feuds among local factions. Truly, this is a chance for Tulsans to look past petty squabbles over power, wealth and class. Yes, wealthy people are likely to gain from it, but so will the common man. Yes, power is centralized to the county but that means speed and flexibility the cities don't have. Jenks and Owasso flourish in part because of the simple chain of command they enjoy. Yes, downtown needs attention as well as the Pearl district, the Northside and the Westside, but they will not drive the city like the river will. And they will prosper whether or not the project is passed. We stand to reap the largest gain from river development.
Change is hard. Buck up. Its time to set and achieve some adventurous goals that energize our region and stop living on the reputation of our visionary, risk taking progenitors. I'll vote yea.
I will gladly vote no...
Jenks successfully built a retail and restaurant corridor without a single dime of my money. I love that Tulsa has decided that the entire county should help out with what will eventually become a debacle just like 2025. (I mean really, how many times did that arena get voted down before they sweetened enough other pots to get it passed?)
Will you really get 4/10th of EVERY penny you spend worth of enjoyment from this? Much like the arena, you won't be getting free tickets just because your tax dollars built it. You will still have to pay inflated prices for mediocre service and events.
My only real regret is that instead of Tulsa doing what it needs to do to improve (work out deals and tax incentives with businesses) they try to drag everyone into another tax.
On the upside, a 9% retail tax will finally force me to do all my discretionary spending on the internet.
quote:
I will gladly vote no...
Jenks successfully built a retail and restaurant corridor without a single dime of my money.
LOL...Try again TeeDub. They absolutely have used your tax money to help build that...(Aquarium), in fact, they are now asking you to pay for bank stablization so that Riverwalk doesn't fall into the river...
1. The tax hurts the County's competitiveness when trying to attract new businesses.
2. There are additional needs that are coming up that will require sizable investment.
3. We have been promised low-water dams through Vision 2025.
4. There are trust issues with the County related to Bell's that I cannot get over.
5. Investors are already stepping up with that new huge Jenks development and (it pains me even breathe the words) Tulsa Landing.
6. The renderings just do nothing for me.
7. The County has demonstrated an arrogance in their approach that rivals the Bushiites.
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
LOL...Try again TeeDub. They absolutely have used your tax money to help build that...(Aquarium), in fact, they are now asking you to pay for bank stablization so that Riverwalk doesn't fall into the river...
Retail and restaraunt != (does not equal) the aquarium. While I appreciate your trying to gray the issue, don't.
Also, can you cite me where they are trying to get money for bank stabilization? Just one reliable source if you don't mind.
I like the way INCOG collected input from citizens and formed a consensus when they developed the river plan.
I like the idea of strengthening and expanding river parks.
$500 million isn't a huge amount of money for a city our size. But we could use some federal funding from our "do nothing" senators.
I will vote for this plan but after this one will no longer support any increase in the sales tax. In fact we should repeal sales taxes on groceries.
We have to start moving towards fairness in our tax system and I want our rich folks to pay their fair share with a steeply progressive income tax.
quote:
Originally posted by cks511
I'll be voting no because:
1. randi miller disgusts me.
2. kathy taylor disgusts me.
3. I don't want the river messed with.
4. I don't want to ride my bike across a pedestrian brige at 41st street and look down at a poop basin!
It's the proposed
61st Street Pedestrian Bridge that crosses directly over the treatment plant's Sewage Overflow Pond.
Quite the Bouquet!
Oooooh, What's That Smell!
Do you Smell THAT Smell??
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by cks511
I'll be voting no because:
1. randi miller disgusts me.
2. kathy taylor disgusts me.
3. I don't want the river messed with.
4. I don't want to ride my bike across a pedestrian brige at 41st street and look down at a poop basin!
It's the proposed 61st Street Pedestrian Bridge that crosses directly over the treatment plant's Sewage Overflow Pond.
Quite the Bouquet!
Oooooh, What's That Smell!
Do you Smell THAT Smell??
yeah, that's what I meant....lol.
I will vote yes.
Before I moved here, I would visit once or twice per year. One question I would always have is why the city had let both sides of the river develop so poorly. In most areas outside of Oklahoma, that real estate would be the highest priced real estate in the region. Here, the river is a dry creek bed (most of the year) that's surrounded by cheap apartments, cement plants, run-down houses, etc. I think the Arkansas river is one of the greatest assets in all of Oklahoma. To be able to beautify it and get it ready for private development for ONLY 4/10 cent for 7 years AND receive the $100+ million of private donation is a no brainer.
quote:
Originally posted by cks511
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by cks511
I'll be voting no because:
1. randi miller disgusts me.
2. kathy taylor disgusts me.
3. I don't want the river messed with.
4. I don't want to ride my bike across a pedestrian brige at 41st street and look down at a poop basin!
It's the proposed 61st Street Pedestrian Bridge that crosses directly over the treatment plant's Sewage Overflow Pond.
Quite the Bouquet!
Oooooh, What's That Smell!
Do you Smell THAT Smell??
yeah, that's what I meant....lol.
I'm voting NO.
New pedestrian bridges so closely spaced at 61st and 41st streets, straddling the existing 31st street bridge, PLUS the existing 21st and 11th street Dual-Use bridges would only be cost-beneficial if we're forced to flee on foot in advance of Martians invading Tulsa.
Otherwise, a total waste of money, because DILUTION is NOT the SOLUTION to River Development. We'll end up with so many tomatoes on the vine that NONE will reach a useful size.
The different development HUBS will merely cannabalize the remaining HUBS.
CONCENTRATION (i.e. MASS, hopefully CRITICAL MASS) is the much cheaper and much wiser solution. A BRANSON's LANDING is a concentration of development in ONE spot that could become a local DESTINATION spot.
Maybe a regional destination spot, depending on the amenities and attractions.
The Aquarium RIGHT NOW is a good fit adjacent to the River Walk Center, with food, shopping, movie theater and the walkability of a promenade.
CRITICAL MASS.
[:O]
Things about the plan that I would change, or that give me hesitation:
Dump the pedestrian bridge at 61st. I would like to see that $15 million put into Riverside Drive along with the $15 million set aside for the transportation study and the downtown connectors and remake Riverside between 31st and 71st.
I would like to have it in writing that the city of Tulsa will have and control a RFP for the land on the west bank at 21st.
I would like it stated that if Inhofe actually comes up with any federal funds that the tax will end a corresponding amount early.
And my biggest heartache is Randi Miller.
But, overall this is a good plan, no plan is ever going to be just what I or anyone else wants unless they personally are going to pay for it. Overall, it's very good and well thought out. I don't get the "rushed" argument. This is a big start on the river plan started by INCOG five years ago after decades of talk about the river. There have been meetings, plans released, and talk about this for years, what is rushed?
The arguments about profiteering on this plan are weak here. Tulsa's big construction companies don't do the bulk of the kind of that this plan requires, Tulsa's big bank that might do the bonding is owned by the very man that is donating most of that $117 million in donations and the developer that is wanting to hundreds of millions at 21st isn't local.
The plan will make the river far more attractive than it is today, and give it many more recreational uses. It makes Tulsa a more attractive destination for visitors. The plan has a very good return on investment with the $117 million in donations and fact that it will facilitate hundreds of millions in private development at 21st. For every dollar in taxes there will be two or three or even more in money from other sources. It will make the already outstanding Riverparks system into a showplace.
I think this is an easy yes vote at under half a cent in taxes.
But if it fails, it's all on Randi's head.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
LOL...Try again TeeDub. They absolutely have used your tax money to help build that...(Aquarium), in fact, they are now asking you to pay for bank stablization so that Riverwalk doesn't fall into the river...
Retail and restaraunt != (does not equal) the aquarium. While I appreciate your trying to gray the issue, don't.
Also, can you cite me where they are trying to get money for bank stabilization? Just one reliable source if you don't mind.
The Aquarium was a catalyst for the development of successful retail and restaraunt. They took something that was pretty much in the middle of nowhere and transformed it into a destination.. With our tax dollars of course.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
LOL...Try again TeeDub. They absolutely have used your tax money to help build that...(Aquarium), in fact, they are now asking you to pay for bank stablization so that Riverwalk doesn't fall into the river...
Retail and restaraunt != (does not equal) the aquarium. While I appreciate your trying to gray the issue, don't.
Also, can you cite me where they are trying to get money for bank stabilization? Just one reliable source if you don't mind.
The Aquarium was a catalyst for the development of successful retail and restaraunt. They took something that was pretty much in the middle of nowhere and transformed it into a destination.. With our tax dollars of course.
The Aquarium was a veritable MONEY-PIT for Jenks until our favors-trading political network traded Jenks' government support for Vision 2025 in return for paying off huge cost overruns on the Aquarium.
It's a matter of public record.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Things about the plan that I would change, or that give me hesitation:
Dump the pedestrian bridge at 61st. I would like to see that $15 million put into Riverside Drive along with the $15 million set aside for the transportation study and the downtown connectors and remake Riverside between 31st and 71st.
Woah, woah, woah...I am indifferent to the 61st ped bridge...but I have heard that the "Downtown Connector" money is designated for an "alternatives analysis", and to provide some capital costs for transportation alternatives along the river, specifically, a light rail line or rail streetcar. That downtown connector may be the best thing in this whole package IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
Woah, woah, woah...I am indifferent to the 61st ped bridge...but I have heard that the "Downtown Connector" money is designated for an "alternatives analysis", and to provide some capital costs for transportation alternatives along the river, specifically, a light rail line or rail streetcar. That downtown connector may be the best thing in this whole package IMO.
Is this a top secret plan or can any old, say, taxpayer, be let in on it?
That gets at my biggest concern. There seem to be all these hidden details between the very broadly written lines of the proposal, but no one seems to want to let the public in on them. Combine that with the fact that a new trust dominated by County Commissioners and their suburban appointees will be making all of the decisions, and it makes me leery.
I'd like to be confident in my vote, but the County is making it very hard.
^
Nice point Kiah..
There is one person, I am quite sure, that has a written promise as to which one of the "pie in the sky - flavor of the quarter" projects will be done and which ones are maybe... maybe not.
George Kaiser
I would not be at all surprised if he gave a priority list along with his demands for the tax vote.... and this is called being a philanthropist....?
I am in no way trying to start a "conspiracy theory" here... It just was not that long ago that Tulsa was in debt to BOK for the "Great Plains" fiasco.
Two major River Developments.... Put forward.
The Channels and this "imitation Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan"....
Miller jumps on top of both of them...
kind of a scary image just flashed through my mind...
They are sold as make it or break it deals that can not be changed..
The only thing that is missing with this would be Bing Thom..
or is he just staying out of sight..?
So much for my daily rant... [|)]
Tulsa County River Tax:
A Question of Style or Substance
It seems like an age old question: what should our priorities (//%22http://notulsarivertax.com/index_files/Page359.htm%22) be in life to create well- maintained (//%22http://www.preservemidtown.com/%22), vibrant, safe, diverse, green (//%22http://stopthechop.blogspot.com/%22), clean communities (//%22http://www.austinenergy.com/Energy%20Efficiency/Programs/Green%20Building/About%20Us/history.htm%22)? Should our collective vision focus on substance and sustainability (//%22http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/08/abandoning-old-.html#more%22) or should style and self-indulgent luxuries dictate our priorities? On October 9, Tulsa County Voters arrive at an ozone-polluted (//%22http://www.ozonealert.com/scorecard.htm%22), pothole-riddled crossroads to face the decision of which way to go.
The proposed County river tax (//%22http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/mistymountainhop/River_Tax_Kool-Aid.jpg%22) is not a transformation, but a mutation of the geographic inequity (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070718_238_A9_hAcit08781%22), institutionalized neglect (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070712_1_A8_hGroc42741%22), economic segregation (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=061025_Ne_A11_Counc10111%22), and false promises of progress as promised (//%22http://urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A17675%22) as usual in Tulsa County. We will not become a progressive community by continuing to neglect the maintenance of our failing roads (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070722_238_A1_spanc87150%22) and infrastructure (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070822_1_A1_hSmel63665%22) or ignoring the environmental elephants (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=061217_Ne_A1_Sincl32171%22) in the room in regards to river development.
It will not happen by disregarding alternative sources of funding for river development (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070726_1_A11_spanc05642%22), which do not increase regressive County sales taxes that steal primary revenue streams away from struggling municipalities (//%22http://www.tulsacouncil.org/pdfs/website%20embedded/COT_Fiscal_Constraints.pdf%22) or by infrastructure (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=040327_Ne_a1_forty%22) privatization (//%22http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2006/07/privateprison_blues.html%22).
It will not happen by perverting the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan to include a 41st St. pedestrian bridge or wasting precious resources on unwanted (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070801_238_A1_hOthe57076%22), unnecessary, special elections (//%22http://www.batesline.com/archives/003296.html%22).
It will not happen by gambling on exaggerated economic impact projections or empty promises of good-paying construction jobs that won't have any prevailing wage protections and nothing to protect against 1099 worker misclassification abuse (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvnAjQP-VIM%22), that places honest contractors who play by the rules at a competitive disadvantage.
It will not happen by misguided, last minute, half-hearted attempts to address the hardship this tax increase causes (//%22http://notulsarivertax.com/index_files/Page631.htm%22) to our at-risk, low income, and fixed income families living paycheck to paycheck (//%22http://tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070829_1_A1_spanc44663%22) by offering a year end tax rebate to those who qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit that will do nothing to affect the immediate impact this new tax increase on the basic necessities of life will have on their budgets.
It will not happen by giving private special interest (//%22http://www.ourriveryes.com/supporters/%22) controlled Mayors, County Commissioners (//%22http://kotv.com/news/topstory/?id=135092%22), and their politically appointed new bureaucratic unrepresentative river authority (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070805_1_A13_hINCO51268%22) the final say on development along the river within the sovereignty of municipalities by voting to give them a giant blank check, a new regressive tax, for continued failure to deliver the progress as promised (//%22http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20060719/ai_n16542408%22).
At the polls during the October 9 special election, I urge you to please vote NO (//%22http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/mistymountainhop/gif/their_river_no.gif%22), so we can begin a real dialogue on how to provide sustainable solutions (//%22http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1670905240236241507&q=tulsanow&hl=en%22) to the critical long-term infrastructure (//%22http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB118826651510210572-lMyQjAxMDE3ODI4ODIyNjg2Wj.html%22), environmental (//%22http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062100845.html%22), socioeconomic (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHOiB_fgHY8%22), transportation (//%22http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0707/440753.html%22), planning (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=061116_Ne_A14_Mayor12059%22) challenges we face in Tulsa County in order to promote, preserve, and protect real progressive values.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
^
Nice point Kiah..
There is one person, I am quite sure, that has a written promise as to which one of the "pie in the sky - flavor of the quarter" projects will be done and which ones are maybe... maybe not.
George Kaiser
I would not be at all surprised if he gave a priority list along with his demands for the tax vote.... and this is called being a philanthropist....?
I am in no way trying to start a "conspiracy theory" here... It just was not that long ago that Tulsa was in debt to BOK for the "Great Plains" fiasco.
Two major River Developments.... Put forward.
The Channels and this "imitation Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan"....
Miller jumps on top of both of them...
kind of a scary image just flashed through my mind...
They are sold as make it or break it deals that can not be changed..
The only thing that is missing with this would be Bing Thom..
or is he just staying out of sight..?
So much for my daily rant... [|)]
Now, let me get this straight. Are you saying its a bad thinkg that mr Kaiser may have some desire to have certain things done? A lot of people have been complaining that one reason they dont like this plan is because things may not get done as promised. If your right that Mr Kaiser has an intest in getting the things done he wants done. I would say thats a plus. It may be one thing to tell you and me that, Oh, no we changed our mind or thats not what we intended... its quite another to tell Mr Kaiser that they have changed something that he wants. If he wants the dams and his "Living River" idea done. I bet they will get done.
^
As long as you are Mister Kaiser... getting your short list done may be an advantage to the plan...
What if you are William the Artist...?
Is it your list as well?
Does BOK stand anything to gain with the sale of the debt? I am not assuming they are, just curious.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Does BOK stand anything to gain with the sale of the debt? I am not assuming they are, just curious.
Really? Are we to this now? The conspiracy theories are out of control.
If BOK gets to the bond work they might make a few hundred thousand dollars profit. Kaiser owns about half the bank, so he might conceivable get a half of a few hundred thousand dollars in profit. In return for his tens of millions of dollars in donations.
Sure, he's doing for the money he's going to make.
I am not saying that Ozzie, I was just wondering. I would suggest that BOK take itself out of the loop, to avoid even the appearance of such scandalous innuendo. Do not give the grassy knoll type anywhere to go on this. Or not, I could care less.
I'm voting yes.
This thing isn't perfect, but there's not going to be a better river plan. It's suprisingly detailed if you take the time to investigate. It's a reasonable reaction to the excesses of "The Channels." It takes into account neighborhood needs and public input. It provides parkland improvement and commercial development. It even improves the roads, as we'll see new bridges and the reconstruction of Riverside Drive.
Randi Miller and her ilk will fade into the sunset soon enough, but the river plan will continue for years to come.
It's time to either take action or continue the city's slide into irrelevance. This is it. Time to do something or continue our history of doing nothing. I'll vote Yes. End of story.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
^
As long as you are Mister Kaiser... getting your short list done may be an advantage to the plan...
What if you are William the Artist...?
Is it your list as well?
Not all of it lol. But my list wouldnt be your list. However, if they dont have something like my vball courts in the plan this time. I may try to pay for them myself. I mean how much can sand, some poles and nets, really cost? Cant build restroom facilities by them but no plan is going to have everything for everyone. Though I definitely think its a missed opportunity to not have them by one of the gathering areas or near a restaurant.
I my guess is that Mr Kaiser really wants the "Living River" concept. I believe he is the one who funded the idea for it. You have to have the Zink dam improvements and the Sand Springs dam in order for the Living River part to work. Though I wasnt a big fan of the Living River part, as I have learned more about it I think its a good idea. I like both of those dams and the Living River part so in that sense his and my lists match. And those are some big parts. I also think he will do the 71st area since the fountain has his banks name on it lol. And the QT guy will do the 41st park.
When this project was first announced I was extremely excited and was a huge proponent. After attending two meetings where politicians and business leaders attempted to sell this to the masses, I'm 100% against it. Here are my reasons:
1.) They keep claiming that the voters have already approved this via our vote for 2025, which included the Boeing provision. They claim this tax is equivalent to what we would have paid if Boeing would have located here to build the 787.
a. When we approved the Boeing portion of 2025, we were saying that we were willing to invest in high paying jobs, NOT a river for private developers to junk up our river with tacky suburban developments such as Riverwalk.
b. This argument greatly insults the intelligence Tulsa County citizens. Say, for instance, I promise to fund a student's education, then this individual comes to me and declines my offer and counters with, "Well, since you were willing to spend that much money anyway, how about a new car instead?"
2.) They claim that this is a temporary tax and after the seven years they won't ask for any more. What about maintenance? Are we going to invest all this money to make it look nice and then allow it to deteriorate? Based on our history, this wouldn't surprise me.
3.) They state that, as a city, our return on investment will be 1000%. "It's a 10 to 1 return." What world do these people live? Unicorns must live there? There is not one economic model out there that can predict what this will bring to the city.
4.) How will sprucing up the banks, adding water to the river, and creating a strip center on a pier in the river, create so many jobs and so much tax revenue?
5.) In my last meeting Randi Miller stated that we could invest in our roads but that wouldn't even come close to the amount of money we would have for our roads based on the economic impact this project will generate. Randi, before you take me down this magical yellow brick road, see points 2, 3, & 4.
6.) Okay, so you say it's not about the direct impact this will have. Indirectly companies and individuals will relocate to a city where they have a developed river. Maybe it's just me, but I prefer cities where quality jobs exist, cost of living is low, and infrastructure is decent.
quote:
Originally posted by DwnTwnTul
When this project was first announced I was extremely excited and was a huge proponent. After attending two meetings where politicians and business leaders attempted to sell this to the masses, I'm 100% against it.
Out of curiosity, what is it about the plan itself that changed your mind? I understand being put off by the rhetoric of the plan's supporters, but why is that enough to make you vote against it?
In other words, are you sure you're not cutting off your nose to spite your face (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_off_the_nose_to_spite_the_face%22)? Randi Miller, et al, will be long gone when this thing comes to fruition. Among those of you voting "No," what is it about the plan itself, rather than the plan's supporters, that you dislike?
I suggest taking another look at the plan itself before you make up your mind. It really will be quite nice for Tulsa.
71 quoted:) To date, I've not heard this will be a general obligation bond which will require the collected funds to be used soley for the river.
=========================================
No, General Obligation bonds are controlled by Statute according to the total value of the property assessed.. Revenue Bonds are issued according to the revenue that is to be produced and has been the main source to circumvent the GO bond limitations. In simple words they are used for counting the chickens before they hatch. Or spend now and collect later, counting sales taxes as revenue..
quote:
Out of curiosity, what is it about the plan itself that changed your mind? I understand being put off by the rhetoric of the plan's supporters, but why is that enough to make you vote against it?
Floyd,
Thank you for keeping me in check and helping me realize that perhaps I am currently dissuaded by political rhetoric. While they honestly believe they are helping their cause, they are actually shooting themselves in the foot. The people they send out for these "dog and pony shows" are horrible sales people.
I've been to two of these events now and I'm honestly TRYING to give it a chance, but I walk away from each meeting hating it more and more. What is it you ask? I thought I answered that in each of my previous bullet points. Obviously you interpreted each of these as just my disgust with the politics surrounding this project. Therefore, let me try to focus more on the details of the plan and why I am against it. They are basically quite simple.
1.) The scope of this project is too large. The benchmark being used of nearby cities developing their rivers are: OKC, San Antonio, Memphis, etc. OKC and San Antonio are small canals in dense areas. Cities along the Mississippi including New Orleans, Memphis, and St. Louis more accurately represent our situation; however, these cities have development along their river in small focused areas, not 36 miles worth of it. The rest is left in a natural state.
2.) The costs are too excessive. Mr. Kaiser, et al will only pledge their generous donations, if we burden our citizens more than we already do. I can play this game, too. Everything in life is relative. While I'm not as wealthy as Kaiser, I live a comfortable lifestyle. It is possible for me to approach a minimum wage worker and say, "I will give you $10K for your child's education, if you will pay the remaining $20K." While $10K is a lot of money to this individual, he/she simply can't afford this "discount". The roof is leaking, a parent is ill, and the car is just barely starting in the mornings. The parent would love for the child to further his or her education and not have to endure this same plight, but it's just not possible to fund the remaining balance of this deal. Similarly, Tulsa must respectfully decline our benefactors' offer.
3.) Priorities are upside down. While we can argue the chicken and egg aspect of this project until we're blue in the face, we must finally stop and act responsibly. Metaphorically speaking, if my foundation is sinking, my roof is leaking, and I have a mediocre landscaped lawn, guess where I'm going to put my money first, regardless of any "discounts". Tulsa's roads are crumbling, people are getting robbed in their own driveways, and we fall behind most of the country in many important aspects such as education and wellness. In my opinion, Tulsa is following an immature belief that if we spend beyond our means we'll be accepted and attractive. I, too, was once shallow; although, I actually learned from my mistakes, and value my rebuilt solid foundation. If we are as conservative as we say we are in Oklahoma then we need to "grow up"! Wait, "conservative" in Oklahoma means, "We're Christian and hate gays", but I'll save that tirade for another day.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Randi Miller, et al, will be long gone when this thing comes to fruition.
Says who? Further, if she is 'gone,' cannot hold her accountable now, can we?
quote:
Originally posted by DwnTwnTul
quote:
Out of curiosity, what is it about the plan itself that changed your mind? I understand being put off by the rhetoric of the plan's supporters, but why is that enough to make you vote against it?
Floyd,
Thank you for keeping me in check and helping me realize that perhaps I am currently dissuaded by political rhetoric. While they honestly believe they are helping their cause, they are actually shooting themselves in the foot. The people they send out for these "dog and pony shows" are horrible sales people.
I've been to two of these events now and I'm honestly TRYING to give it a chance, but I walk away from each meeting hating it more and more. What is it you ask? I thought I answered that in each of my previous bullet points. Obviously you interpreted each of these as just my disgust with the politics surrounding this project. Therefore, let me try to focus more on the details of the plan and why I am against it. They are basically quite simple.
1.) The scope of this project is too large. The benchmark being used of nearby cities developing their rivers are: OKC, San Antonio, Memphis, etc. OKC and San Antonio are small canals in dense areas. Cities along the Mississippi including New Orleans, Memphis, and St. Louis more accurately represent our situation; however, these cities have development along their river in small focused areas, not 36 miles worth of it. The rest is left in a natural state.
2.) The costs are too excessive. Mr. Kaiser, et al will only pledge their generous donations, if we burden our citizens more than we already do. I can play this game, too. Everything in life is relative. While I'm not as wealthy as Kaiser, I live a comfortable lifestyle. It is possible for me to approach a minimum wage worker and say, "I will give you $10K for your child's education, if you will pay the remaining $20K." While $10K is a lot of money to this individual, he/she simply can't afford this "discount". The roof is leaking, a parent is ill, and the car is just barely starting in the mornings. The parent would love for the child to further his or her education and not have to endure this same plight, but it's just not possible to fund the remaining balance of this deal. Similarly, Tulsa must respectfully decline our benefactors' offer.
3.) Priorities are upside down. While we can argue the chicken and egg aspect of this project until we're blue in the face, we must finally stop and act responsibly. Metaphorically speaking, if my foundation is sinking, my roof is leaking, and I have a mediocre landscaped lawn, guess where I'm going to put my money first, regardless of any "discounts". Tulsa's roads are crumbling, people are getting robbed in their own driveways, and we fall behind most of the country in many important aspects such as education and wellness. In my opinion, Tulsa is following an immature belief that if we spend beyond our means we'll be accepted and attractive. I, too, was once shallow; although, I actually learned from my mistakes, and value my rebuilt solid foundation. If we are as conservative as we say we are in Oklahoma then we need to "grow up"! Wait, "conservative" in Oklahoma means, "We're Christian and hate gays", but I'll save that tirade for another day.
DT, there really is no comparable for the Tulsa plan. The closest might be the Trinity river in Ft.Worth. But I might point out that before the "river" in San Antonio was improved, my father visited it after WWII and assures me it was more of a drainage ditch than a river. There was little development along that ditch until they put water into it and made a canal. Same thing with OKC. The river was mostly dry and the warehouse district was plain scary.
Just do some more research on the plan. Call or e-mail Kirby Crowe with PMG. He is not a salesman, but a knowledgeable engineer with real life river experience. Making a good sales presentation is an art. I doubt Taylor and Miller recognize the damage they are doing. (Note: call me mayor, I can help...just call me.)
A couple of things you mentioned don't square with what I've been told. For instance the maintenance. The PR value for Kaiser and QT wouldn't be jeopardized with poor maintenance. They understand that and are prepared for funding long term upkeep. But in the end a properly operating County River Authority will address that. Even the current RPA is underfunded but has managed to keep the existing river parks presentable.
And the excitement value of the living river will far exceed the regional value. Trust me, people will travel from far away to experience it. That is hard to present unless you have some appreciation of why they would go to such trouble.
Lastly I want to repeat. There will be no movement to improve the roads and infrastructure if this fails other than IVI fighting the city to build a bridge. So if it fails you lose twice.
Since I am torn on how to vote, I choose to give my vote to whatever cancels out aox's vote.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Since I am torn on how to vote, I choose to give my vote to whatever cancels out aox's vote.
I want Friendly Bears.
I will be voting yes. I especially agree with swake and Waterboy.
I too am frustrated with the rush job, no car bridge at 41st, regressive taxes and the city/county thing. But here is the essence of my reason for supporting this plan.
The river has been at the heart of what Tulsa has been, what it is, and I believe, what it will become. Depending on who was talking, it has been cussed and discussed for more than two centuries of human habitation in this part of the Valley of the Arkansas. Now, the first truly viable plan to restore and develop the Arkansas River in Tulsa County is on the verge of realization.
There are many sincere people who have told me they oppose this plan. Most have said they want something done about the river. Indeed, many have said that if something is not done to improve the river, the City of Tulsa and even all of Tulsa County will stagnate. Yet many quibble about the current proposal.
Their concerns and questions have some validity. If you want a reason to oppose this modest time-limited tax you can find one, but none, in my opinion, are reason enough not to support what most consider an excellent proposal.
The official Tulsa County Republican platform is "No River Tax." Indeed, the perpetual GOP mantra seems to be no new tax, no how, no why, no kind, nada, never, ever! I think most Democrats disagree with this sentiment as do many Republicans. Remember, Oklahoma has the lowest overall tax burden of any other state. See: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/475.html.
Others, while admitting that the river proposal is generally thoughtful, suggest that government should not do what private developers will. They argue that if a development is economically sound then the free market should develop the river. I honestly do not think private development will build the vital core infrastructure of the plan, such as the low water dams, canalization, remediation of habitat, bundling of property for private development or the revitalization and expansion of public park land. However, I do think that when the public improvements are made, private development will come.
I don't want to delay for years river revitalization and potentially jeopardize millions of dollars of private donations. I want my grandchildren to see and enjoy a revitalized river right here in "River City." I want them to participate with me in the development of what will be the equivalent of New York City's Central Park, a "people's park" for which all citizens of Tulsa County can be proud.
There is a valid role for government in the establishment of core public facilities. The planned development of the river through five cities can only be primed by government. My belief is that this proposal by Tulsa County is probably the only way, in our present structure, that we can get all to the table and make this happen NOW!
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Randi Miller, et al, will be long gone when this thing comes to fruition.
Says who? Further, if she is 'gone,' cannot hold her accountable now, can we?
Says my crystal ball. No, seriously, she's got to be one of the least popular public figures in the county right now. I am suggesting that she'll be out of power before any silt is dredged.
And once she's gone, don't worry--I'm sure you'll make up someone else to blame for something else you pull out of thin air. Isn't that how muckraking works?
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
And once she's gone, don't worry--I'm sure you'll make up someone else to blame for something else you pull out of thin air. Isn't that how muckraking works?
I did not bring up Randi in this, you did. I did not skewer her, KOTV and KFAQ have. If she is so awful, then how can we trust that she has done a proper job handling the matter?
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
And once she's gone, don't worry--I'm sure you'll make up someone else to blame for something else you pull out of thin air. Isn't that how muckraking works?
I did not bring up Randi in this, you did. I did not skewer her, KOTV and KFAQ have. If she is so awful, then how can we trust that she has done a proper job handling the matter?
My point is that the unpopularity of this particular County Commissioner is no reason to vote against improvements to the river.
My apologies for the swipe at your website. Carry on.
I heard the same rhetoric used to push 2025.
"If we don't pass this, Tulsa will be left behind"
What did that get us other than higher taxes and broken promises? Oh yeah, an arena that will have to have at least 150 events booked per year to break even.*
* http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070502_1_A1_spanc66636
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
I heard the same rhetoric used to push 2025.
"If we don't pass this, Tulsa will be left behind"
What did that get us other than higher taxes and broken promises? Oh yeah, an arena that will have to have at least 150 events booked per year to break even.*
* http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070502_1_A1_spanc66636
Okay, I'm a fellow V-2025 skeptic, but other than the LWD's and Zink Lake improvements, they've been delivering on what was promised as far as projects. I think they were somewhat vague as to how American Airlines was going to use their money, but county-wide projects are being completed.
Still doesn't change my standing views on the new tax though.
quote:
Originally posted by Bledsoe
I too am frustrated with the rush job, no car bridge at 41st, regressive taxes and the city/county thing.
If you have to plead the case for the river tax by first admitting the numerous flaws in this package, it's a pretty good indication that there aren't really any compelling reasons for it, hence the now or never emotional appeals(i.e. think of the children, do it for the kids, etc.) that don't hold water. That's great advice though, when I go to the polls to cast a ballot I will be thinking of them and all the flaws you mention as I cast my no vote so that they will not have to be saddled with this poorly conceived tax package of, by, and for private special interests.
So it has to be perfect before it meets your exacting standards? Even juries are directed to rule on the preponderance of evidence. Some issues are more important than others. I remember when my firstborn was being checked out and the nurse told me he had an apgar score of 8 and I asked what that meant. Apparently they judge criteria like skin tone, body temp, activity, breathing and heartbeat with each one worth about the same value. You could score an 8 and not be breathing. But I digress.
I'm calling you out dude. What special interests, how is it only for them and how do you know? No bs. Answer all three with documented fact or stop saying this stuff.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
So it has to be perfect before it meets your exacting standards? Even juries are directed to rule on the preponderance of evidence. Some issues are more important than others. I remember when my firstborn was being checked out and the nurse told me he had an apgar score of 8 and I asked what that meant. Apparently they judge criteria like skin tone, body temp, activity, breathing and heartbeat with each one worth about the same value. You could score an 8 and not be breathing. But I digress.
I'm calling you out dude. What special interests, how is it only for them and how do you know? No bs. Answer all three with documented fact or stop saying this stuff.
I'd settle for satisfactory. No matter how you score this tax it will be stillborn due to the abusive pregnancy of it's crack addicted mothers. What PSIs? How about these: private special interests (//%22http://www.ourriveryes.com/supporters/%22)
How about trying to answer waterboy's question about how is this project is just for them?
The link you added just listed a bunch of charities and Tulsa businesses. You expect them to not care about making civic improvements?
How much do you contribute to making Tulsa a better community?
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
So it has to be perfect before it meets your exacting standards? Even juries are directed to rule on the preponderance of evidence. Some issues are more important than others. I remember when my firstborn was being checked out and the nurse told me he had an apgar score of 8 and I asked what that meant. Apparently they judge criteria like skin tone, body temp, activity, breathing and heartbeat with each one worth about the same value. You could score an 8 and not be breathing. But I digress.
I'm calling you out dude. What special interests, how is it only for them and how do you know? No bs. Answer all three with documented fact or stop saying this stuff.
I'd settle for satisfactory. No matter how you score this tax it will be stillborn due to the abusive pregnancy of it's crack addicted mothers. What PSIs? How about these: private special interests (//%22http://www.ourriveryes.com/supporters/%22)
That's no answer, just more bs. Perhaps you could tell me how Hilcrest Hospital is a private special interest, how the development will benefit them as opposed to other hospitals or the rest of us and how you know that.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
How about trying to answer waterboy's question about how is this project is just for them?
The link you added just listed a bunch of charities and Tulsa businesses. You expect them to not care about making civic improvements?
How much do you contribute to making Tulsa a better community?
One person's charity is another person's tax shelter (//%22http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/business/06giving.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5124&en=3fbae627fb38813b&ex=1346817600&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink%22), otherwise known as a private non-profit foundations. Call me old fashioned, but I was brought up to believe that charitable giving shouldn't be done with strings attached in the name of ego-stroking cronyism. Since you seem to worship at that altar, I know it might be hard for you to understand why I prefer not to discuss which charities I support because I feel it is in poor taste to brag about that sort of thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
How about trying to answer waterboy's question about how is this project is just for them?
The link you added just listed a bunch of charities and Tulsa businesses. You expect them to not care about making civic improvements?
How much do you contribute to making Tulsa a better community?
One person's charity is another person's tax shelter (//%22http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/business/06giving.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5124&en=3fbae627fb38813b&ex=1346817600&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink%22), otherwise known as a private non-profit foundations. Call me old fashioned, but I was brought up to believe that charitable giving shouldn't be done with strings attached in the name of ego-stroking cronyism. Since you seem to worship at that altar, I know it might be hard for you to understand why I prefer not to discuss which charities I support because I feel it is in poor taste to brag about that sort of thing.
I'm sure he's a blowhard
He gives zero money or time to anything charitable
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
How about trying to answer waterboy's question about how is this project is just for them?
The link you added just listed a bunch of charities and Tulsa businesses. You expect them to not care about making civic improvements?
How much do you contribute to making Tulsa a better community?
One person's charity is another person's tax shelter (//%22http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/business/06giving.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5124&en=3fbae627fb38813b&ex=1346817600&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink%22), otherwise known as a private non-profit foundations. Call me old fashioned, but I was brought up to believe that charitable giving shouldn't be done with strings attached in the name of ego-stroking cronyism. Since you seem to worship at that altar, I know it might be hard for you to understand why I prefer not to discuss which charities I support because I feel it is in poor taste to brag about that sort of thing.
I'm sure he's a blowhard
He gives zero money or time to anything charitable
If there ever was an experienced authority on blowing hard, you're it.
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
I am voting no. I won't detail my specific reasons as I would just be mostly paraphrasing what some others have already posted.
Plus, it is pretty obvious this will be voted down (based on the Tulsa World/KOTV poll and common sense). It has the feel of the failed new central library vote from a couple of years ago - the right idea done in the wrong way. That one even had a philanthropic 'donation' thrown in, too.
The following is one of the main reasons I think this will fail – and it has nothing to do with being anti-tax.
I supported V2025. I also would have supported V2025 if it had been a City of Tulsa only vote. That V2025 was not a city only vote is where, I believe, the current problems with the process started. Let me explain.
After the series of failed attempts by the City of Tulsa to build an arena + other projects, the city was gun shy to go it alone again. So V2025 was hatched as a county project. And with it passing, the county became the default leader in big projects.
The problem is that the passing of V2025 had little to do with the county handling it and more to do with the citizens being ready for it (i.e. after 9/11, numerous job losses, and seeing the MAPS project results in OKC). The City of Tulsa residents - over 70% of Tulsa County's population - voted positively for all four V2025 propositions. The county claiming they 'got it done' when the city couldn't reminds me of someone playing the same slot machine all day while losing all their money; immediately after leaving their machine someone else who just found a quarter on the floor puts it in that same machine and hits the jackpot. Frequently such a winner mistakes lucky timing for something more, and thinks more highly of themselves than they ought.
I find it interesting that examples are given by the 'yes' vote people of successes by other cities - the success of cities, not counties. The much talked about Oklahoma City MAPS projects are city projects.
The difference? City projects generally fall under the responsibility of the mayor and city council - a good system of checks and balances. In other words, direct accountability. The three Tulsa County commissioners have virtually no checks and balances and neither would the authority the river vote creates.
When this vote fails, I think it will bring back some balance to local politics. Just don't blame it's failing on anti-tax sentiment – blame it on people wanting accountability and a voice in the process.
Ultimately I am for positive things for all Tulsa County, but I also believe that 'good fences make good neighbors'. Competition among the various metro cities will produce greater overall results than doing all big things metro-wide. The river can be done, and done better, as individual cities. Having the benefit of competing ideas and resources will do that.
I understand your argument. What would be the solution to the circular causation you describe? If:
*the City can't pass such a project on its own,
*it would pass if it were county wide but the accountability and checks and balances are suspect
*each city should duke it out for their own plans which means the sum of the parts will not be as effective as a single program.
Then there will never be effective core development of this asset. It would be a fragmented, disjointed effort at best. The county is the only existing framework to do the heavy core development imo.
I don't think the OKC project is analagous to ours. The make up of the city is different and the Oklahoma River and Bricktown did not go through those other cities. And OKC had the Murrah tragedy as a spring board. Nonetheless they all agreed to co-operate with MAPS under pressure from the mayor.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
So it has to be perfect before it meets your exacting standards? Even juries are directed to rule on the preponderance of evidence. Some issues are more important than others. I remember when my firstborn was being checked out and the nurse told me he had an apgar score of 8 and I asked what that meant. Apparently they judge criteria like skin tone, body temp, activity, breathing and heartbeat with each one worth about the same value. You could score an 8 and not be breathing. But I digress.
I'm calling you out dude. What special interests, how is it only for them and how do you know? No bs. Answer all three with documented fact or stop saying this stuff.
I'd settle for satisfactory. No matter how you score this tax it will be stillborn due to the abusive pregnancy of it's crack addicted mothers. What PSIs? How about these: private special interests (//%22http://www.ourriveryes.com/supporters/%22)
That's no answer, just more bs. Perhaps you could tell me how Hilcrest Hospital is a private special interest, how the development will benefit them as opposed to other hospitals or the rest of us and how you know that.
Still waiting for that answer. Here's another one. Is Hillcrest/Ardent Services a privately owned company? Or are they one of those Publicly held Special Interests? What's their angle?
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
I understand your argument. What would be the solution to the circular causation you describe? If:
*the City can't pass such a project on its own,
*it would pass if it were county wide but the accountability and checks and balances are suspect
*each city should duke it out for their own plans which means the sum of the parts will not be as effective as a single program.
The county will find out in about a month that they cannot pass this, as it currently stands.
That doesn't address my question. It only indicates you have heard the current polls.Unified core development costs are only about $155M out of $400M of public/private money intended to be spent. That should be obtainable for the cities that the river passes through.
If core development is so important, one would think the proposed private money would have designated some money toward that - to guarantee at least the core development. Take half of the proposed private money ($58M) and you only need less than $100M. Use the dam money from V2025 plus some overages and you are left with a small amount to be financed. Maybe the Feds or state would even pony-up for the rest.
Then we could collect all the pop bottles in town and ship them to where they have refundable deposits and add that to the private money and bingo, core paid for. Sorry for the snarkiness. You show some naivete in how and why things are financed the way they are and why donations are being made. When it comes to infrastructure like dams, bridges and highways, the govt. is better equipped. Even IVI is a for profit proposal.I disagree that the remainder of eventual development would be fragmented. There is a River Plan in place, after all, that can guide development as it naturally occurs.
Yet, none of these cities are bound by the plan. Sand Springs may decide they don't even want to build their dam, so there goes the living river for Tulsa. Tulsa may decide to keep their lake high and strangle the Jenks lake. Who could stop them? Broken Arrow doesn't even want to play but their residents will visit. Should we charge them admittance?I don't think the OKC project is analagous to ours. The make up of the city is different and the Oklahoma River and Bricktown did not go through those other cities. And OKC had the Murrah tragedy as a spring board. Nonetheless they all agreed to co-operate with MAPS under pressure from the mayor.Although the Arkansas River passes through Tulsa and some other cities, it does not pass close by to the bulk of Tulsa County's population.
Yeah, its over 5miles away in some areas. Whew! Could be as much as a 15 minute drive. Don't share that analysis with Bass Pro. It'll scare them out of town.The first MAPS may have been as a result of Murrah, but they passed another one and a third is most likely to pass.
They passed the next one because the first one worked. We won't even pass the first one.I'm not trying to change your mind. Just responding to more of a continuuing list of faulty logic that I have seen in reasonings against the plan. I have my own reservations but they aren't strong enough to overcome the benefits we will see.
(http://www.thetulsan.com/images/nonono.gif)
Great one Tim! Anyone care to print those out as yard signs? I'd put one in my yard.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Great one Tim! Anyone care to print those out as yard signs? I'd put one in my yard.
Yes, I'd like to decorate my yard with a blazing non sequitur as well. </sarcasm>
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
The problem is that the passing of V2025 had little to do with the county handling it and more to do with the citizens being ready for it (i.e. after 9/11, numerous job losses, and seeing the MAPS project results in OKC). The City of Tulsa residents - over 70% of Tulsa County's population - voted positively for all four V2025 propositions. The county claiming they 'got it done' when the city couldn't reminds me of someone playing the same slot machine all day while losing all their money; immediately after leaving their machine someone else who just found a quarter on the floor puts it in that same machine and hits the jackpot. Frequently such a winner mistakes lucky timing for something more, and thinks more highly of themselves than they ought.
Twizzler- excellent post. I chose only to quote one of your paragraphs to save reading space.
Tulsa got the arena by V-2025 offering the following tit-for-tat:
-A number of new construction and improvement projects in outlying cities- every community got something and I'd say what they got is somewhat proportionate to the amount each community adds to the county sales tax base:
-Economic development vis-a-vis trying to provide funding to attract greater job investment from Boeing which could have benefitted everyone in Tulsa County
-Funds for more higher ed building projects
-New health care facilities
-etc. ad nauseum
There was something in it for every community, and something to benefit and attract every race and demographic. It was a stroke of marketing genious.
Had it been a county-wide vote for a new arena in downtown Tulsa, I believe it would have failed miserably. It's a regional attraction, but when it's centered in one community it's a lot harder to get people from other cities on board. If Collinsville, Owasso, and Broken Arrow all thought there was something good in the river for them, I think it would be easier to get those votes for this project. Even considering the benefits to Jenks and Sand Springs, Tulsa stands to gain the most from it. There is a certain myopia with people who don't live as close to the river that it's just a bunch of Maple Ridgies and downtowners who will benefit from this- which isn't true.
I suspect if it fails, it will be re-packaged with something which directly benefits BA, Owasso, and Collinsville.
I wonder if this could work?... Let Jenks pay for and design their own dam, it looks increasingly like they may be able to do just that. Tulsa build a higher redesigned Zink Dam and part of the Living River concept. Could the Zink Dam be built high enough so that it captures more water to help the canoing/kayaking part run more often? It may not flow all the time but far more than it does now. That way we wouldnt be seen to be "destroying" so much habitat and creating a "cesspool" below the waste treatment facility.Just let Jenks deal with that problem if they want lol. It wouldnt cost as much. And we could throw in the Pearl District Plan with its lakes and canals to boot since it would mainly be a Tulsa thing and wouldnt have support from the other cities.
I would like to see the Zink Lake dam be like one of those "artificial rapids". Basically a stepped design with rocks built into it. Looks really nice and even when the water is low during drought times the whole lake can be drained and the small stream that is left can meander in a natural looking sandy river bottom. Then fix up the banks, clean them up, fancy up the trails, add some nice water features, play areas, fountains and park spaces here and there.
I am still torn with buying the property on the west bank to sell to a developer. I know our property costs a lot more than in Jenks. But they are getting some very well designed and built developments there. Couldnt a tiff be enough? Could we use a tiff to make sure the development met certain priorities like having it face the river, be multi use, etc?
One thing that really concerns me about the possible Tulsa Landing developer is the quality of Branson Landing. If that is an indication of what the quality of design will be for any Tulsa Landing...well that will be sad because from what I can tell of the examples of previously done developments that the River District is cuing off of, that development, and Jerry Gordons development is of a higher quality. That would suck if Jenks River District is stone and brick with nice architectural details and Tulsa Landing is a cheap, Plane Jane mostly stuccoe type thing like Branson Landing is.
^ +1
Does anyone know if Hardesty still owns the dirt the concrete plant is on at 23rd St.?
That should be a simple enough transaction between the private owner of that land and a developer. IOW- something which could happen and be developed for commercial without a large tax package.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
^ +1
Does anyone know if Hardesty still owns the dirt the concrete plant is on at 23rd St.?
That should be a simple enough transaction between the private owner of that land and a developer. IOW- something which could happen and be developed for commercial without a large tax package.
As I understand it, he does. But I think the landing folks might want westport too.
I am against the proposal as it now stands.
Primarily due to the ecological damage these low head dams (as curently designed) will have on an already damaged river - I can stand the .04 tax that really doesn't concern me. Most people look out on Zink "pond" from the top of the pedestrian concrete walking trail -- the only use of the lake is by the rowing team - the water is stagnant 60% of the year and doesn't support a variety of fish- primarily all that exists in it are those fish tolerant of warm water and low O2 levels.
The currently proposed dams from the INCOG working group have a laydown gate design, the lakes will be too deep and turbid for pedestrian interaction just like Zink is.
If we want to see water in the river, raise elevations at SEVERAL strategic points with natural rock weirs, this allows fish migration , silt passage and won't be a continuing drain for maintenance on Tulsa County Taxpayers - the developers want a lake they can install concrete piers up to the water edge with shops, restraunts, and retail establishment -- I personally can't imagaine anything uglier in a greenspace.
A user friendly river allows you to visit the river bottom, see the fish in the stream, dig your toes in the sand or gravel, and interact -- this proposal as designed doesn't allow that except in areas immediately next to the downstream side of the dams.
There are better ways to accomplish "Water in the River" in my PROFESSIONAL opinion neither the Kaiser NOR INGOG proposals will do that.
Both ODWC and US Fish and Wildlife are against the proposed dams -- additionally past studies by ODWC found a DIRECT correlation in species loss when Zink Dams was installed.
Tony
Member
Oklahoma Striped Bass Association
Tulsa Oklahoma
I dont want to see a "walled river" either. And that is not what we are going to get. I would love to see a few walled places like some parts along any West Bank development across from downtown. So that the shops, restaurants etc. are right near the water and you have a promenade over looking the water. Even just a quarter mile section would be nice. That is not the whole river and leaves plenty of places where you can, "wiggle your toes in the sand".
Course I wouldnt complain if we got something like this new river development that they are doing in Minneapolis. [:P]
(http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/9961/riverdevelopmentip1.jpg)
Whatever we get better danged well be of a higher quality than what is going up in Jenks.
Some people like Van Gogh others like paint by numbers, as said "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" which is why we vote [:D]
Compromise is like a bad stepchild ya wanna kill the birth parents and the kid.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
^ +1
Does anyone know if Hardesty still owns the dirt the concrete plant is on at 23rd St.?
That should be a simple enough transaction between the private owner of that land and a developer. IOW- something which could happen and be developed for commercial without a large tax package.
I understand that site went with the sale of MIDCO.
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
City projects generally fall under the responsibility of the mayor and city council - a good system of checks and balances. In other words, direct accountability. The three Tulsa County commissioners have virtually no checks and balances and neither would the authority the river vote creates.
.
Then why is it that the majority of projects that have encountered difficulty with budget or are delayed for other than for cash flow needs in Vision 2025 been City of Tulsa projects?
The vast majority of Vision 2025 projects are 100% administered by either the local community or entity benefiting from them or who will operate them. They are known as project sponsors. What Tulsa County provides to Vision 2025 is strict control of the funds, detailed reviews of all expenditure prior to payments being made on behalf of that sponsor.
No checks and balances at the County my foot. Vision 2025 has a 24 member Sales Tax Overview Committee (that the County does not control the majority of) then we have the State auditor's office plus an independent private audit firm working and lastly we get nearly constant media attention.
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
As to why Tulsa has encountered budget problems or delays, I would probably blame the previous mayor. Even with the escalated costs of material/labor, the arena was overdesigned for the given budget. Pelli said as much when the design was unveiled.
Well said.
The city administration allowed the designer to do whatever they wanted. LaFortune appointed his public relations coordinator to the oversight committee instead of a budget or engineering person.
I like the iconic design, but we should have had the oversight to keep it under budget.
That is the main reason I voted for new leadership.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
As to why Tulsa has encountered budget problems or delays, I would probably blame the previous mayor. Even with the escalated costs of material/labor, the arena was overdesigned for the given budget. Pelli said as much when the design was unveiled.
Well said.
The city administration allowed the designer to do whatever they wanted. LaFortune appointed his public relations coordinator to the oversight committee instead of a budget or engineering person.
I like the iconic design, but we should have had the oversight to keep it under budget.
That is the main reason I voted for new leadership.
Kinda like appointing Sharon King Davis chair of the streets committee. Isn't it ironic, doncha think? Guess you'll be voting for a new Mayor in the next election by that standard. You make this too easy. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/mistymountainhop/gif/VOTE4TAY.gif)
I am voting yes.
I think river proposition has a good chance to pass for the following reason:
Whatever position or canidate Negative Nancy at KFAQ endorses ALWAYS loses.
quote:
Originally posted by ttownclown
I am voting yes.
I think river proposition has a good chance to pass for the following reason:
Whatever position or canidate Negative Nancy at KFAQ endorses ALWAYS loses.
That is as solid a reason as any I have heard to support it!
I've talked to quite a few people in the last week about the river plan. There seems to be an undercurrent of people who aren't very well read on the topic and are voting yes because "something has got to be done about the river".
Comments from one person went like this:
He stated a "general distrust of local gov't, said Kaiser isn't any sort of philanthropist, he's just doing it to attach his name to something and profit (how's that for un-informed "isn't any sort of philanthropist"???), everyone's a bunch of crooks."
Guess how he's voting? Yes. "Time to do something with the river."
"What about voting no and letting more details become apparent in six to 12 months?"
"No, can't do that, they're going to take their money back, this is our only chance."
Therein lies one of my biggest problems with the way I've felt this has been presented: "Vote for it now, we might not offer this to you again."
Another comment I heard last night was about wanting commercial development on the west bank.
That CAN happen without the tax package. It all boils down to how much a developer wants to scalp the taxpayer for and how much the county wants to get it's fingers into the transaction.
It is all like sitting at the slot machine and saying it's hot and will pay off soon.
The tax issues are passing with a great majority whereas the bureaucracies feel that the citizens are hot for more taxes.
Before this issue was put on the ballot it should have been in more detail in such a way the average voter understood.
Now the Corps of Engineers, who must issue a permit, along with the DEQ and other environment bodies have come up with questions. The indications from the Corps are that the lack of water releases in dry years will create stagnant lakes. Environments point out that the oxygen content may not sustain wild life during these periods.
These indicate that Kayaking and other recreation will fail for the lack of water. There are many questions unanswered on the use of the water in the Keystone Lake including the income from electric generation and pledged recreation to the developments on it shores.
The Corps released water for the raft race one time a year but there is some thought how much they would be able to release at off generating times. We are going to build a lake below the dam to make up for the storage of the assumed cubic feet of water needed but this balancing act depends on the turbine released which could be reduced to zero. The operation of the inland canal depends also on the release of water.
Much engineering is needed before we vote for a pig in a poke.
I am voting no for I don't trust the politicians leading this project.
Simple...NO MORE TAXES
quote:
Originally posted by altruismsuffers
Simple...NO MORE TAXES
I'm Voting
NO on October 9th.
Our sales taxes rates are among the highest in the Region right now.
Another sales tax increase is simply:
OBSCENE.
I'm definitely voting NO RIVER TAX
It just ain't right.
And I'm doing for the kids, their kids, and their grandkids, but, most of all, for Betty.
Return of chief may hurt tax vote
Charles Pouge, 39, a north Tulsa small-business owner, says the community is making a connection between the River Tax and the return of Police Chief Ron Palmer partly due to Mayor Kathy Taylor. "She's on the TV all the time. She's the one who brought Palmer back, and she's the one who wants everybody to vote 'Yes,'" Pouge said. BY DEVONA WALKER, THE OKLAHOMAN
TULSA — Reignited racial tensions in north Tulsa over the return of Police Chief Ron Palmer might just tip the scales in the River Tax debate, derailing plans for a temporary countywide sales tax to fund a project likened to Oklahoma City's Metropolitan Area Projects.
On the surface, there is no real correlation between Palmer's appointment and the roughly $300 million economic development initiative. But the project has already been hit by a growing list of detractors, and many say strong support inside the city limits is critical to its success.
In north Tulsa, red and white "No River Tax" signs are becoming as commonplace as potholes, and the two separate issues are increasingly being paired as proof that City Hall is just not listening.
"There had been problems with him before," said Pleas Thompson, chapter president of the Tulsa NAACP, about Palmer's previous reign as police chief — a period of about a decade beginning in 1992.
"We didn't see any reason to bring him back. We wanted a new chief, not a recycled one," Thompson said. "We felt betrayed."
City Councilor Roscoe Turner never supported the tax. Now, City Councilor Jack Henderson has joined the ranks of the opposition. He recently started speaking publicly against it.
'I'm the mayor'
Downtown Tulsa is the core of county commerce. The streets are humming with the sound of construction crews. From the 18,000-seat, $141 million BOK Center arena construction project to renovations at the Tulsa Convention Center to lofts to pending hotel projects, the landscape is changing rapidly. For many, this symbolizes progress.
"I'm the mayor," Taylor said about her decision to hire Palmer despite concerns over his past performance. "I certainly respectfully listen to the views of my council. But ultimately I will be held accountable for the hiring decisions I make."
As far as dissent in north Tulsa's black community over Palmer or the River Tax, she feels it is overblown.
"I think it's a disservice to generalize the north Tulsa community as having one voice," Taylor said. "We seem to allow those voices, who would like us to just have negative energy, to be the loudest heard."
She says negativity, bickering, name calling and finger pointing mired the previous four years at City Hall and that she will not participate in it during her time in office.
"I think it's very healthy to have a disagreement because that's how you have a dialogue to hear broad opinions," Taylor said. "But I think you have to do it respectfully, I think you have to do it with facts, and I think you have to do it with an eye toward progress."
While dissenting opinions focus on the past and the negatives of north Tulsa, she wanted to highlight its many assets: Booker T. Washington High School, one of the best high schools in the state, the best Western art museum in the nation, one of the fastest-growing job markets in the state and the fact that though it has chronic unemployment rates, the city has just connected it to a bus route.
"Do we have a lot progress to make? Absolutely, all throughout the city," Taylor said. "This city has been a little bit of asleep for quite a while."
The view from north Tulsa
Charles Pouge, 39, owns The Spot, a barber shop on East Apache Street. He points out that two weeks ago, north Tulsa lost its last grocery store, an Albertsons on Peoria Avenue. But there are still plenty of pawn shops, liquor stores, potholes, bordered up store fronts, crime and unemployment.
"The way it's set up now is all our dollars are going out south. If you look at the north side, there's nothing. If you want a pair of socks or a good pair of shoes, you have to go to 41st Street and Yale," Pouge said. "It would be nice to see some young professionals that want to come to town, but right now there are some other things that need to be taken care of."
He wonders if the vacant Albertsons will be filled before the city spends roughly $300 million in county tax dollars on the river.
Jeannetta Williams, 40, was born and raised in north Tulsa. She is familiar with its crime-ridden spots as well as the "community patriarchs," a group of older men who meet every morning at a nearby McDonalds because there are so few restaurants.
She says the community is equally up in arms over Palmer's return and the neglected condition of its streets. Potholes and strong-arm police tactics are both symptoms of neglect, she said.
"And even though they say that it's not, it seems like the same old thing where our tax dollars are being used to build up another community. And we're still struggling for a grocery store," Williams said. "The dollars are there for the support of (river development), but I don't think the votes are there to get it passed. There are just so many people upset right now."
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
It is all like sitting at the slot machine and saying it's hot and will pay off soon.
The tax issues are passing with a great majority whereas the bureaucracies feel that the citizens are hot for more taxes.
Before this issue was put on the ballot it should have been in more detail in such a way the average voter understood.
Now the Corps of Engineers, who must issue a permit, along with the DEQ and other environment bodies have come up with questions. The indications from the Corps are that the lack of water releases in dry years will create stagnant lakes. Environments point out that the oxygen content may not sustain wild life during these periods.
These indicate that Kayaking and other recreation will fail for the lack of water. There are many questions unanswered on the use of the water in the Keystone Lake including the income from electric generation and pledged recreation to the developments on it shores.
The Corps released water for the raft race one time a year but there is some thought how much they would be able to release at off generating times. We are going to build a lake below the dam to make up for the storage of the assumed cubic feet of water needed but this balancing act depends on the turbine released which could be reduced to zero. The operation of the inland canal depends also on the release of water.
Much engineering is needed before we vote for a pig in a poke.
Actually, much engineering and study has been done and much more will be prior to the permitting phase.
The Corps of Engineers is in favor of the Master Plan which this proposal closley follows. In fact, they provided half of the study monies utilized to produce it. The Master plan has been reviewed and presented all the way up the corps ladder to and including personally by Mr. John Paul Woodley, Jr. Assistant Secretary of the Army (for Civil Works) who traveled to Tulsa to see it. Mr. Woodley very much liked the Master Plan, its goals and potential and implementation strategy and encouraged the group to get it funded.
The environmental concerns you state were raised and are addressed in the Master Plan. But even more, last year was a severe test and if the River did not have water quality trouble and or fish kills (none reported) during the last summers extended low flow condition then why would it in the future under low flow conditions. One thing about the dams proposed, if there is a water quality problem. Simply lower the gates and then re-fill the lakes in a day or two or in the case of an extended drought we may have a dry river (again) until fresh flows resume or keep the gates up and force all flow over the aeration weirs to add dissolved oxygen to the flows heading downstream.
As for power generation and navigation flows, great! That water (which is free) has to go through these projects to get downstream, which is exactly the flow we need for the intended operations.
I am voting no because:
1.)Vision 2025 stated that it would construct low water dams.
2.)The Corps of Engineers has not even begun the process of approving the plan. Approval takes 2 years.
3.)Sales tax in Tulsa is high enough
4.)Tulsa's Crime rate is twice the normal average and we need to pay for more cops.
5.)The roads are terrible. I have to plan my lane changes on the way to work based upon road conditions, not traffic conditions. There are some huge pot holes and rough areas on hwy 169 and hwy 75. Not to mention the city street.
6.)Is it fair to tax Collinsville for Tulsa's project? What's in it for Sperry? Turley? Skiatook? Glenpool?
Oh how soon we forget....
There is nothing....nada.... that guarantees how this tax money will be spent.
exhibit 1.... the ballot.. even if you have seen it before... by the conversation I can tell it has been interpreted by memory rather than text.
OFFICIAL COUNTY BALLOT
SPECIAL ELECTION
OCTOBER 9, 2007
TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
0 0
TO VOTE: Complete the arrow(s)
pointing to your choice(s), like this
USE A #2 PENCIL (NO INK)
PROPOSITION
OFFICIAL COUNTY BALLOT
SPECIAL ELECTION
OCTOBER 9, 2007
TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
0 0
“SHALL THE COUNTY OF TULSA,
OKLAHOMA, BY ITS BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LEVY
AND COLLECT A FOUR-TENTHS
OF ONE PERCENT (4/10%) SALES
TAX FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN TULSA
COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, AND/OR TO
BE APPLIED OR PLEDGED
TOWARD THE PAYMENT OF
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON
ANY INDEBTEDNESS, INCLUDING
REFUNDING INDEBTEDNESS,
INCURRED BY OR ON BEHALF OF
TULSA COUNTY FOR SUCH PURPOSE,
SUCH SALES TAX TO COMMENCE
ON JANUARY 1, 2008, AND
CONTINUING THEREAFTER TO
DECEMBER 31, 2014?�
FOR THE PROPOSITION - YES
AGAINST THE PROPOSITION - NO
Many individuals stated at the beginning there were "no Guarantees as to how the monies would be spent..."
posted by waterboy...
The crust of the biscuit:
In addition, such public trust shall approve any deletion or addition of projects from those listed above and any major change in scope of any such project following a public hearing by such trust.
Keep in mind that Mister Kaiser saying that "you can have this much money as a gift if you just raise this much money" sounds more like the wranglings of a business negotiation rather than the comforting voice of a benevolent benefactor.
What would be gained by this for the people involved..? I can't say.. But this and the "Channels" have many of the same people involved..... And the smell of all of this is unmistakable...
Smells just like sewage.. and you can quote me on that.
I'm a yes
1. There will be an economic impact, it will be substantial and it will attract the attention of potential businesses and developers. Many have claimed that they want to see the math behind the $2.8 to $3.5 billion impact forecasts, and that is fine, but not one of them have successfully refuted the predictions.
2. I'd like to see Tulsans spend their money in Tulsa and reverse the trend of people driving to the suburbs to the newest attractions there.
3. I want to see visitors in town spending their money close to the core.
4. I like it when there is water in the river. This might be simplistic but I dont think electrical production should dictate the water level.
5. The concrete plant and the City of Tulsa sand lot are eyesores in prime real estate that are keeping the area around them depressed. I want to see development here that will give the entire neighborhood a new purpose. Selfishly I also want to sit outside in a restaurant looking east and enjoying my river and my skyline.
6. I enjoy the river everyday. It brings a very diverse congregation of people with their pets and loved ones to enjoy the outdoors. The river and its parks contribute to a healthier lifestyle. They bring people together. I'd love to see more Tulsans enjoying this beautiful asset.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
2. I'd like to see Tulsans spend their money in Tulsa and reverse the trend of people driving to the suburbs to the newest attractions there.
And I'd like to see Owassans spend their money in Owasso. This plan has Owasso's money going to Tulsa with no benefit. It is tantamount to highway robbery.
quote:
Originally posted by chesty
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
2. I'd like to see Tulsans spend their money in Tulsa and reverse the trend of people driving to the suburbs to the newest attractions there.
And I'd like to see Owassans spend their money in Owasso. This plan has Owasso's money going to Tulsa with no benefit. It is tantamount to highway robbery.
And yet if we build it, you will gladly bring your visiting family and friends to enjoy it for free. New Tulsans, who will come here for the city's amenities, yet choose to build new homes in burbs like yours, will also get to visit free. With your reasoning, Tulsans should not have to pay for upkeep on 169 either since it benefits Owasso a LOT more than it does Tulsa.
Stop being selfish and short sighted. The entire region will benefit from a 500 million dollar investment in the river. You guys want the cake but you don't want to go to the wedding. If the burbs fail to support this I recommend a gate fee into Tulsa for suburbanites.
Your mayor was quoted in the paper yesterday saying that Owasso needs to be part of a strong core Tulsa to survive since 68% of People in Owasso work in Tulsa. If Tulsa dries up and blows away I hope Owasso will be able to replace all of those jobs.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
And yet if we build it, you will gladly bring your visiting family and friends to enjoy it for free. New Tulsans, who will come here for the city's amenities, yet choose to build new homes in burbs like yours, will also get to visit free. With your reasoning, Tulsans should not have to pay for upkeep on 169 either since it benefits Owasso a LOT more than it does Tulsa.
Stop being selfish and short sighted. The entire region will benefit from a 500 million dollar investment in the river. You guys want the cake but you don't want to go to the wedding. If the burbs fail to support this I recommend a gate fee into Tulsa for suburbanites.
I'm thinking of the Owasso business and restaurant owners. How long do you think the Owasso movie theater will stay in business if everyone goes to Tulsa for the weekend.....even if just 20% of the people who would have stayed in Owasso go to Tulsa.
It's just not good for business.
I'm also wondering just how much of those new tax revenues will actually see their way back to the outer communities. After passing this tax, they will no longer have needed breathing room for another municipal tax if they need to raise money for themselves. It's not right.
Besides, Tulsa has more pressing issues than river development.....High Crime and Poor Streets.
When a football team has a poor game, the caich wisely pulls everyone back in and concentrates on the basics. It's time Tulsa did the same. Take a cue from BA and get cops on the street and crime will come down.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
Your mayor was quoted in the paper yesterday saying that Owasso needs to be part of a strong core Tulsa to survive since 68% of People in Owasso work in Tulsa. If Tulsa dries up and blows away I hope Owasso will be able to replace all of those jobs.
Owasso will not dry up and blow away unless American Airlines leaves. I am confident enough to know that AA will be the last company to leave Tulsa. They may expand and retract from time to time, but they are here to stay. I think I will follow BA mayor in his belief that the cities surrounding Tulsa need to take care of themselves instead of let Tulsa leach away the money that should be staying in the smaller communities.
And if you look at Tulsa, why does Tulsa want to develop the river when they can't even put water in all the city pools, fix the streets, and stop crime with the already enormous amount of taxes they take.
I was at the town hall meeting with Fred Perry where a gentleman summed up a great point by saying "If your roof is leaking, your windows are drafty, and your lights don't work, you don't go off and buy a new swimming pool." Makes sense to me.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
I'm a yes
1. There will be an economic impact, it will be substantial and it will attract the attention of potential businesses and developers. Many have claimed that they want to see the math behind the $2.8 to $3.5 billion impact forecasts, and that is fine, but not one of them have successfully refuted the predictions.
It's just as hard to refute as it is to prove it when you don't know the methodology used. I can call B.S. on the numbers, the "economists" who provide these projections can say they are real. Unless the methodology is revealed, neither side can say for sure. I find it interesting the number has crept up as polls seem to be showing the vote leaning toward "no". There were unnamed "observers" who were saying that even the $3.5bln figures are conservative in the nice Tulsa World propaganda piece yesterday.
quote:
2. I'd like to see Tulsans spend their money in Tulsa and reverse the trend of people driving to the suburbs to the newest attractions there.
I do spend the majority of my discretionary entertainment money in Tulsa, as do many Tulsans. It's pretty rare I spend it in BA or Owasso unless I happen to be in the area for another reason. I honestly believe not many people care to drive more than five or ten miles for a "destination" meal or drink.
quote:
3. I want to see visitors in town spending their money close to the core.
That's fine, but why close to the core? Sales tax revenue is sales tax revenue, whether it's collected at 71st & Memorial or 23rd & Jackson. I'd love to see this be a "destination", but I have yet to see enough concrete plans which lead me to believe this is all going to happen as they are proposing. Unless it becomes a destination for people who reside outside the city and county, we are just shifting tax collection points.
quote:
4. I like it when there is water in the river. This might be simplistic but I dont think electrical production should dictate the water level.
There's been water in the river between 11th and 21st where development is proposed all summer.
quote:
5. The concrete plant and the City of Tulsa sand lot are eyesores in prime real estate that are keeping the area around them depressed. I want to see development here that will give the entire neighborhood a new purpose. Selfishly I also want to sit outside in a restaurant looking east and enjoying my river and my skyline.
Agreed. This doesn't require a public tax increase to make these disappear. Secondly, the city maintenance yard is not the primo river front property. That's already under RPA.
quote:
6. I enjoy the river everyday. It brings a very diverse congregation of people with their pets and loved ones to enjoy the outdoors. The river and its parks contribute to a healthier lifestyle. They bring people together. I'd love to see more Tulsans enjoying this beautiful asset.
It might well do it. Be patient and make sure all the details and pitfalls are fully identified before agreeing to a hastily put together plan. This is not the INCOG master plan. Listen and read carefully when you hear others talking about this- it contains "parts" of the master plan.
I am voting "NO" on this latest river tax plan for the following reasons:
1. I think Tulsa has much higher priority needs than river development for shopping/recreation. We have $650,000,000 and growing daily in street and bridge repair needs. We need about 100 additional police officers to combat growing crime. We need about 50 additional code enforcement inspectors to clean up and monitor trashy properties and make our city attractive and safe. We don't need more river dams and commercial shopping/dining centers by the river. If it is such a good economic thing, let the developers do it with their own private money or donations, and then let them reap the profits. How can anyone with half a brain think that river development full of chain restaurants and generic crap is more important than city infrastructure needs and public safety?
2. I hate sales taxes. Sales taxes are extremely regressive and hurt the lowest income classes the most. I vowed over 20 years ago, that until Oklahoma exempts basic groceries and clothing items, necessities of life, from sales taxes, that I would vote "NO" on ANY sales tax issue that comes up for a vote. I have remained true to that.
The "rebate" provisions in this river tax and other past taxes are ridiculous. They just add another layer of paperwork, and many won't apply because of the hassle or lack of understanding.
I would prefer that all local city/county sales taxes in Oklahoma be abolished and replaced with a fair, graduated city income tax. But I know that ain't gonna happen anytime soon, as long as our government officials are rich millionaires. Governments, federal & state, have spent the past 25 years cutting income taxes for the rich and shifting tax burden to the poor.
quote:
Originally posted by altruismsuffers
Simple...NO MORE TAXES
Since I cannot vote twice and cancel out this vote (already committed to canceling aox), I will need to talk to my better half so she can cancel it out.
quote:
Originally posted by chesty
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
Your mayor was quoted in the paper yesterday saying that Owasso needs to be part of a strong core Tulsa to survive since 68% of People in Owasso work in Tulsa. If Tulsa dries up and blows away I hope Owasso will be able to replace all of those jobs.
Owasso will not dry up and blow away unless American Airlines leaves. I am confident enough to know that AA will be the last company to leave Tulsa. They may expand and retract from time to time, but they are here to stay. I think I will follow BA mayor in his belief that the cities surrounding Tulsa need to take care of themselves instead of let Tulsa leach away the money that should be staying in the smaller communities.
And if you look at Tulsa, why does Tulsa want to develop the river when they can't even put water in all the city pools, fix the streets, and stop crime with the already enormous amount of taxes they take.
I was at the town hall meeting with Fred Perry where a gentleman summed up a great point by saying "If your roof is leaking, your windows are drafty, and your lights don't work, you don't go off and buy a new swimming pool." Makes sense to me.
We want to develop the river because there is undervalued property there. If we increase the value of this property it will increase the money we collect to pay for GO bonds to fix our streets. If the development includes places where people can spend money then it increases sales taxes collected which will pay for our third penney improvments to streets, and our first and second pennies for basic needs like emergency services and police.
I see the tax-enrichening philosophy behind it, but it still sounds just like a ponzi scheme. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
quote:
Originally posted by chesty
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
Your mayor was quoted in the paper yesterday saying that Owasso needs to be part of a strong core Tulsa to survive since 68% of People in Owasso work in Tulsa. If Tulsa dries up and blows away I hope Owasso will be able to replace all of those jobs.
Owasso will not dry up and blow away unless American Airlines leaves. I am confident enough to know that AA will be the last company to leave Tulsa. They may expand and retract from time to time, but they are here to stay. I think I will follow BA mayor in his belief that the cities surrounding Tulsa need to take care of themselves instead of let Tulsa leach away the money that should be staying in the smaller communities.
And if you look at Tulsa, why does Tulsa want to develop the river when they can't even put water in all the city pools, fix the streets, and stop crime with the already enormous amount of taxes they take.
I was at the town hall meeting with Fred Perry where a gentleman summed up a great point by saying "If your roof is leaking, your windows are drafty, and your lights don't work, you don't go off and buy a new swimming pool." Makes sense to me.
We want to develop the river because there is undervalued property there. If we increase the value of this property it will increase the money we collect to pay for GO bonds to fix our streets. If the development includes places where people can spend money then it increases sales taxes collected which will pay for our third penney improvments to streets, and our first and second pennies for basic needs like emergency services and police.
Doesn't it seem rather
insane to build a pedestrian bridge at 41st Street to connect to an AEP Power Plant, and a 61st Street pedestrian bridge to connect to the Sewage Treatment Plant Sewage Overflow & Retention Lagoon??
That is even dumber than trying to move sand around in a prairie river......
The highest and best use of a prairie river that periodically
OVERFLOWS is just what it is now used for:
A PARK.
With walking and bicycle trails. A few scattered playgrounds and picnic tables.
These type investments won't be wiped out in the next "300 Year" Flood. Our last major flood was 1986.
We're about due for another big one.....and, we ALMOST had a big one back in very rainy June.
[^]
Its not insane when your on the other side of the river and are worn out from, jogging or biking and want to get back to the east side and are looking for the closest option. I may be mistaken, but I do not believe these are one way bridges. Not everyone stays on just one side of the river. Perhaps you can see the 61st bridge as a way for people on the west side to escape the sewage treatment plant and get to the east side. lol
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Its not insane when your on the other side of the river and are worn out from, jogging or biking and want to get back to the east side and are looking for the closest option. I may be mistaken, but I do not believe these are one way bridges. Not everyone stays on just one side of the river. Perhaps you can see the 61st bridge as a way for people on the west side to escape the sewage treatment plant and get to the east side. lol
Uh, like they can't use the existing I-44 or 71st Street bridges to escape west Tulsa??
Have the 11th, 21st and 31st street bridges also disappeared??
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Its not insane when your on the other side of the river and are worn out from, jogging or biking and want to get back to the east side and are looking for the closest option. I may be mistaken, but I do not believe these are one way bridges. Not everyone stays on just one side of the river. Perhaps you can see the 61st bridge as a way for people on the west side to escape the sewage treatment plant and get to the east side. lol
Uh, like they can't use the existing I-44 or 71st Street bridges to escape west Tulsa??
Have the 11th, 21st and 31st street bridges also disappeared??
Hey, when your legs and lungs are about to give out on ya. That extra mile or two saved can be a lifesaver. Especially for us old coots. [:D] It can be quite a gap when you head south from the 21st or 23 area and try to make the loop and have to decide on 51st or 71st as your turn around options. Those arent pleasant running, rollerblading or biking options either, especially when its windy (as it usually seems to be on that bridge) and the cars are rushing by and that bridge actually bounces up and down a bit and has relatively low railing. Big semi goes by and its liable to blow my skinny arse right off the bridge into the river. When was the last time you tried running, rollerblading, or biking, across either of those bridges?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Its not insane when your on the other side of the river and are worn out from, jogging or biking and want to get back to the east side and are looking for the closest option. I may be mistaken, but I do not believe these are one way bridges. Not everyone stays on just one side of the river. Perhaps you can see the 61st bridge as a way for people on the west side to escape the sewage treatment plant and get to the east side. lol
Uh, like they can't use the existing I-44 or 71st Street bridges to escape west Tulsa??
Have the 11th, 21st and 31st street bridges also disappeared??
Hey, when your legs and lungs are about to give out on ya. That extra mile or two saved can be a lifesaver. Especially for us old coots. [:D] It can be quite a gap when you head south from the 21st or 23 area and try to make the loop and have to decide on 51st or 71st as your turn around options. Those arent pleasant running, rollerblading or biking options either, especially when its windy (as it usually seems to be on that bridge) and the cars are rushing by and that bridge actually bounces up and down a bit and has relatively low railing. Big semi goes by and its liable to blow my skinny arse right off the bridge into the river. When was the last time you tried running, rollerblading, or biking, across either of those bridges?
PLAN ahead, and save the rest of us $282 million dollars.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Its not insane when your on the other side of the river and are worn out from, jogging or biking and want to get back to the east side and are looking for the closest option. I may be mistaken, but I do not believe these are one way bridges. Not everyone stays on just one side of the river. Perhaps you can see the 61st bridge as a way for people on the west side to escape the sewage treatment plant and get to the east side. lol
Uh, like they can't use the existing I-44 or 71st Street bridges to escape west Tulsa??
Have the 11th, 21st and 31st street bridges also disappeared??
FB, you are now only allowed the following roads:
21st, 71st, memorial and peoria
If west tulsa has to 2.5 miles one way or the other to get around, so do you.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Its not insane when your on the other side of the river and are worn out from, jogging or biking and want to get back to the east side and are looking for the closest option. I may be mistaken, but I do not believe these are one way bridges. Not everyone stays on just one side of the river. Perhaps you can see the 61st bridge as a way for people on the west side to escape the sewage treatment plant and get to the east side. lol
Uh, like they can't use the existing I-44 or 71st Street bridges to escape west Tulsa??
Have the 11th, 21st and 31st street bridges also disappeared??
FB, you are now only allowed the following roads:
21st, 71st, memorial and peoria
If west tulsa has to 2.5 miles one way or the other to get around, so do you.
When jogging or bicyling, there's usually a little-used short-cut:
STRAIGHT across the river sand-bars between the East and West banks.
But, watch out for the Quicksand......and, it might be tough on Roller-Blades. Sorry.
Or, maybe you can use the 31st Street Pedestrian Bridge....
Curious about the 31st Street Pedestrian Bridge being blocked off
ALL SUMMER, during the
PEAK usage time of the year.
Was someone trying to
ARTIFICIALLY create the impression that there were too FEW pedestrian crossings across the River??
Hmmmmmh?
Seems like those 3 months of repairs could have easily been scheduled from November - February, when Riverparks usage abates.
Hmmmmmmh?
[xx(]
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Its not insane when your on the other side of the river and are worn out from, jogging or biking and want to get back to the east side and are looking for the closest option. I may be mistaken, but I do not believe these are one way bridges. Not everyone stays on just one side of the river. Perhaps you can see the 61st bridge as a way for people on the west side to escape the sewage treatment plant and get to the east side. lol
Use your cell phone and have EMSA pick you up. Look on your water bill and you can see where you are paying for emergency transportation. If you had a bridge you might not be able to get back across the river of sand on it.
If you don't use EMSA it will go away.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
QuoteOriginally posted by Friendly Bear
QuoteOriginally posted by TheArtist
When jogging or bicyling, there's usually a little-used short-cut:
STRAIGHT across the river sand-bars between the East and West banks.
But, watch out for the Quicksand......and, it might be tough on Roller-Blades. Sorry.
Or, maybe you can use the 31st Street Pedestrian Bridge....
Curious about the 31st Street Pedestrian Bridge being blocked off ALL SUMMER, during the PEAK usage time of the year.
Was someone trying to ARTIFICIALLY create the impression that there were too FEW pedestrian crossings across the River??
Hmmmmmh?
Seems like those 3 months of repairs could have easily been scheduled from November - February, when Riverparks usage abates.
Hmmmmmmh?
[xx(]
Man, you are the most paranoid I've ever read on this forum. Now you making me defend a group I'm not real comfy with. RPA made changes on the approaches to the pedestrian bridge. The railings were weak and dangerous. The surface of the bridge across Riverside puddled up and needed resurfacing. The pedestrian bridge itself seems to have had added bracing put on but I'm not sure of that. Their timing is always bad but may have to do with budgeting or something. I agree that I have missed it all summer as I enjoy the wind, the creaking, and the bouncing as well as the characters you see there. The views are good too.
Honestly man. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
QuoteOriginally posted by Friendly Bear
QuoteOriginally posted by TheArtist
When jogging or bicyling, there's usually a little-used short-cut:
STRAIGHT across the river sand-bars between the East and West banks.
But, watch out for the Quicksand......and, it might be tough on Roller-Blades. Sorry.
Or, maybe you can use the 31st Street Pedestrian Bridge....
Curious about the 31st Street Pedestrian Bridge being blocked off ALL SUMMER, during the PEAK usage time of the year.
Was someone trying to ARTIFICIALLY create the impression that there were too FEW pedestrian crossings across the River??
Hmmmmmh?
Seems like those 3 months of repairs could have easily been scheduled from November - February, when Riverparks usage abates.
Hmmmmmmh?
[xx(]
Man, you are the most paranoid I've ever read on this forum. Now you making me defend a group I'm not real comfy with. RPA made changes on the approaches to the pedestrian bridge. The railings were weak and dangerous. The surface of the bridge across Riverside puddled up and needed resurfacing. The pedestrian bridge itself seems to have had added bracing put on but I'm not sure of that. Their timing is always bad but may have to do with budgeting or something. I agree that I have missed it all summer as I enjoy the wind, the creaking, and the bouncing as well as the characters you see there. The views are good too.
Honestly man. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Just one of those CURIOUS timing coincidences?
The weathering of the Riverside Drive Pedestrian overpass and the deteriorating approaches to the 31st Street pedestrian bridge occurred over a period of many years.
Afterall, the Riverside Drive Bridge Overpass was built over 70 years ago. The exact date is carved on the bridge. Drive by and verify it sometime.
These curious but convenient coincidences are simply fascinating.
Like when Mayor Bill MisFortune convened his grand 2003 convocation in the Convention Center for a "Visioning" meeting, the pre-packaged publicity pre-amble to the Vision 2025 Tax Blitzkrieg.
One of the more astounding sound bites on the evening news was the Leaky Roof of the Convention Center, used as a partial justification to grab more tax dollars through what became Vision 2025.
There was Mayor MisFortune lamenting the sorry state of the Convention Center roof, and commiserating with the audience on how SORRY he was that the roof was leaking, and he guessed that meant WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.
The really CURIOUS thing about that leaky Convention Center roof was it had not rained for a month before the "Visioning" convocation.
Did they call out the Fire Department pumper units to FLOOD the roof to stage that convenient sound bite???
Just another curious coincidence?
[:P]
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
QuoteOriginally posted by Friendly Bear
QuoteOriginally posted by TheArtist
When jogging or bicyling, there's usually a little-used short-cut:
STRAIGHT across the river sand-bars between the East and West banks.
But, watch out for the Quicksand......and, it might be tough on Roller-Blades. Sorry.
Or, maybe you can use the 31st Street Pedestrian Bridge....
Curious about the 31st Street Pedestrian Bridge being blocked off ALL SUMMER, during the PEAK usage time of the year.
Was someone trying to ARTIFICIALLY create the impression that there were too FEW pedestrian crossings across the River??
Hmmmmmh?
Seems like those 3 months of repairs could have easily been scheduled from November - February, when Riverparks usage abates.
Hmmmmmmh?
[xx(]
Man, you are the most paranoid I've ever read on this forum. Now you making me defend a group I'm not real comfy with. RPA made changes on the approaches to the pedestrian bridge. The railings were weak and dangerous. The surface of the bridge across Riverside puddled up and needed resurfacing. The pedestrian bridge itself seems to have had added bracing put on but I'm not sure of that. Their timing is always bad but may have to do with budgeting or something. I agree that I have missed it all summer as I enjoy the wind, the creaking, and the bouncing as well as the characters you see there. The views are good too.
Honestly man. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Just one of those CURIOUS timing coincidences?
The weathering of the Riverside Drive Pedestrian overpass and the deteriorating approaches to the 31st Street pedestrian bridge occurred over a period of many years.
Afterall, the Riverside Drive Bridge Overpass was built over 70 years ago. The exact date is carved on the bridge. Drive by and verify it sometime.
These curious but convenient coincidences are simply fascinating.
Like when Mayor Bill MisFortune convened his grand 2003 convocation in the Convention Center for a "Visioning" meeting, the pre-packaged publicity pre-amble to the Vision 2025 Tax Blitzkrieg.
One of the more astounding sound bites on the evening news was the Leaky Roof of the Convention Center, used as a partial justification to grab more tax dollars through what became Vision 2025.
There was Mayor MisFortune lamenting the sorry state of the Convention Center roof, and commiserating with the audience on how SORRY he was that the roof was leaking, and he guessed that meant WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.
The really CURIOUS thing about that leaky Convention Center roof was it had not rained for a month before the "Visioning" convocation.
Did they call out the Fire Department pumper units to FLOOD the roof to stage that convenient sound bite???
Just another curious coincidence?
[:P]
Maybe, but totally unrelated to overpass repairs. What was RPA's motivation when they shut down the pedestrian bridge all summer a few years ago to put new decking on it...and it coincided with thousands of people visiting for the ABA Bowling Championships? Stupid timing from people dissociated from the rest of the city thats all.
I think both times it was donated money that made the repairs. A use it or lose it type thing. But perhaps it was part of a larger conspiracy put together by the oligarchy. Only you would know.[;)]
Just a friendly note to a certain friendly bear...
You are right, it is all a conspiracy.
Everybody but you is in on it. Yhe rest of us are going to conspire to make a better Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Just a friendly note to a certain friendly bear...
You are right, it is all a conspiracy.
Everybody but you is in on it. Yhe rest of us are going to conspire to make a better Tulsa.
Well, EVERYBODY are actually not in on it.
Somebodies are conniving, coordinating, consorting, communicating, and CONTROLLING every aspect of our public policy and public policy administration, to benefit a concentrated cabal of connected construction companies and their cronies.
Did I mentione the local Dozen controlling Oligarch Families?
Cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc?
See?
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Just a friendly note to a certain friendly bear...
You are right, it is all a conspiracy.
Everybody but you is in on it. Yhe rest of us are going to conspire to make a better Tulsa.
Well, EVERYBODY are actually not in on it.
Somebodies are conniving, coordinating, consorting, communicating, and CONTROLLING every aspect of our public policy and public policy administration, to benefit a concentrated cabal of connected construction companies and their cronies.
Did I mentione the local Dozen controlling Oligarch Families?
Cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc?
See?
[}:)]
And if I were the leader of it you could say "Conan's cabal of conniving....cronies".
Wow, FB, that's a lot of C's in one paragraph. "The letter C" must have been the sponsor on Sesame Street this morning. Conan is proud.
(don't take the Sesame Street line personal, I enjoy most of your posts, just couldn't miss that oppt'y).
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
Well I see that no one has posted a direct reply to my opinions, presumably because they can't muster any facts to directly contradict my positon.
VOTE "NO" on OCTOBER 9!!!
Hey, I'm a fan!
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Just a friendly note to a certain friendly bear...
You are right, it is all a conspiracy.
Everybody but you is in on it. Yhe rest of us are going to conspire to make a better Tulsa.
Well, EVERYBODY are actually not in on it.
Somebodies are conniving, coordinating, consorting, communicating, and CONTROLLING every aspect of our public policy and public policy administration, to benefit a concentrated cabal of connected construction companies and their cronies.
Did I mentione the local Dozen controlling Oligarch Families?
Cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc?
See?
[}:)]
And if I were the leader of it you could say "Conan's cabal of conniving....cronies".
Wow, FB, that's a lot of C's in one paragraph. "The letter C" must have been the sponsor on Sesame Street this morning. Conan is proud.
(don't take the Sesame Street line personal, I enjoy most of your posts, just couldn't miss that oppt'y).
No offense taken.
Likewise, I mostly enjoy your posts. Mostly.
[:X]
Looks like Inhoffe got our 'damn' money through the Senate.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070925_1_A1_Thebi04568
quote:
Originally posted by jne
Looks like Inhoffe got our 'damn' money through the Senate.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070925_1_A1_Thebi04568
Not quite, this is an "authorization" bill, not an "appropriations" bill, this bill is authorizing the spending of money on the project, but does nothing about actual funding. That's done in a whole other bill.
Furthering that thought, it's still got to get past the President.
Swake, isn't that basically the reason the border fence has been so long in happening? They passed the authorization bill but not the funding bill?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Furthering that thought, it's still got to get past the President.
Swake, isn't that basically the reason the border fence has been so long in happening? They passed the authorization bill but not the funding bill?
I think the fence got partial funding, but yes, I think that is exactly the same thing.
I think it's a way for politicians in Congress to be able to say "look what I am doing" when in reality they haven't accomplished anything. I read one article that said that the Corp has billion of dollars in unfunded projects. We are now on that list. Woo-figgin-hoo!
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
I am voting "NO" on this latest river tax plan for the following reasons:
1. I think Tulsa has much higher priority needs than river development for shopping/recreation. We have $650,000,000 and growing daily in street and bridge repair needs. We need about 100 additional police officers to combat growing crime. We need about 50 additional code enforcement inspectors to clean up and monitor trashy properties and make our city attractive and safe. We don't need more river dams and commercial shopping/dining centers by the river. If it is such a good economic thing, let the developers do it with their own private money or donations, and then let them reap the profits.
2. I hate sales taxes. Sales taxes are extremely regressive and hurt the lowest income classes the most. I vowed over 20 years ago, that until Oklahoma exempts basic groceries and clothing items, necessities of life, from sales taxes, that I would vote "NO" on ANY sales tax issue that comes up for a vote. I have remained true to that.
The "rebate" provisions in this river tax and other past taxes are ridiculous. They just add another layer of paperwork, and many won't apply because of the hassle or lack of understanding.
I would prefer that all local city/county sales taxes in Oklahoma be abolished and replaced with a fair, graduated city income tax. But I know that ain't gonna happen anytime soon, as long as our government officials are rich millionaires. Governments, federal & state, have spent the past 25 years cutting income taxes for the rich and shifting tax burden to the poor.
Just to add to my previous post....
A recurring theme we keep hearing from river tax supporters is that there is nothing for young people to do in Tulsa, or the perception that there is nothing to do so employers will not move here and "young professionals" will not stay here. Nothing to do? I would agree with this viewpoint only if we eliminate each and every one of the following existing Tulsa entertainment and cultural options:
1. Tulsa's great museums. The Philbrook, the Gilcrease, the Tulsa Historical Society, the new Tulsa Air & Space Museum, the Jazz Hall of Fame, and others. These institutions have vast collections and rotate their exhibits, as well as host touring exhibits of national importance. You could visit these museums 3-4 times a year for many years and never "see it all."
2. Tulsa commercial art galleries that showcase the wealth of local artistic talent, in all varieties of artistic media.
3. Tulsa movie theaters, especially the Circle Cinema, which provides Tulsans the opportunity to view thought-provoking films of social importance.
4. Tulsa live local theater companies such as Theater Tulsa, Heller, Nightingale, and others which give us live, local theater to suit most every taste.
5. The Tulsa Opera, 'nuff said.
6. The Tulsa Ballet, 'nuff said.
7. Tulsa pro/semi pro sports such as the Talons and Drillers.
8. Local clubs which showcase local/regional musicians. I do wish there were more piano bar/jazz clubs in Tulsa, but that will probably come with time. And local dance clubs too, with recorded music if that is your thing.
9. Locally owned, unique restaurants with great food, many of which also provide live music entertainment.
10. Organized adult sports leagues.
11. Organized youth sports leagues.
12. Local civic organizations such as Rotary, Jaycees, Lions, Shriners, etc. These groups proved educational, social, and charitable opportunities for their members.
13. The marvelous Tulsa City/County Library System, with its millions of print, video, and audio documents, available to any Tulsa County resident. Check out a book (remember those?) and read it once in a while.
14. The under-construction BOK Arena, which will bring even more entertainment options to us Tulsans.
15. Area gaming establishments with their gaming, dining, and entertainment options.
16. Church sponsored activities for youths and adults.
I am sure there are more I will think of after I post this. My point being that today's youth and Tulsa "young professionals" must have the attention span of a half millisecond if they cannot currently find enough venues to occupy their free time. Quality of life for me is not about some new river development, it is about mowing my lawn without fear of being pistol-whipped and robbed, it is about feeling safe in my own home, and it is about living in attractive, clean neighborhoods.
Our public funds should go to fixing existing infrastructure, hiring more police officers and paying them a salary befitting an occupation that requires them to put their life on the line daily, beefing up our city inspections and code enforcement department with about 50 more inspectors, keeping our existing roads and public rights of way clear of trash and well maintained, and maintaining and repairing our existing parks, recreation centers and public pools. These facilities were paid for with the tax dollars of my and older generations and have been allowed to degenerate to trash dumps and vandal magnets. What a waste.
Our regressive sales tax in Tulsa has already reached its limit. Vote NO on October 9th!
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
I am voting "NO" on this latest river tax plan for the following reasons:
1. I think Tulsa has much higher priority needs than river development for shopping/recreation. We have $650,000,000 and growing daily in street and bridge repair needs. We need about 100 additional police officers to combat growing crime. We need about 50 additional code enforcement inspectors to clean up and monitor trashy properties and make our city attractive and safe. We don't need more river dams and commercial shopping/dining centers by the river. If it is such a good economic thing, let the developers do it with their own private money or donations, and then let them reap the profits.
2. I hate sales taxes. Sales taxes are extremely regressive and hurt the lowest income classes the most. I vowed over 20 years ago, that until Oklahoma exempts basic groceries and clothing items, necessities of life, from sales taxes, that I would vote "NO" on ANY sales tax issue that comes up for a vote. I have remained true to that.
The "rebate" provisions in this river tax and other past taxes are ridiculous. They just add another layer of paperwork, and many won't apply because of the hassle or lack of understanding.
I would prefer that all local city/county sales taxes in Oklahoma be abolished and replaced with a fair, graduated city income tax. But I know that ain't gonna happen anytime soon, as long as our government officials are rich millionaires. Governments, federal & state, have spent the past 25 years cutting income taxes for the rich and shifting tax burden to the poor.
Just to add to my previous post....
A recurring theme we keep hearing from river tax supporters is that there is nothing for young people to do in Tulsa, or the perception that there is nothing to do so employers will not move here and "young professionals" will not stay here. Nothing to do? I would agree with this viewpoint only if we eliminate each and every one of the following existing Tulsa entertainment and cultural options:
1. Tulsa's great museums. The Philbrook, the Gilcrease, the Tulsa Historical Society, the new Tulsa Air & Space Museum, the Jazz Hall of Fame, and others. These institutions have vast collections and rotate their exhibits, as well as host touring exhibits of national importance. You could visit these museums 3-4 times a year for many years and never "see it all."
2. Tulsa commercial art galleries that showcase the wealth of local artistic talent, in all varieties of artistic media.
3. Tulsa movie theaters, especially the Circle Cinema, which provides Tulsans the opportunity to view thought-provoking films of social importance.
4. Tulsa live local theater companies such as Theater Tulsa, Heller, Nightingale, and others which give us live, local theater to suit most every taste.
5. The Tulsa Opera, 'nuff said.
6. The Tulsa Ballet, 'nuff said.
7. Tulsa pro/semi pro sports such as the Talons and Drillers.
8. Local clubs which showcase local/regional musicians. I do wish there were more piano bar/jazz clubs in Tulsa, but that will probably come with time. And local dance clubs too, with recorded music if that is your thing.
9. Locally owned, unique restaurants with great food, many of which also provide live music entertainment.
10. Organized adult sports leagues.
11. Organized youth sports leagues.
12. Local civic organizations such as Rotary, Jaycees, Lions, Shriners, etc. These groups proved educational, social, and charitable opportunities for their members.
13. The marvelous Tulsa City/County Library System, with its millions of print, video, and audio documents, available to any Tulsa County resident. Check out a book (remember those?) and read it once in a while.
14. The under-construction BOK Arena, which will bring even more entertainment options to us Tulsans.
15. Area gaming establishments with their gaming, dining, and entertainment options.
16. Church sponsored activities for youths and adults.
I am sure there are more I will think of after I post this. My point being that today's youth and Tulsa "young professionals" must have the attention span of a half millisecond if they cannot currently find enough venues to occupy their free time. Quality of life for me is not about some new river development, it is about mowing my lawn without fear of being pistol-whipped and robbed, it is about feeling safe in my own home, and it is about living in attractive, clean neighborhoods.
Our public funds should go to fixing existing infrastructure, hiring more police officers and paying them a salary befitting an occupation that requires them to put their life on the line daily, beefing up our city inspections and code enforcement department with about 50 more inspectors, keeping our existing roads and public rights of way clear of trash and well maintained, and maintaining and repairing our existing parks, recreation centers and public pools. These facilities were paid for with the tax dollars of my and older generations and have been allowed to degenerate to trash dumps and vandal magnets. What a waste.
Our regressive sales tax in Tulsa has already reached its limit. Vote NO on October 9th!
You could also add River Parks System to your original list of 16.
Already a popular attraction with joggers, bikers, roller-bladers, picnickers, strollers, fishermen, Illegal Aliens, the homeless, street people, etc.
[:D]
Yeah Steve, you painted a picture of a really boring, pathetic city. [;)]
Funny, I never seem to have a problem finding things to do around town.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
You could also add River Parks System to your list of 15.
Already a popular attraction with joggers, bikers, roller-bladers, picnickers, strollers, fishermen, etc.
Exactly. I thought of that while I was editing my list, but forgot to include it when I hit the post button.
Add to my list #17. The existing river parks system with its trails and amphitheater for outdoor entertainment. Not to mention the trail additions and enhancements that are already underway and not linked to the current river tax issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Yeah Steve, you painted a picture of a really boring, pathetic city. [;)]
Funny, I never seem to have a problem finding things to do around town.
Me neither. If people would just "pull their head out" and explore all the posibilities, they would find Tulsa is not so boring after all. I think Tulsa can stand proud against any other city in the United States when it comes to entertainment options, adjusting for our smaller population. Sure, we don't have a major pro sports francise, but I couldn't care less about that.
From a different angle, I don't want to see any more manmade structures or alterations to the Arkansas river. Let's just let it be a natural river as nature intended, as much as we can after the Keystone Dam construction. The pollution and odor problems are mostly from human activities, and can be addressed through proper enviornmental regulation.
And enough with the cutesy kids commercials on TV trying to guilt people into voting Yes on this. And the recent announcement that $5 million of private funds would go to local parks & pools? Don't bet on it. If the private donors think it a worthy cause, why don't they give the money to local pools with no strings attached?
And add to my list these:
#18, the newly organized Tulsa Symphony Orchestra. I have not attended one of their concerts myself, but have heard no negative comments and understand they are a worthy, proud artistic successor to the Tulsa Philharmonic.
#19, the PAC and their annual series of touring Broadway production shows. Not everyone's cup of tea, but a wonderful entertainment option for Tulsa citizens.
I think it boils down to a couple of questions.
Over all, good points and bad points, will this plan, have a negative impact or a postitive impact?
With the same amount of funds, would the city do something else, that would pass, that would have more impact?
(notice I didnt say "could the city do something else that would have more impact" the, "we can imagine or do better" game can be played forever, no plan will exist that wont "need obvious improvements". )
Some people dont want anything at all done with the river or want the current dams torn out and things returned to as close to natural as possible. Some want more development, bridges,more of the INCOG Master Plan etc. than what this plan offers. This tax is way too much,,, wouldnt mind paying even more than this tax would be. With both of these types of views, and other dichotomies, in play. There will be no plan that will not be resoundly disliked by some group.
It may not be as inspiring as a bigger project like the Channels or something. But it doesnt carry the high price tag either. There are winners and losers on the development side, park side, and the nature side of the debate. Seems to be a decent mix of public tax and private donation.
If there is a compromise or middle way it seems to me that this plan is fairly close.
While reading the debates on here it is painfully obvious that no matter which direction we go, if you lean more towards one persons point of view, it will only lead to another person on another side being all the more upset. There has not been one idea that someone has put forward that has not been shot down.
Over all, good points and bad points, will this plan, have a negative impact or a postitive impact?
With the same amount of funds, would the city do something else, that would pass, that would have more impact?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I think it boils down to a couple of questions.
Over all, good points and bad points, will this plan, have a negative impact or a postitive impact?
With the same amount of funds, would the city do something else, that would pass, that would have more impact?
(notice I didnt say "could the city do something else that would have more impact" the, "we can imagine or do better" game can be played forever, no plan will exist that wont "need obvious improvements". )
Some people dont want anything at all done with the river or want the current dams torn out and things returned to as close to natural as possible. Some want more development, bridges,more of the INCOG Master Plan etc. than what this plan offers. This tax is way too much,,, wouldnt mind paying even more than this tax would be. With both of these types of views, and other dichotomies, in play. There will be no plan that will not be resoundly disliked by some group.
It may not be as inspiring as a bigger project like the Channels or something. But it doesnt carry the high price tag either. There are winners and losers on the development side, park side, and the nature side of the debate. Seems to be a decent mix of public tax and private donation.
If there is a compromise or middle way it seems to me that this plan is fairly close.
While reading the debates on here it is painfully obvious that no matter which direction we go, if you lean more towards one persons point of view, it will only lead to another person on another side being all the more upset. There has not been one idea that someone has put forward that has not been shot down.
Over all, good points and bad points, will this plan, have a negative impact or a postitive impact?
With the same amount of funds, would the city do something else, that would pass, that would have more impact?
Easy. Tributary development. Crow Creek could probably be done(maybe Elm Creek, too) for a fraction of the cost of this river tax, that would surpass Bricktown or possibly even the San Antonio riverwalk. Those developments would be on a human scale that is more conducive to entertainment, restaurant and retail development like Bricktown or the (San Antonio) Riverwalk. More bang for less bucks.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I think it boils down to a couple of questions.
Over all, good points and bad points, will this plan, have a negative impact or a postitive impact?
With the same amount of funds, would the city do something else, that would pass, that would have more impact?
(notice I didnt say "could the city do something else that would have more impact" the, "we can imagine or do better" game can be played forever, no plan will exist that wont "need obvious improvements". )
Some people dont want anything at all done with the river or want the current dams torn out and things returned to as close to natural as possible. Some want more development, bridges,more of the INCOG Master Plan etc. than what this plan offers. This tax is way too much,,, wouldnt mind paying even more than this tax would be. With both of these types of views, and other dichotomies, in play. There will be no plan that will not be resoundly disliked by some group.
It may not be as inspiring as a bigger project like the Channels or something. But it doesnt carry the high price tag either. There are winners and losers on the development side, park side, and the nature side of the debate. Seems to be a decent mix of public tax and private donation.
If there is a compromise or middle way it seems to me that this plan is fairly close.
While reading the debates on here it is painfully obvious that no matter which direction we go, if you lean more towards one persons point of view, it will only lead to another person on another side being all the more upset. There has not been one idea that someone has put forward that has not been shot down.
Over all, good points and bad points, will this plan, have a negative impact or a postitive impact?
With the same amount of funds, would the city do something else, that would pass, that would have more impact?
Easy. Tributary development. Crow Creek could probably be done(maybe Elm Creek, too) for a fraction of the cost of this river tax, that would surpass Bricktown or possibly even the San Antonio riverwalk. Those developments would be on a human scale that is more conducive to entertainment, restaurant and retail development like Bricktown or the (San Antonio) Riverwalk. More bang for less bucks.
What makes you think it would cost less? May be a better idea, and is one I like very much, but I am not aware of any planning, cost estimates or feasibility studies. You're talking about many private land owners around the Creek that would fight it. Just don't understand how you can make such an unsupported statement.
I like that idea too. And was supportive of it the last time it was proposed and in the news. It wouldn't imo have as large a positive impact though. Not to mention, as we have discussed before, it would be harder to do than even the river plan. The last time such a proposal reared its head, even as just a trail, let alone anything with shops or buildings along it, the people in that neighborhood acted like they would fight against it to the death.
So you didnt really answer those two questions as I stated them.
Its not just a matter of thinking of an idea, its a matter of thinking of an idea that is likely to get done.
If I were tossing around $200 million in the City of Tulsa I'd start with the implementation of the 6th St Master Plan. That way you get your tributary development, you take care of a blighted area, and you encourage mixed-use development in an area that is ripe for walkable urban use.
My two cents . . .
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
What makes you think it would cost less? May be a better idea, and is one I like very much, but I am not aware of any planning, cost estimates or feasibility studies. You're talking about many private land owners around the Creek that would fight it. Just don't understand how you can make such an unsupported statement.
Just as there are still a whole lot of unsupported statements on what this river development will or won't be.
Granted, there's been far more studies done on the river than on tributaries at this time, but we aren't voting on tributary development at the moment.
Until we have a more cohesive and clear plan which is not under the gun due to a large donation needing to be spent from a charitable trust by a certain date, the tax money pool for the river development becomes nothing more than a slush fund from which the river authority could spend on any number of things they have or have not proposed up to this point, or may find they can't do any of the things promised due to environmental impact.
I know one of the parts you really like is the "living river" concept. How are you going to feel about being taxed on this if for some reason they determine it's nowhere close to feasible due to environmental issues, the actual cost is way over budget, or the same thing happens with this that happened with Zink Dam being too dangerous for the general public to use Zink Lake for boating?
I think it would be nice to know a lot of these things before authorizing money for it.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
What makes you think it would cost less? May be a better idea, and is one I like very much, but I am not aware of any planning, cost estimates or feasibility studies. You're talking about many private land owners around the Creek that would fight it. Just don't understand how you can make such an unsupported statement.
Just as there are still a whole lot of unsupported statements on what this river development will or won't be.
Granted, there's been far more studies done on the river than on tributaries at this time, but we aren't voting on tributary development at the moment.
Until we have a more cohesive and clear plan which is not under the gun due to a large donation needing to be spent from a charitable trust by a certain date, the tax money pool for the river development becomes nothing more than a slush fund from which the river authority could spend on any number of things they have or have not proposed up to this point, or may find they can't do any of the things promised due to environmental impact.
I know one of the parts you really like is the "living river" concept. How are you going to feel about being taxed on this if for some reason they determine it's nowhere close to feasible due to environmental issues, the actual cost is way over budget, or the same thing happens with this that happened with Zink Dam being too dangerous for the general public to use Zink Lake for boating?
I think it would be nice to know a lot of these things before authorizing money for it.
The living river is not creating new and untested engineering. The plan is straight forward as to the mechanics of it. Is it detailed so that I might know where it will meander, where the banks will be hardened and how much each element will cost? No. If we wait till everything is perfectly clear and detailed to such a degree, it will take years and still not satisfy those who simply don't want river development, don't want higher taxes or don't want the government involved. These are the extremes we work with. Those who plan large scale and don't feel it necessary or important to flesh out too many details vs. those who think small and want everything detailed to eliminate any chance of graft or sloppiness.
I sit in the middle and would like see the benefits of each approach, knowing neither will work by themselves. I have seen more details emerge and questions being answered from the yes camp. It seems to have had little impact on those opposed. Truth is, even if this plan used different financing, nothing short of 100% private funding will satisfy opponents who will then resort to arguments about the environment, taste, poor vs rich, ad nauseum.
And I disagree with you about the timing and the "rush". Time is important. Timing is everything. The window is closing on river development momentum and the same arguments keep resurfacing that were used in the 40's, 50's and 60's. The more time we wait, the more intractable the opposition, the more creative the arguments.
But whatever. Tulsa will survive this debacle and move on one way or the other.
Oh yeah. If they didn't proceed for one reason or another on the Living River portion, I would be pissed and do everything in my power to hold them to it or explain reasonably why they couldn't. Just like a business deal gone bad, there would be a price to pay. There are lots of plans, both governmental and private, that don't end up well (that isn't the Arena I had expected!) but like the song says..."you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find, you get what you need."
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
The living river is not creating new and untested engineering. The plan is straight forward as to the mechanics of it.
I remember when you explained the concept of wingdams to me, and it seemed very simple. That's why I don't understand the price tag. If that's all this is -- installing wingdams (with no moving parts -- just obstructions) to concentrate the channel in the center -- why does the "living river" cost nearly as much as four new low-water dams (with moving parts)?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I think it boils down to a couple of questions.
Over all, good points and bad points, will this plan, have a negative impact or a postitive impact?
With the same amount of funds, would the city do something else, that would pass, that would have more impact?
(notice I didnt say "could the city do something else that would have more impact" the, "we can imagine or do better" game can be played forever, no plan will exist that wont "need obvious improvements". )
Some people dont want anything at all done with the river or want the current dams torn out and things returned to as close to natural as possible. Some want more development, bridges,more of the INCOG Master Plan etc. than what this plan offers. This tax is way too much,,, wouldnt mind paying even more than this tax would be. With both of these types of views, and other dichotomies, in play. There will be no plan that will not be resoundly disliked by some group.
It may not be as inspiring as a bigger project like the Channels or something. But it doesnt carry the high price tag either. There are winners and losers on the development side, park side, and the nature side of the debate. Seems to be a decent mix of public tax and private donation.
If there is a compromise or middle way it seems to me that this plan is fairly close.
While reading the debates on here it is painfully obvious that no matter which direction we go, if you lean more towards one persons point of view, it will only lead to another person on another side being all the more upset. There has not been one idea that someone has put forward that has not been shot down.
Over all, good points and bad points, will this plan, have a negative impact or a postitive impact?
With the same amount of funds, would the city do something else, that would pass, that would have more impact?
Easy. Tributary development. Crow Creek could probably be done(maybe Elm Creek, too) for a fraction of the cost of this river tax, that would surpass Bricktown or possibly even the San Antonio riverwalk. Those developments would be on a human scale that is more conducive to entertainment, restaurant and retail development like Bricktown or the (San Antonio) Riverwalk. More bang for less bucks.
What makes you think it would cost less? May be a better idea, and is one I like very much, but I am not aware of any planning, cost estimates or feasibility studies. You're talking about many private land owners around the Creek that would fight it. Just don't understand how you can make such an unsupported statement.
How funny, you just can't see how I could make such an unsupported statement, yet you buy into all the unsupported statements made by the Kounty Kommissar Kaiser tax camp. Big credibility gap their don't you think?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
And I disagree with you about the timing and the "rush". Time is important. Timing is everything. The window is closing on river development momentum and the same arguments keep resurfacing that were used in the 40's, 50's and 60's. The more time we wait, the more intractable the opposition, the more creative the arguments.
But whatever. Tulsa will survive this debacle and move on one way or the other.
Oh yeah. If they didn't proceed for one reason or another on the Living River portion, I would be pissed and do everything in my power to hold them to it or explain reasonably why they couldn't. Just like a business deal gone bad, there would be a price to pay. There are lots of plans, both governmental and private, that don't end up well (that isn't the Arena I had expected!) but like the song says..."you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find, you get what you need."
What's going on here is we are being sold the sizzle without a very good look at what kind of steak we are getting.
Here's the problem with their approach as I see it: V-2025 was controversial and has been under the microscope ever since before it's passage, cost over-runs on the arena and the LWD issue have made it even more of a sore spot for people. Things happened which weren't forseen at the time the proposal was put together. The perception is a lack of accountability. Real or imagined, it's still IS the percepetion of many people in Tulsa County. Personally, other than the LWD issue, I'm reasonibly satisfied with the on-going results of V-2025 funded projects.
You and I have both worked in the realm of PR and advertising and know image and perception is everything when it comes to selling. This is no different. The image is already tarnished to a degree due to history. They have hurt themselves and could have brought on much more support in a year or two. I'm impatient too, I certainly want to see development on the river and I like the cursory details. I'm just not willing to step in a pile of dog crap to see it happen.
That is the reason people are demanding more details and some sort of guarantee or better defined wording on the ballot and it's legal resolution.
And good luck with "doing everything in your power" if they don't build the living river or it's un-usable for the public. I think you will find out how much the average citizen can be marginalized by government.
I am a big fan of George Kaiser who happens to be an angel of Tulsa.....someday, when he pasts Bill Gates on the 400 list, Tulsan's will be sorry they did not follow this kind person's lead.....
Here is some campaign letter from yesterday.....go vote yes.
"I thought you might like to hear a progress report on the river development vote (the nice thing about e-mail is that if you really don't want to hear, you can delete now; I'll wait): I think a lot of the confusion is being cleared up-
o This is not The Channels; it is the older, basic plan that has been studied for many years with hundreds of public meetings.
o There was never the intention that the small amount of money in Vision 2025 for dams ($5.6 million) would pay for them, only that it would pay for studies and perhaps help seed a federal grant that never came because of the greater need for Katrina recovery efforts; the remaining Vision 2025 money (and more than $12 million from other voter-approved sources) is being applied to this plan.
o There will be strong oversight of how the money is spent by both a citizen committee and the foundations, individuals and businesses who are putting up $117 million to improve the plan.
o There is a tax rebate for those over 65 (I promise not to take mine) and those with family income below about $50,000.
o This will be largely a pay as you go arrangement, saving lots of interest, because several of the projects will take a couple of years to gain approval and the tax can accumulate and earn interest.
o The main thing the public project does is put water in the river at all times, with eleven miles of lakes and improved access, including street and sidewalk improvements leading to the river and pedestrian bridges across it. The private supplement builds parks, playgrounds, wilderness and fitness areas along the banks.
o And the real thing the river plan does is demonstrate to prospective employers and to our kids who are leaving town to find good jobs that Tulsans are serious about improving their city and making it more livable.
Almost no one seems opposed to the plan itself but the vote will be close because many people will vote no for reasons unrelated to the proposal, such as...
o opposition to all taxes, even one of less than half a penny (or about ten cents per day for most people) for just seven years;
o belief that other needs are more urgent, like road repair; There is clearly a high priority need for this purpose but it will be separately funded under a plan that is just now being developed. We need to do both.
o concern in one city that every dollar they pay doesn't come back to them in projects within their city limits and that those dollars could otherwise be taxed locally. But more than 50% of their residents work in the city of Tulsa and use its facilities which were largely paid for without cost to them;
o concern in one area of the city about a wholly unrelated issue that they want to protest about by rejecting this plan, which they acknowledge is sound.
If you have questions that I have not clarified here (or if you don't like my answers), please take a look at the FAQ section of the website, OurRiverYes.com at http://www.ourriveryes.com/overview/q&a/ and any other material online that takes an opposing view.
I hope, after you have done all of your own research, looking at the advice of the pro and con people, that you will conclude, as I have, that this is critically important for Tulsa and will vote YES. This may be our last shot for a long, long time to pull ourselves out of the economic drift we are in. And maybe, also, you could help explain the plan, as you see it, to your friends and neighbors.
Thanks for listening.
George"
quote:
What makes you think it would cost less? May be a better idea, and is one I like very much, but I am not aware of any planning, cost estimates or feasibility studies. You're talking about many private land owners around the Creek that would fight it. Just don't understand how you can make such an unsupported statement.
How funny, you just can't see how I could make such an unsupported statement, yet you buy into all the unsupported statements made by the Kounty Kommissar Kaiser tax camp. Big credibility gap their don't you think?
[/quote]
If you find something that I buy into that is unsupported by the facts then assail me on it like I have done to you. Deferring my remarks by saying I'm making the same mistake as you, means you just don't want to admit you made a rash statement.
There are no feasibility studies that show the cost of developing Crow Creek that I know of. If you have them, then compare the two plans.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
And I disagree with you about the timing and the "rush". Time is important. Timing is everything. The window is closing on river development momentum and the same arguments keep resurfacing that were used in the 40's, 50's and 60's. The more time we wait, the more intractable the opposition, the more creative the arguments.
But whatever. Tulsa will survive this debacle and move on one way or the other.
Oh yeah. If they didn't proceed for one reason or another on the Living River portion, I would be pissed and do everything in my power to hold them to it or explain reasonably why they couldn't. Just like a business deal gone bad, there would be a price to pay. There are lots of plans, both governmental and private, that don't end up well (that isn't the Arena I had expected!) but like the song says..."you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find, you get what you need."
What's going on here is we are being sold the sizzle without a very good look at what kind of steak we are getting.
Here's the problem with their approach as I see it: V-2025 was controversial and has been under the microscope ever since before it's passage, cost over-runs on the arena and the LWD issue have made it even more of a sore spot for people. Things happened which weren't forseen at the time the proposal was put together. The perception is a lack of accountability. Real or imagined, it's still IS the percepetion of many people in Tulsa County. Personally, other than the LWD issue, I'm reasonibly satisfied with the on-going results of V-2025 funded projects.
You and I have both worked in the realm of PR and advertising and know image and perception is everything when it comes to selling. This is no different. The image is already tarnished to a degree due to history. They have hurt themselves and could have brought on much more support in a year or two. I'm impatient too, I certainly want to see development on the river and I like the cursory details. I'm just not willing to step in a pile of dog crap to see it happen.
That is the reason people are demanding more details and some sort of guarantee or better defined wording on the ballot and it's legal resolution.
And good luck with "doing everything in your power" if they don't build the living river or it's un-usable for the public. I think you will find out how much the average citizen can be marginalized by government.
When the Kaiser plan was introduced, I made some of those same points. I wrote here that the public perceived that they had no voice in v-2025, The Channels, Annexation, River development planning, Bell's and for that matter, anything else. I presented it simply as a case of low Credibility and Trust that sprang from perceived arrogance by politicians and planners. I naively thought someone in local politics might read those words and take them to heart. No, they listen to their sycophants and their campaign ad agencies. That's why the kids in commercials.
That lack of trust and credibility still remains a stumbling block to passage. But it is important to remember that perception is not reality in the real world, only in the made up world of politics, pr and advertising. I mean, an abandoned oil drilling site is still nasty. Once you get close to one you realize that the ad campaign talking about how good old time oil drillers were and how responsible they are to clean up their mess some 50years later is all bunk. They want your perception to change.
This isn't a perfect plan and the details would overwhelm the average voter. So they rely on their credibility and their trust. Even though the efforts by the most credible experts in the area are being relied on, the average No person refuses to give them credibility.
Even though no one has given any details that the players involved may have their own interests at heart, there is no trust. I guess I could laugh it off and say ala the presidio, "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE DETAILS!!" , but I can't.
We could wait two more years and the plan would probably change and require more details and allow opposition to become even more intractable. Maybe my standards have lowered. I just want us to start on something to give this city a shot in the arm. My wife is currently visiting Minneappolis and is stunned by the comparison. She calls Tulsa, "bumpkinville". Arrrgh!
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
I am a big fan of George Kaiser who happens to be an angel of Tulsa.....someday, when he pasts Bill Gates on the 400 list, Tulsan's will be sorry they did not follow this kind person's lead.....
Here is some campaign letter from yesterday.....go vote yes.
"I thought you might like to hear a progress report on the river development vote (the nice thing about e-mail is that if you really don't want to hear, you can delete now; I'll wait): I think a lot of the confusion is being cleared up-
o This is not The Channels; it is the older, basic plan that has been studied for many years with hundreds of public meetings.
This plan is how old?
Just exactly how many years studied?
And of couse HUNDREDS of meetings? How many?
We should all start drinking heavily....LOL
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
The living river is not creating new and untested engineering. The plan is straight forward as to the mechanics of it.
I remember when you explained the concept of wingdams to me, and it seemed very simple. That's why I don't understand the price tag. If that's all this is -- installing wingdams (with no moving parts -- just obstructions) to concentrate the channel in the center -- why does the "living river" cost nearly as much as four new low-water dams (with moving parts)?
I can think of a few reasons. I would offer this analogy. Building the wing dams are simple enough, kind of like buying a two year old basic Ford Taurus. But when you go to finance the Taurus you find that for a few dollars more per month you could buy a brand new Crown Victoria. And if you extend the payments a little longer you can get end up with the Vick at the same payment as the older Taurus. The Vick is easier to drive, holds it value better and fits your self perception. The typical Tulsa attitude seems to be, if you're going to go to this much trouble you might as well do it up right and do it all at once rather than incrementally. There is something to be said for that. The same reasons the Arena is Iconic instead of a bread box design.
Now, I can't judge whether the reasoning is sound. Presumably, the payback is greater. Certainly, the flash of the pedestrian bridges, gathering areas, hardened banks and environmental/ecological/wildlife features have raised the cost but they also increased the attractiveness and usefulness.
Lastly, the living river continues for several planned miles rather than just being a static lake. During that run it has to be manipulated and coerced to use its stored energy to good measure.
Originally posted by waterboy
The living river is not creating new and untested engineering. The plan is straight forward as to the mechanics of it.
-------------------------------------
Are the same engineers that designed the never fail dikes at New Orleans the same ones who are designing those Dams and bank protection on the Arkansas River?
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Originally posted by waterboy
The living river is not creating new and untested engineering. The plan is straight forward as to the mechanics of it.
-------------------------------------
Are the same engineers that designed the never fail dikes at New Orleans the same ones who are designing those Dams and bank protection on the Arkansas River?
Are the engineers who designed the space shuttle Challenger the same ones who are designing commercial airliners? How would I know, why would it matter? Interesting that you would choose one of the Corps perceived failures rather than one of their many successes. One could ask, "are these the same engineers that built the Keystone Dam?".
This is not redesigning the levees in Tulsa. This is not building dams to stop flooding. Its not new and untested principles and practices. And they are not being designed and built by the Corps of Engineers who warned the government many years in advance of potential failure btw. Any change to the river has to prove that it will not adversely affect flooding potential.
Waterboy:
Not wanting to disillusion you in your young career but when the Oklahoma 45 entered into Berlin by the Audubon, on each side sat airplanes with holes in the noses on the fuselages. They queried among themselves as to why the didn't make motors while they were at it.
The truth was that a 18 year old German had terrorized England with the flying buz-bombs and the V2 Rockets. The planes along the Audubon were Jet airplanes that need the fuel from Russia (2nd largest world reserve)or the Mid-East we are after now.
This is a long way around but the same fellow was brought to America whether by choice of not, but was under guard until he died. He designed the rockets that propelled us into space and was able to advance the commercial jet you speak of.
Added: Although Gates is the most powerful man alive today he will possibly not be among the 400. By his past gift in computers, with the pushing a button he could throw the entire world into turmoil .
We will answer your post on the meandering Arkansas later.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Originally posted by waterboy
The living river is not creating new and untested engineering. The plan is straight forward as to the mechanics of it.
-------------------------------------
Are the same engineers that designed the never fail dikes at New Orleans the same ones who are designing those Dams and bank protection on the Arkansas River?
NOPE
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Waterboy:
Not wanting to disillusion you in your young career but when the Oklahoma 45 entered into Berlin by the Audubon, on each side sat airplanes with holes in the noses on the fuselages. They queried among themselves as to why the didn't make motors while they were at it.
The truth was that a 18 year old German had terrorized England with the flying buz-bombs and the V2 Rockets. The planes along the Audubon were Jet airplanes that need the fuel from Russia (2nd largest world reserve)or the Mid-East we are after now.
This is a long way around but the same fellow was brought to America whether by choice of not, but was under guard until he died. He designed the rockets that propelled us into space and was able to advance the commercial jet you speak of.
Added: Although Gates is the most powerful man alive today he will possibly not be among the 400. By his past gift in computers, with the pushing a button he could throw the entire world into turmoil .
We will answer your post on the meandering Arkansas later.
"We"?? Just as I thought, you don't think for yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
Two questions:
2. Would one of the River Tax proponents cite several example cities where development of a physical feature attracted a verifiable increase in 'young professionals'?
I can only give you anecdotes. There aren't studies out there showing a direct causal link between improved recreational infrastructure and attraction of young professionals, so I can only give you examples I am aware of where certain cities have proved more attractive to young people based on physical features. The two that immediately come to mind from my expereince are:
Austin--Town Lake
Chicago--Lake Michigan lake front
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Waterboy:
Not wanting to disillusion you in your young career but when the Oklahoma 45 entered into Berlin by the Audubon, on each side sat airplanes with holes in the noses on the fuselages. They queried among themselves as to why the didn't make motors while they were at it.
The truth was that a 18 year old German had terrorized England with the flying buz-bombs and the V2 Rockets. The planes along the Audubon were Jet airplanes that need the fuel from Russia (2nd largest world reserve)or the Mid-East we are after now.
This is a long way around but the same fellow was brought to America whether by choice of not, but was under guard until he died. He designed the rockets that propelled us into space and was able to advance the commercial jet you speak of.
Added: Although Gates is the most powerful man alive today he will possibly not be among the 400. By his past gift in computers, with the pushing a button he could throw the entire world into turmoil .
We will answer your post on the meandering Arkansas later.
"We"?? Just as I thought, you don't think for yourself.
the voices
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
What makes you think it would cost less? May be a better idea, and is one I like very much, but I am not aware of any planning, cost estimates or feasibility studies. You're talking about many private land owners around the Creek that would fight it. Just don't understand how you can make such an unsupported statement.
How funny, you just can't see how I could make such an unsupported statement, yet you buy into all the unsupported statements made by the Kounty Kommissar Kaiser tax camp. Big credibility gap their don't you think?
If you find something that I buy into that is unsupported by the facts then assail me on it like I have done to you. Deferring my remarks by saying I'm making the same mistake as you, means you just don't want to admit you made a rash statement.
There are no feasibility studies that show the cost of developing Crow Creek that I know of. If you have them, then compare the two plans.
[/quote]
I haven't located a study on Crow Creek(I haven't looked very hard), but a quick look at the Pearl Plan(which was studied and developed over the course of years, not months) for Elm Creek put estimated costs at $20 million in 2005. I'll just go ahead and add a generous inflationary increase to bump that up to 35 million. Based on those estimates, and the extra work involved to expose Elm Creek it only stands to reason that Crow Creek development would be less. By my estimates we could have two Bricktowns(Crow Creek, the Pearl) for roughly the same price included in this tax package just for land acquisition. Based on this, I think 282 million would more than cover the costs of the type of successful human scale widespread tributary development tax package you supported in this thread. (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7299&SearchTerms=crow,creek%22)
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
What makes you think it would cost less? May be a better idea, and is one I like very much, but I am not aware of any planning, cost estimates or feasibility studies. You're talking about many private land owners around the Creek that would fight it. Just don't understand how you can make such an unsupported statement.
How funny, you just can't see how I could make such an unsupported statement, yet you buy into all the unsupported statements made by the Kounty Kommissar Kaiser tax camp. Big credibility gap their don't you think?
If you find something that I buy into that is unsupported by the facts then assail me on it like I have done to you. Deferring my remarks by saying I'm making the same mistake as you, means you just don't want to admit you made a rash statement.
There are no feasibility studies that show the cost of developing Crow Creek that I know of. If you have them, then compare the two plans.
I haven't located a study on Crow Creek(I haven't looked very hard), but a quick look at the Pearl Plan(which was studied and developed over the course of years, not months) for Elm Creek put estimated costs at $20 million in 2005. I'll just go ahead and add a generous inflationary increase to bump that up to 35 million. Based on those estimates, and the extra work involved to expose Elm Creek it only stands to reason that Crow Creek development would be less. By my estimates we could have two Bricktowns(Crow Creek, the Pearl) for roughly the same price included in this tax package just for land acquisition. Based on this, I think 282 million would more than cover the costs of the type of successful human scale widespread tributary development tax package you supported in this thread. (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7299&SearchTerms=crow,creek%22)
[/quote]
I would suggest you look at the average price of the homes around Crow Creek vs Elm up by the Pearl. That makes a huge difference in cost. Then look at the density of lawyers who live along Crow Creek. Its a costly plan even if you could persuade them to participate.
I didn't say I don't like the idea.
Waterboy; in response to persons has no knowledge of the Arkansas river.
The Arkansas basin was carved out by the glacier that came down in the ice age, which a part it now exist under the volcanic ash in the ice caves in NM. The settlement was left in the river basin in the central part of US. From where it starts with the snow melts in North Colorado, on the east side of the Rockies it is a clear water stream until it reaches the Royal Gorge where it is tapped by 12 irrigation districts that irrigates some 100,000 acreages as it meanders across Kansas. When it enters Okla it is contaminated with the settlement left by the ice age. Einstein's son came up with the theory if the river banks were hardened (concreted) and narrowed then the water would be deeper and flow faster thus it would eliminate the buildup of settlement. (This worked with control flow but it also raised the water level in floods)
The river in Tulsa has a average flow drop of less than one foot per mile. If the banks are concreted then we would have a flood of greater depths than the flood of 1923 that flooded about 4,000 homes. Where would we store the water?
In 1927 the flood in SE Kansas recorded rainfall flooding of 750,000 cfs (This is 2.5 times the flood release in Tulsa in '86). It created a wall of water up to 10 feet deep.
The dust bowl years ('33-'37) caused the river to dry up as the irrigation canals drained the water. Since we have opened the navigation channel which requires water releases from Gibson, Oologah, Eufaula or Keystone to operate the locks. It is a juggling act by the Corps to move the water to the locks when navigation is underway.
The cementing of the banks and the lack of capacity of the Keystone increases the flood danger to the city. The low water dams will create only an obstruction for the low fall of the river.
The Kayakers reported on Zink lake on Monday, sitting in their boats, seems to have been waiting for the Corps to release some water for their Wednesday Kayaking.
Due to the fact that predicting where the rain will fall and the amount is not an exact science, the restricting of the river is not a proven engineering feat. In the past it seems that the figures available show the Keystone will hold in flood stages 1 ½ inches of rainfall over the entire basin. Even with conditions available in '86, much of the water was out of its banks without any additional restrictions in the river.
As the climatic changes increase, due to possibly the world warming and the changing paths of the severe tropical storms, being a thousand miles down stream; to change in anyway the nature of the river in consideration of wet seasons through dry seasons, would and could be very foolish.
The river isn't broken. It is like nature planned, to carry off the excess rainfall when call upon to do so.
To attempt to tax so many for the pleasure of so few, while placing so many in harms way, should never be considered as the American way or dream.
Congratulations on finding Wikipedia. Its not always correct. The banks of the Arkansas have not been cemented. In fact there is very little hardening of the banks along the entire 42 miles of river. If you are referring to the levees, they are made of compacted sand occassionally hardened with rip rap.
I never said you knew nothing of the river. But you are definitely stretching with these remarks. If we are in such danger, then we should consider building a second Keystone Dam at Chandler park pdq.
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
Two questions:
2. Would one of the River Tax proponents cite several example cities where development of a physical feature attracted a verifiable increase in 'young professionals'?
I can only give you anecdotes. There aren't studies out there showing a direct causal link between improved recreational infrastructure and attraction of young professionals, so I can only give you examples I am aware of where certain cities have proved more attractive to young people based on physical features. The two that immediately come to mind from my expereince are:
Austin--Town Lake
Chicago--Lake Michigan lake front
1. Even if the Arkansas River is developed, it will still pale in comparison to the physical features of those and other cities that are 'cool' places to live. To those on the outside, a fixed up Arkansas River is still a muddy ditch compared to the Lake Michigan waterfront.
2. I don't think physical features in isolation are what attracts young professionals. It is physical features plus a combination of other factors - many of which Tulsa does not have and probably will never have.
Austin is the state capital of the 2nd most populated state; has a major research university; many high-tech corporations headquartered or located there; Barton Springs/hill country/chain of reservoirs on the Colorado river, etc..
Chicago is a large international city. It is home to many corporations; financial center; many private and public universities; a huge arts scene; museums; a Great Lake.
3. The class of people that can be called young and professional is relatively small compared to the rest of the population, even in cities with a higher percentage of YPs. Why build this with such a small group in mind?
4. Which brings me to my last point. The River Tax should be a project for Tulsans, not prospective Tulsans. It should encompass the entire county and not just one segment. $100M would build the dams and and create the living river. The remaining $188M could be spent on parks and beautification projects for the entire county.
A few examples:
* Someone on another thread mentioned the drab I-244 corridor. It would not take much to plant more trees and bushes, landscape, and beautify a few bridges along that stretch.
* On another thread, The Artist posted an awesome rendition of his idea for a park square in front of Holy Family Cathedral. This would be a great project to include.
* Land in the Tulsa County suburbs is being quickly eaten up with development. Buying a large chunk of land for a future regional park would be a good idea to do now before it is too expensive.
These could be done all around the metro and still have the basic river infrastructure started.
Any county wide sales tax increase needs to be just as much for 21st & Garnet as 21st & Utica.
A muddy ditch eh? What a visionary. Well we could keep giving examples and I bet they would never measure up for you till we plant trees on 244, fix the roads and pretty up the parks. Not going to happen.
Well here's another to shoot down. Trinity River in Ft. Worth. Similar size city, similar river. The nearby university is having to expand, very likely because people want to be on a campus so near the high profile development. I would ask you to find a similar investment in river development in a similar city that failed to bring results.
NOTE: The whole city, in fact the whole region, reaps benefit from development in any quandrant of the city. If we were building it JUST for Tulsans I would agree with you but we aren't and we shouldn't. Shifting money around from one quadrant to another is a loser idea. This brings in regional and out of state money. Do you have any idea why we are celebrating a state centennial in such a big way? It is to bring in $$ from all over the country, not just from our state. If we are attractive to young professionals, students, empty nesters, so much the better. We want these people because they are at the peak buying stage of their lives. They have more disposable income than any other stage of life until retirement. They are buying first cars, first homes, new lawn mowers, baby equipment and on and on. They are the life blood of a community. The rest of us whimper about bad roads, not enough park land, and school systems.[;)]
Thanks for the correction about Tarrant Cty. community college. I think you would be naive to think there isn't other land available for the college. They want a downtown presence but they could get that on less expensive land locations than near a river development.[;)]
Reread your post. You described the river in a perjorative way, a muddy ditch. That perception is yours, not what people from other areas would necessarily say. Beauty is relative and not concrete. I love the unending prairie in Iowa, the flat desert outside of Phoenix and the stark beauty of the Arkansas river on a snowy day in the winter. Others do not. I have friends in Minneapolis who don't see the mighty Mississippi as anything but a mighty headache. When I visited Galveston beach the first time it was a dirty, algae infested, trashy tourist trap. New Orleans was often described the same way.
It is simple. If you like things the way they are here in Tulsa, vote for no change. The roads won't get any better, there won't be any more parks and the trees will be planted by volunteer organizations if at all. No one votes for more taxes for those things. It will come from increased gasoline taxes or an entirely new tax of some kind or no improvements at all. The city is bigger but the budgets have not grown because the tax base keeps moving farther out, while using the same city infrastructure. Your choice.
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
Thanks for the correction about Tarrant Cty. community college. I think you would be naive to think there isn't other land available for the college. They want a downtown presence but they could get that on less expensive land locations than near a river development.
But acquiring 38 acres plus an option for 17 more can be a little tough. [;)]
Reread your post. You described the river in a perjorative way, a muddy ditch. That perception is yours, not what people from other areas would necessarily say.
But I am sure most of the young and professional from the outside would describe it that way - after all they are YPs.
It is simple. If you like things the way they are here in Tulsa, vote for no change.
That's kind of an all or nothing attitude - your way is the best and if no one likes it you will take your ball and go home.
Voting no does not necessarily imply one likes the way things are.
Why are you so sure what YP's from out of town would think? You have some data or just expressing your feelings?
What does voting no imply? Oh, yeah, you determined that maybe it was just a bad plan. Perhaps you could share your wisdom about how it could be a good plan rather than just poke holes in 60years worth of planning? Here is what it implies, yet another failed river development plan means that nothing happens and we go back to complaining about stuff with no real plan to change things. The roads won't get fixed, the parks continue to decay and crime rises. It's the money Twizz. The city grew, the finances didn't keep up. Daddy didn't come through with more cash.
I'm sorry if I seem terse, your remarks are less than persuasive. You want more money put into parks, trees on the expressway and stuff for East Tulsa. Well put together a package (don't do it with sales tax though) and go hog wild. Cause nobody else will. Or just swaddle yourself into the vast cynicism of the naysayer crowd. It's quite comfy over there.
You have no examples of failed river development plans in other similar cities and you ignore the impact of an investment of a half billion dollars on the community. You state that most chamber members are not retail which may be true but is irrelevant. You think businessmen are only interested in sales tax ramifications? You think that if it had such a dramatic negative effect as Councilor Eagleton has stated that they wouldn't jump to oppose it? Of course they would. But they haven't. All of those members will be impacted by the growth of the community whether they pay sales taxes or not. You have yet to disprove my assertion that as a whole the business community is supportive of any plan to get this city moving forward. Especially if $120 million comes in as a donation.
BTW, I don't do point by point. Its usually unproductive and merely reflects an attitude of "yes it does! No it doesn't!" types of repartee. Not interested.
Works for you too. Though I would also recommend a good Shiraz.
What shakes me up are unfounded, unproved, and indefensible remarks made as though they are proven fact. People make decisions off of those remarks. if I can't prove or substantiate my remarks I retract them or adjust them. Bumper sticker phrases help no one.
QuoteOriginally posted by waterboy
Congratulations on finding Wikipedia. Its not always correct. The banks of the Arkansas have not been cemented. In fact there is very little hardening of the banks along the entire 42 miles of river. If you are referring to the levees, they are made of compacted sand occassionally hardened with rip rap.
I never said you knew nothing of the river. But you are definitely stretching with these remarks. If we are in such danger, then we should consider building a second Keystone Dam at Chandler park.
---------------------------------------
Didn't have to look it up because I been there and saw it. Try reading the post before criticizing.
It still is natures open sewer and there is no way to clean or control the water.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
QuoteOriginally posted by waterboy
Congratulations on finding Wikipedia. Its not always correct. The banks of the Arkansas have not been cemented. In fact there is very little hardening of the banks along the entire 42 miles of river. If you are referring to the levees, they are made of compacted sand occassionally hardened with rip rap.
I never said you knew nothing of the river. But you are definitely stretching with these remarks. If we are in such danger, then we should consider building a second Keystone Dam at Chandler park.
---------------------------------------
Didn't have to look it up because I been there and saw it. Try reading the post before criticizing.
It still is natures open sewer and there is no way to clean or control the water.
You are wrong on all counts. I read the post, thats why I responded. I stand by my response. Just because you see things, doesn't mean you understand what you see. BTW, what is the main pollutant in the river, Shadow, and where does it come from?
We manage and control nature every day. Sometimes we forget to respect nature's power and pay a price but that doesn't mean you just give up.