With the River Tax vote just about a week away, here's the opportunity to stick your neck out on the line and predict the final outcome.
56% no
44% yes
I was originally thinking "63% No to 37% Yes" but given the huge amount of advertising and fact that the undecided voter are lampooned as being the biggest idiots and most easily swayed, I'm thinking the Yes side will get even more. Heck, they could say that we need to pass the river tax "because of 9/11" and they could win...
I'm gonna say:
53% No
46% Yes
51% no
49% yes
Yes side will demand a recount....LOL
I've got a feeling that "Yes" people will be lazy like they are in every elections, and that "No" people will come out in droves.
65% No
35% Yes
The signs in the yards are misleading.....What it says in the yard and what happens in the booth are two diffrent things......69% (no) to 31%....
52% NAY
48% YESSIR
We were talking about this at work last week before a meeting started. There were 17 people in the room. Of those only 3 said they were going to vote yes.
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
We were talking about this at work last week before a meeting started. There were 17 people in the room. Of those only 3 said they were going to vote yes.
Interesting....where do you work, or what type of business?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
We were talking about this at work last week before a meeting started. There were 17 people in the room. Of those only 3 said they were going to vote yes.
Interesting....where do you work, or what type of business?
Healthcare
54% yes and 46% no.
53% Yes
47% No
60% 40% The winners will not be Celebrating on Kaiser's porch. Nor will Cinnabar be invited.
[}:)]
I am pretty sure that Diebold machines from Ohio and hanging chad ballots from Florida will be used.
I think it will be 99% yes and 1% no (just for appearance sake).
Funny thing about Kenosha (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7638%22) being sure it will pass. Kinda makes me wonder how many absentee ballots have been requested for this election.
So far swake and JNE are the only two who think it will pass. I wonder how many are picking their side to lose.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
So far swake and JNE are the only two who think it will pass. I wonder how many are picking their side to lose.
The "no" vote is angry and noisy and is shouting down dissent and calling anyone who would disagree with them stupid. It makes the noise level in the vote seem like a certain defeat. But, in driving around most of the "no" signs are in rights of way likely placed by this group of angry "no" voters. That would also sound bad for the "yes" side, but, most signs actually in yards are "yes", by far. The only place I have seen around where this is flipped is in Broken Arrow.
I like to look at what's going on this board as an indicator. The "no" posts have to out number the "yes" by a two or three to one margin. I think in fact that this board is more strongly "no" overall than the general public and yet the latest poll of board members has a 54% to 46% percent margin in favor, so I went with that. But I wouldn't be shocked by an even stronger "yes" vote.
And the completely factless panic attacks from the "no" side, like stupid voter fraud allegations from Double A is telling as well.
Cheapest SOB in Tulsa just got behind the river tax.
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/1007/459975.html
They should call it the Kaiser Tax as he will be picking up most of the bill. I'm a bit skeptical about the spending discretions, but we are only being asked to scrape out some pocket lint. This is the best chance we have to move on the river.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
The "no" vote is angry and noisy and is shouting down dissent and calling anyone who would disagree with them stupid.
I think the YESSIRS are as angry as the NAYSAYERS. The YESSIRS just use pastels.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by swake
The "no" vote is angry and noisy and is shouting down dissent and calling anyone who would disagree with them stupid.
I think the YESSIRS are as angry as the NAYSAYERS. The YESSIRS just use pastels.
That's as inaccurate as most everything else on the no side. The "no" votes are literally frothing at the mouth. It's really weird this much anger on something as innocuous as river improvements on such a small tax.
If you don't believe me then go read the posts on here, and if that doesn't convince you go read the comments on the Tulsa World site. It's downright shocking.
And what is the "pastels" comment supposed to mean?
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
So far swake and JNE are the only two who think it will pass. I wonder how many are picking their side to lose.
I'm personally voting "Yes", but I'm pretty skeptical about the general public, which is my reason for saying the vote will not end positively.
I predict a strong yes vote in the urban areas, and a heavy no vote in the north and the suburbs with the burbs barely losing 51/49. I don't think the burbs will show at the polls. They won't have the time.
Anyone want to hazard a guess on the total votes cast? I'm thinking less than 50,000.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
QuoteBLAH BLAH BLAH
The YESSIRS are as likely to demonize NAYSAYERS as backward, do-nothing, stupid pooper sticks in the mud as the N's are to portray Y's as happy go lucky rock and roller big spenders. The Y's are angry that they live in a podunk backwater of cultural stagnancy and are determined to do anything they can to beat that rap. The Y signs are in pastels, Oz, which do not look as angry as the N signs.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by swake
QuoteBLAH BLAH BLAH
The YESSIRS are as likely to demonize NAYSAYERS as backward, do-nothing, stupid pooper sticks in the mud as the N's are to portray Y's as happy go lucky rock and roller big spenders. The Y's are angry that they live in a podunk backwater of cultural stagnancy and are determined to do anything they can to beat that rap. The Y signs are in pastels, Oz, which do not look as angry as the N signs.
61% Yes 49% No
I appreciate the opinion of those opposed, but I've really only heard from a couple that had concrete well thought out reasons not to approve it and only one of those gave Pro's and Con's. Michael Bates article in UTW had some great points, but I wish he had given a more balanced opinion.
I'm a yes, my neighbors are all yes and my friends and family are for it.
Vote Yes!
I predict there are no channel supporters. Therefore, it fails. %51 no, %49 yes.
Get out the TULSA vote and keep those BA and Owasso voters from showing up.....I still wonder if the Jenks voter really wants competition for Riverwalk which is hugely successful.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by swake
QuoteBLAH BLAH BLAH
The YESSIRS are as likely to demonize NAYSAYERS as backward, do-nothing, stupid pooper sticks in the mud as the N's are to portray Y's as happy go lucky rock and roller big spenders. The Y's are angry that they live in a podunk backwater of cultural stagnancy and are determined to do anything they can to beat that rap. The Y signs are in pastels, Oz, which do not look as angry as the N signs.
61% Yes 49% No
I appreciate the opinion of those opposed, but I've really only heard from a couple that had concrete well thought out reasons not to approve it and only one of those gave Pro's and Con's. Michael Bates article in UTW had some great points, but I wish he had given a more balanced opinion.
I'm a yes, my neighbors are all yes and my friends and family are for it.
C'mon, you live in Riverview. You guys supported the Channels. The absentee ballots cast should be quite interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
61% Yes 49% No
That is 110 per cent.
Outside of the math portion of your comments, I agree with you.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
61% Yes 49% No
That is 110 per cent.
Outside of the math portion of your comments, I agree with you.
Geez, Rm, your such a stickler for math.
Here's my prediction--all those in favor of the vote will predict it wins; all those opposed to it will predict it loses. I bet my prediction is the closest[:D].
I reserve the right to reguesstimate just in case we see another bribe come out in the media.....surely there's more to come. A land swap in BA for votes?
The turnout will be the key.
The "no" folk are pretty good at getting to the polls. I guess "agin" is just stronger than "fer" as a passion.
The county library vote a couple of years back had a low turnout (32,000 voters) and failed badly losing two to one.
Vision 2025 was a big turnout (128,000) voters and passed 60 to 40 percent.
The turnout will be the key. If it is good weather and everybody gets reminded to vote, the thing will pass. If not, I predict it will fail.
I think the "no" side will get about 35,000 to the polls next Tuesday. If the yes side wants to win, they will need to get their folk out.
Under 70,000 voters, no wins. Over 70,000 voters, yes wins.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
So far swake and JNE are the only two who think it will pass. I wonder how many are picking their side to lose.
The "no" vote is angry and noisy and is shouting down dissent and calling anyone who would disagree with them stupid. It makes the noise level in the vote seem like a certain defeat. But, in driving around most of the "no" signs are in rights of way likely placed by this group of angry "no" voters. That would also sound bad for the "yes" side, but, most signs actually in yards are "yes", by far. The only place I have seen around where this is flipped is in Broken Arrow.
I like to look at what's going on this board as an indicator. The "no" posts have to out number the "yes" by a two or three to one margin. I think in fact that this board is more strongly "no" overall than the general public and yet the latest poll of board members has a 54% to 46% percent margin in favor, so I went with that. But I wouldn't be shocked by an even stronger "yes" vote.
And the completely factless panic attacks from the "no" side, like stupid voter fraud allegations from Double A is telling as well.
All we get is vague generalities, but the kool-aid drinkers will still vote for it. It will pass. We will pay for it for the rest of our lives.
Ok, now reality:
There are currently 7 miles of "developable" area along the river. Each with a yield of approximately 290,000 to 580,000 square feet of land depending on the parcel.
If this land was opened to developers, they would be responsible for making infrastructure improvements. The city could set up a Tax Incentive Financing districts and pay for the streets, boardwalks and dams. No tax payer money is necessary. They know this, but it takes control of the money out of their hands.
The only reason to ask for a sales tax increase is to provide for other city projects that have nothing to do with the development. Tulsa has done this for longer than I've been alive. But like I said before, it will pass and we will pay. We will see progress, but it will be five times as expensive as it should be and slower than if Tulsa just let the developers in. In another two years they will ask for another half-penny and then another.
Thats why we all develop in Jenks, Bixby, and Broken Arrow now.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
61% Yes 49% No
That is 110 per cent.
Outside of the math portion of your comments, I agree with you.
That'd be the "vote early and vote often" percentage.
My opinion is that if voter turnout is low, it just may pass, say 55-45.
If voter turnout is high, I think it will go down in a landslide defeat, 70-30. At least that is what I am hoping.
quote:
Originally posted by jne
Cheapest SOB in Tulsa just got behind the river tax.
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/1007/459975.html
cheapest SOB? That RINO has never seen a plan he didnt like. he would have jumped on the IVI bridge had it not been for the fact that his constituents would have ousted his donkey. Christiansen personifies the cartel behind the yes movement.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
61% Yes 49% No
That is 110 per cent.
Outside of the math portion of your comments, I agree with you.
actually no he has his math right. That's about how many ballots the yes side will stuff in.
let's just put it this way....no matter what the true will of the people is...the vote HAS to pass if you catch my drift. The pro river cartel has sunk in 1.3mill of their money that will simply go down the tubes for nothing if it fails. arms will be twisted and voting officials will go on "breaks" and the final outcome will be the biggest foisting of the public's will you have ever seen. hell, Krazy Kathy already has experience in this, I'm sure her Midtownie cronies have been practicing the voter two step too.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
The turnout will be the key.
The "no" folk are pretty good at getting to the polls. I guess "agin" is just stronger than "fer" as a passion.
The county library vote a couple of years back had a low turnout (32,000 voters) and failed badly losing two to one.
Vision 2025 was a big turnout (128,000) voters and passed 60 to 40 percent.
The turnout will be the key. If it is good weather and everybody gets reminded to vote, the thing will pass. If not, I predict it will fail.
I think the "no" side will get about 35,000 to the polls next Tuesday. If the yes side wants to win, they will need to get their folk out.
Under 70,000 voters, no wins. Over 70,000 voters, yes wins.
Yep, weather will play a big role in whether it passes or not.
Originally posted by inteller.
quote:
actually no he has his math right. That's about how many ballots the yes side will stuff in.
let's just put it this way....no matter what the true will of the people is...the vote HAS to pass if you catch my drift. The pro river cartel has sunk in 1.3mill of their money that will simply go down the tubes for nothing if it fails. arms will be twisted and voting officials will go on "breaks" and the final outcome will be the biggest foisting of the public's will you have ever seen. hell, Krazy Kathy already has experience in this, I'm sure her Midtownie cronies have been practicing the voter two step too.
Funny you should make this post.... I heard from a friend that works in the building that the current joke around the "Vote Yes" headquarters.... Goes something like this....
"Attention the following is an Official Announcement"
Everyone voting yes on the ballots should be told to cast their vote October 9th...
Everyone voting no... We have reserved the casting of their ballots for October the 10th.
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by jne
Cheapest SOB in Tulsa just got behind the river tax.
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/1007/459975.html
cheapest SOB? That RINO has never seen a plan he didnt like. he would have jumped on the IVI bridge had it not been for the fact that his constituents would have ousted his donkey. Christiansen personifies the cartel behind the yes movement.
Tulsa citizen, Jenks businessman. He'd look like a total donkey to Jenks if he didn't get behind it. Jenks stands to gain quite a bit while being one of the least contributors to the sales tax pool which will fund river development.
Originally posted by Conan71.
quote:
Jenks stands to gain quite a bit while being one of the least contributors to the sales tax pool which will fund river development.[/end quote]
Jenks and the Developments on the horizon for that area will stand to gain about 75%
Sand Springs.... That I feel is more deserving will gain approx. 24%
And yes you guessed it... Tulsa and the Tulsa Metro Chamber will get the other 1%..imho
In the time in between here and there....
We are going to attempt to build up Downtown from the bottom up..
We will help to build this most costly and lavish development in Jenks and draw it towards the urban core of the City...
Just for the hell of it we will throw in a few token items starting at 31st street... use those as bait.
The end result being we will start at the suburbs...
Make that the catalyst for drawing people Downtown...
We are going to experience a sales tax Bonanza..!
We will have such an influx of YP's wanting to find a "low crime, good educational system" here in Tulsa...
the Realtors and employers will have them stacked up 5 wide and 2 deep..!
In case you can't tell... I attended my first TYPro's meeting last night and things have never been clearer in my whole life.... yahoo..!
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Originally posted by Conan71.quote:
Jenks stands to gain quite a bit while being one of the least contributors to the sales tax pool which will fund river development.[/end quote]
Jenks and the Developments on the horizon for that area will stand to gain about 75%
Sand Springs.... That I feel is more deserving will gain approx. 24%
And yes you guessed it... Tulsa and the Tulsa Metro Chamber will get the other 1%..imho
In the time in between here and there....
We are going to attempt to build up Downtown from the bottom up..
We will help to build this most costly and lavish development in Jenks and draw it towards the urban core of the City...
Just for the hell of it we will throw in a few token items starting at 31st street... use those as bait.
The end result being we will start at the suburbs...
Make that the catalyst for drawing people Downtown...
We are going to experience a sales tax Bonanza..!
We will have such an influx of YP's wanting to find a "low crime, good educational system" here in Tulsa...
the Realtors and employers will have them stacked up 5 wide and 2 deep..!
In case you can't tell... I attended my first TYPro's meeting last night and things have never been clearer in my whole life.... yahoo..!
This is nonsense, and you know it. This plan isn't for Jenks.
Jenks already has river development and a lot more on the way with or without the passage of the tax.
Lynn Mitchell of The River District says that his project will go forward no matter what happens with the vote and Riverwalk Phase II is under construction now.
Rick Huffman of Tulsa Landing says that he doesn't see how his project can happen without the tax.
Jenks is already putting in a massive $230 million in TIFF money into the river district. If the vote fails for Jenks to find another $20 million as matching funds for the south dam to go with the 2025 money and money from the Creek Nation would not be hard. It's just a 8% increase in the TIFF amount. Jenks has river development now and is going to get more and will get a dam with or without this tax.
But if it fails, Tulsa gets what it already has, which is no development. Maybe the feds will appropriate some money in five or ten years. Maybe not. Do you think spotting Jenks another five years lead in river development is a good idea for Tulsa? Really? The Aquarium is a hit and is expanding, Riverwalk Phase I is very popular, phase II is under construction and The River District is slated to start construction in the first quarter of '08.
No swake it is not nonsense...
Are you saying that the benefits are not tipped towards the southern portion of the River..?
I never said that Jenks does not have "River Development" well in hand.
This vote will create the most immediate impact on the areas that have River Development underway..
Your suburb of Jenks has that.
I believe Sharon King Davis was one of the pioneers, so to speak, for just that.... true?
What I did say... This Tax will benefit Tulsa the least...
Any Development along the East Bank will be confined to Park Improvements...
The West Bank... Once the land is purchased and then the ink is dry.. will see Development at a rate no greater than what the Developers could do on their own.
barring no long drawn out TMAPC...PUD....hearings.
You have traveled at least once across the 21st Street Bridge... What all will have to change for this to have any short term impact on Tulsa or Development.
Take a City Tax on the City of Tulsa at whatever rate they say will work...
Concentrate on land acquisition on the West Bank and Downtown.
Let Jenks do just what you say will be no problem...
More power to you.
But don't say it's nonsense and try and keep a straight face.
Swake,
Why do we need to count on cheap dryvit construction from Huffman anyway? If he doesn't have the cash to buy the concrete plant, I bet there are other developer's who aren't looking for corporate welfare who could.
You are making the best argument for why we DON'T need this tax right now, especially as a county-wide initiative.
Jenks will happen with or without, 11th to 21st west bank can happen with or without. Do we really need a 41st St. ped. bridge?
I think Jenks will have the most difficult problem with stagnant water if they do not have the Sand Springs component. The Jenks area is already the major concern for environmentalists with this new river plan. If there is one dam that should be left out, if that choice had to be made, it would be the Jenks dam imo. But again, if it is the only dam that gets built, and they do it, they can work out the difficulties themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
No swake it is not nonsense...
Are you saying that the benefits are not tipped towards the southern portion of the River..?
I never said that Jenks does not have "River Development" well in hand.
This vote will create the most immediate impact on the areas that have River Development underway..
Your suburb of Jenks has that.
I believe Sharon King Davis was one of the pioneers, so to speak, for just that.... true?
What I did say... This Tax will benefit Tulsa the least...
Any Development along the East Bank will be confined to Park Improvements...
The West Bank... Once the land is purchased and then the ink is dry.. will see Development at a rate no greater than what the Developers could do on their own.
barring no long drawn out TMAPC...PUD....hearings.
You have traveled at least once across the 21st Street Bridge... What all will have to change for this to have any short term impact on Tulsa or Development.
Take a City Tax on the City of Tulsa at whatever rate they say will work...
Concentrate on land acquisition on the West Bank and Downtown.
Let Jenks do just what you say will be no problem...
More power to you.
But don't say it's nonsense and try and keep a straight face.
It IS nonsense.
The south dam, all $25 million of it, is the only part of the whole plan that even is close to Jenks. Only about 1/3 of the shoreline of that impoundment will be in Jenks and ALL of the land in Jenks is already developed or being developed no matter the result of the vote. The dam will improve the existing and planned developments, but that's it, there will be NO new development in Jenks due to passage.
1/3 ($90+ million) of the total cost of the project is the "living river" concept which is entirely in Tulsa, plus another $25 to fix the Zink dam and $50 million for land acquisition in Tulsa on the west bank. That is for NEW development. Tulsa should also look into developing part of the land at 71st. These would be NEW developments due to the tax. Tulsa could also develop the river south of the new Kum and Go at 101st. Tulsa will have more than eighteen miles of newly improved shoreline that could be developed and will have deed to a few dozen acre of prime land on the west bank. Jenks will have 1.5 miles of shoreline, all of it already developed.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Swake,
Why do we need to count on cheap dryvit construction from Huffman anyway? If he doesn't have the cash to buy the concrete plant, I bet there are other developer's who aren't looking for corporate welfare who could.
You are making the best argument for why we DON'T need this tax right now, especially as a county-wide initiative.
Jenks will happen with or without, 11th to 21st west bank can happen with or without. Do we really need a 41st St. ped. bridge?
Actually Conan, if Huffman was a signed and sealed part of the vote, I might be against the tax. I don't want his expanse of discount chain stores and stucco. I think we can and will get another better developer, or at least will be able to force him to upgrade a lot to be the winning bidder for the west bank.
The reason the tax is needed for the west bank is the cost of land. The cost of already industrially developed land on the west bank is about $50 million and a TIFF can't be used to purchase land for development. The cost of the land for The River District was I think two or three million dollars, the land for Riverwalk was about the same. The land cost is in the order of 20 times the cost of land in Jenks or Bixby. If we want development on the west bank, that cost gap has to be closed.
And, corporate welfare? All the potential developers are going to want some sort of "welfare", The River District is NOT tax free, again, a $230 million TIF. You just can't use a TIFF to buy the land.
Swake, your points are understood about the corporate welfare comment, and how other major developments have been/are subsidized in some way with tifs or other means.
I still don't see why the county needs the exclusivity to buy the concrete plant and secondly, I'm curious as to who is silently benefitting off that deal? Last I knew Hardesty owned the dirt, but others have told me that when he sold the concrete business, the dirt went with it. Was that a part of the land options the Warrens had secretly signed options on or just Westport?
FWIW, John Piercey referred to Westport as one of the most viable apartment complexes in the city. So why anyone would knock that down is beyond me. It's the only living available on the west riverbank in Tulsa.
If nothing else, that could artificially inflate the price of the property if the county flips the land to a developer.
My point is, they either could have left the land purchase out of this tax and cut the collection period by about 1.25 years, or flip it and pay for LWD's out of the proceeds as I've already mentioned.
Lastly, there's no guarantee we won't wind up with a crappy Huffman development. I shudder to think the county would sponsor a slap-dash development. We deserve much better than Branson Landing- IMO Branson is one of the tackier places I've been.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Swake, your points are understood about the corporate welfare comment, and how other major developments have been/are subsidized in some way with tifs or other means.
I still don't see why the county needs the exclusivity to buy the concrete plant and secondly, I'm curious as to who is silently benefitting off that deal? Last I knew Hardesty owned the dirt, but others have told me that when he sold the concrete business, the dirt went with it. Was that a part of the land options the Warrens had secretly signed options on or just Westport?
FWIW, John Piercey referred to Westport as one of the most viable apartment complexes in the city. So why anyone would knock that down is beyond me. It's the only living available on the west riverbank in Tulsa.
If nothing else, that could artificially inflate the price of the property if the county flips the land to a developer.
My point is, they either could have left the land purchase out of this tax and cut the collection period by about 1.25 years, or flip it and pay for LWD's out of the proceeds as I've already mentioned.
Lastly, there's no guarantee we won't wind up with a crappy Huffman development. I shudder to think the county would sponsor a slap-dash development. We deserve much better than Branson Landing- IMO Branson is one of the tackier places I've been.
Interesting conversation. Let me interject that it has also been written here that the options purchased in anticipation of the Channels have lapsed. I think they were a 12 month option. So unless they were re-negotiated, there is no skulduggery there. Would an option be made public? I also understood from hearsay that the concrete plant was sold, not the land. That may even have been printed in our local rag. Would be nice to have a concrete answer to that.
Also of some note is that a purchase price was negotiated for the apartments, so that set the bar as far as buying them. But wouldn't it just be the buildings anyway? I thought the land was longterm leased from RPA.
What a tangled web.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Swake, your points are understood about the corporate welfare comment, and how other major developments have been/are subsidized in some way with tifs or other means.
I still don't see why the county needs the exclusivity to buy the concrete plant and secondly, I'm curious as to who is silently benefitting off that deal? Last I knew Hardesty owned the dirt, but others have told me that when he sold the concrete business, the dirt went with it. Was that a part of the land options the Warrens had secretly signed options on or just Westport?
FWIW, John Piercey referred to Westport as one of the most viable apartment complexes in the city. So why anyone would knock that down is beyond me. It's the only living available on the west riverbank in Tulsa.
If nothing else, that could artificially inflate the price of the property if the county flips the land to a developer.
My point is, they either could have left the land purchase out of this tax and cut the collection period by about 1.25 years, or flip it and pay for LWD's out of the proceeds as I've already mentioned.
Lastly, there's no guarantee we won't wind up with a crappy Huffman development. I shudder to think the county would sponsor a slap-dash development. We deserve much better than Branson Landing- IMO Branson is one of the tackier places I've been.
My preference would be to use the Riverwest Festival Park and the industrial properties for development and leave Westport alone. The Tulsa Housing Authority complex there is not in good repair and could also be used for development, maybe with the guarantee of a like number of new low income housing units be included in the overall plan?
Breaking up the THA "ghetto" would also go a long way to improving that part of town, and making a good percentage of the project be for low income people could also go a long way to change the perception of a "playground for the rich" only.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
The reason the tax is needed for the west bank is the cost of land. The cost of already industrially developed land on the west bank is about $50 million and a TIFF can't be used to purchase land for development.
Actually, you can. I checked, and the Oklahoma Local Development Act explicitly authorizes the acquisition of land as part of a TIF -- Title 62, Section 854 (//%22http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=436799%22)
The Village is using a TIF to acquire land for their town center redevelopment project (//%22http://www.thevillageok.org/pdf/eNews/eNews%2011-06.pdf%22) (see page 3 of the linked PDF).
quote:
BUDGET OF ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS TO BE FINANCED BY TAXES APPORTIONED FROM INCREMENT DISTRICT NO.1, CITY OF THE VILLAGE:
The Project Costs will be financed by the apportionment of ad valorem tax increments from Increment District No.1, City of The Village.
The categories are:
(Note: This does not increase taxes or levy any new tax on property owners or residents)
* Land Acquisition and Development Financing Assistance: $7,500,000
* Public Infrastructure and Facilities Improvements and expansion, including library, streets, buildings, water system, sewer, landscaping, streetscaping, green belt, street lighting, utility relocation, signage, park, pathways, and walkways: $7,035,000
* Project preparation, approval, implementation, and administration (including planning, consulting, legal, and engineering costs): $465,000
* Total Project Costs: $15,000,000, Plus financing costs, costs of issuance, necessary or appropriate reserves, and interest on repayment of Project Costs.
Note that The Village only using the ad valorem increment and leaving the sales tax alone.
For the River District, Jenks is using the ad valorem increment and the increment on one cent of the three cent city sales tax (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070906_1_A1_spanc30362%22), which means that two-thirds of the sales tax increment will flow into the city's coffers.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by swake
QuoteBLAH BLAH BLAH
The YESSIRS are as likely to demonize NAYSAYERS as backward, do-nothing, stupid pooper sticks in the mud as the N's are to portray Y's as happy go lucky rock and roller big spenders. The Y's are angry that they live in a podunk backwater of cultural stagnancy and are determined to do anything they can to beat that rap. The Y signs are in pastels, Oz, which do not look as angry as the N signs.
61% Yes 49% No
I appreciate the opinion of those opposed, but I've really only heard from a couple that had concrete well thought out reasons not to approve it and only one of those gave Pro's and Con's. Michael Bates article in UTW had some great points, but I wish he had given a more balanced opinion.
I'm a yes, my neighbors are all yes and my friends and family are for it.
C'mon, you live in Riverview. You guys supported the Channels. The absentee ballots cast should be quite interesting.
BS AA, I was never a supporter of the Channels. I'll go back to those threads and prove it.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by swake
QuoteBLAH BLAH BLAH
The YESSIRS are as likely to demonize NAYSAYERS as backward, do-nothing, stupid pooper sticks in the mud as the N's are to portray Y's as happy go lucky rock and roller big spenders. The Y's are angry that they live in a podunk backwater of cultural stagnancy and are determined to do anything they can to beat that rap. The Y signs are in pastels, Oz, which do not look as angry as the N signs.
61% Yes 49% No
I appreciate the opinion of those opposed, but I've really only heard from a couple that had concrete well thought out reasons not to approve it and only one of those gave Pro's and Con's. Michael Bates article in UTW had some great points, but I wish he had given a more balanced opinion.
I'm a yes, my neighbors are all yes and my friends and family are for it.
C'mon, you live in Riverview. You guys supported the Channels. The absentee ballots cast should be quite interesting.
BS AA, I was never a supporter of the Channels. I'll go back to those threads and prove it.
Riverview did.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I was originally thinking "63% No to 37% Yes" but given the huge amount of advertising and fact that the undecided voter are lampooned as being the biggest idiots and most easily swayed, I'm thinking the Yes side will get even more. Heck, they could say that we need to pass the river tax "because of 9/11" and they could win...
I'm gonna say:
53% No
46% Yes
Looks like I rocked this one..
Is it too late to say:
53% No
47% Yes
I thought on one of the threads, I'd predicted 53% to 47% but I can't find it at the moment. I notice the Tulsa World made it sound a little closer, 52.5% to 47.5%. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
52% NAY
48% YESSIR
KOTV (//%22http://kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=137634%22) sez 52/48 . . .