Councilor Turner reported on the radio today that an unknown representative from the Bank of Oklahoma informed his office that - because of North Tulsans' opposition to the river tax - Pine/Peoria will not receive promised beautification projects.
Does anyone believe that is true? Can BOK sue him for those statements?
Beautification of Pine and Peoria is the least of North Tulsa's problems. Let's talk about sub-prime loans being made to North Tulsans that could easily qualify for standard fixed rate loans. That's a huge problem in North Tulsa that borders on criminal behavior by lenders. Turner, let's talk about something that matters.
Uh, there was a tit-for-tat in Roscoe's support of a southie project. That's why he's pissed. He gave his support, now they've jerked him around. The south Tulsa project wasn't related to the river.
These conditional philanthropists are really starting to piss me and a lot of other people off.
I'm curious how many north Tulsan's are closing accounts at BOK after this week. I'm not advocating a boycot, but I can see how they would be developing a serious ire for the BOKF.
HT - selling products to people that are not the best fit is not criminal. I qualified for a ridiculous mortgage and when I bought a car the dealer wanted to up sell me, I passed on both. Other folks can do the same.
If they lie about the terms or mislead then yes, it is criminal. And selling poorly fit products is unfortunate, but the axiom "buyer beware" exited long before sub-prime loans were popular.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Can BOK sue him for those statements?
BOK can sue if they can prove Turner made the statements knowing they were false or in reckless disregard for their truth.
In other words, probably not.
Heck I had been thinking of doing some sort of art project for North Tulsa but after Turners glee at saying there was nothing in the river plan for North Tulsa and it wouldnt help them. If thats the way they want to think, so be it. I figure why help north Tulsa if there is nothing in it for me. Donors have given tens of millions if not hundreds of millions to projects, healthcare facilities, childhood development, schools, etc. etc. There were specific Vision 2025 projects, tiff areas, beautification efforts for North Tulsa, more than they could afford on their own. Then they scream the want more, that helping the river wont help them. Well perhaps continuing to help them wont help me.
North Tulsans boycotting BOK? I dont think BOK will sweat losing those "huge" sums. They cant even generate enough income and traffic, or entreprenurial spirit, to open a grocery store. Heck the mexicans have several around town.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
HT - selling products to people that are not the best fit is not criminal. I qualified for a ridiculous mortgage and when I bought a car the dealer wanted to up sell me, I passed on both. Other folks can do the same.
If they lie about the terms or mislead then yes, it is criminal. And selling poorly fit products is unfortunate, but the axiom "buyer beware" exited long before sub-prime loans were popular.
It's called predatory lending and there has been a lot of talk about reining it in. We are talking about Lenders that look for unsophisticated borrowers and then lead them into a subprime loan even though they could qualify for a standard fixed rate loan because the lender makes more money on a subprime. Tulsa has an unusually high number of subprime loans on the books in both its White and Black communities. These Tulsans are paying much more interest every month than they had to for the life of the loan. I've said it before, Tulsa's leading industry is sheering the sheep.
Now, no one is going to do North Tulsa any favors. They never have. Tulsans will do something for North Tulsa when they see personal gain in doing so. Like all the investor groups buying and stockpiling homes in North Tulsa because that's the only place left to develop in Tulsa County.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Councilor Turner reported on the radio today that an unknown representative from the Bank of Oklahoma informed his office that - because of North Tulsans' opposition to the river tax - Pine/Peoria will not receive promised beautification projects.
Does anyone believe that is true? Can BOK sue him for those statements?
Rosco Turner - Drama Queen
That's where competition comes in. If those people are qualified for better loans, surely someone will offer them a better rate to get their business. God bless capitalism.
What's more, predatory lending is a two part game. The lender who knows he is not delivering the best product and the borrower who knows he can not afford the mortgage he is getting. Neither aspect is illegal, though both are unfortunate.
A law require the best product for situation is worthless. It will result in lenders have yet another piece of paper signed in the mortgage folder and nothing more. OR... it will ban certain types of loans and the "working poor" will simply go without home ownership.
Is there no responsibility for the people taking these mortgages? Or are all of the "working poor" so stupid that they need the government to protect them from buying more than they can afford? At what income level do people become intelligent?
Actually, I heard the Turner sound bite on the radio coming back from lunch. The clip on the radio said nothing about BOK, just "a bank".
My "mole" is telling me it had to do with getting the F & M bank at 71st & Harvard approved against much neighborhood uproar.
Sounds like Davis or Lorton might be who Roscoe is PO'd at.
They talked about that F&M thing, too, but the conversation on the northside thing was in reference to BOK.
Also. Artist. Do you want to a) retract your statement b) explain how it is not racist c) change your handle here and try again?
Personally, I think they need to quit lampooning north-siders and listen a little harder.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Uh, there was a tit-for-tat in Roscoe's support of a southie project. That's why he's pissed. He gave his support, now they've jerked him around. The south Tulsa project wasn't related to the river.
These conditional philanthropists are really starting to piss me and a lot of other people off.
I'm curious how many north Tulsan's are closing accounts at BOK after this week. I'm not advocating a boycot, but I can see how they would be developing a serious ire for the BOKF.
You're starting to concern me with all the conditional philanthropy talk. You seem to think Zink's help on the river was unconditional too. Any evidence of that? He ended up chairman of the RPA board at least.
I assert there is no such thing as unconditional. You expect way too much from hard nosed businesspeople.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Uh, there was a tit-for-tat in Roscoe's support of a southie project. That's why he's pissed. He gave his support, now they've jerked him around. The south Tulsa project wasn't related to the river.
These conditional philanthropists are really starting to piss me and a lot of other people off.
I'm curious how many north Tulsan's are closing accounts at BOK after this week. I'm not advocating a boycot, but I can see how they would be developing a serious ire for the BOKF.
You're starting to concern me with all the conditional philanthropy talk. You seem to think Zink's help on the river was unconditional too. Any evidence of that? He ended up chairman of the RPA board at least.
I assert there is no such thing as unconditional. You expect way too much from hard nosed businesspeople.
What was
one more board appointment to Mr. Zink?
Jack Zink and his father did a lot more things quietly for a many good causes over the years that a lot of people are not aware of. Anonymous giving, if you will.
Zink didn't make his contribution to the river contingent on a tax package financed by all citizens of the county, and he didn't back up and move his money elsewhere. That was one of the best examples of a public/private partnership in city history.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Uh, there was a tit-for-tat in Roscoe's support of a southie project. That's why he's pissed. He gave his support, now they've jerked him around. The south Tulsa project wasn't related to the river.
These conditional philanthropists are really starting to piss me and a lot of other people off.
I'm curious how many north Tulsan's are closing accounts at BOK after this week. I'm not advocating a boycot, but I can see how they would be developing a serious ire for the BOKF.
You're starting to concern me with all the conditional philanthropy talk. You seem to think Zink's help on the river was unconditional too. Any evidence of that? He ended up chairman of the RPA board at least.
I assert there is no such thing as unconditional. You expect way too much from hard nosed businesspeople.
What was one more board appointment to Mr. Zink?
Jack Zink and his father did a lot more things quietly for a many good causes over the years that a lot of people are not aware of. Anonymous giving, if you will.
Zink didn't make his contribution to the river contingent on a tax package financed by all citizens of the county, and he didn't back up and move his money elsewhere. That was one of the best examples of a public/private partnership in city history.
and he is only one of MANY generous rich men with BALLS that donated without conditions. before the current crop of cronies Tulsa had good philanthropists.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Uh, there was a tit-for-tat in Roscoe's support of a southie project. That's why he's pissed. He gave his support, now they've jerked him around. The south Tulsa project wasn't related to the river.
These conditional philanthropists are really starting to piss me and a lot of other people off.
I'm curious how many north Tulsan's are closing accounts at BOK after this week. I'm not advocating a boycot, but I can see how they would be developing a serious ire for the BOKF.
You're starting to concern me with all the conditional philanthropy talk. You seem to think Zink's help on the river was unconditional too. Any evidence of that? He ended up chairman of the RPA board at least.
I assert there is no such thing as unconditional. You expect way too much from hard nosed businesspeople.
What was one more board appointment to Mr. Zink?
Jack Zink and his father did a lot more things quietly for a many good causes over the years that a lot of people are not aware of. Anonymous giving, if you will.
Zink didn't make his contribution to the river contingent on a tax package financed by all citizens of the county, and he didn't back up and move his money elsewhere. That was one of the best examples of a public/private partnership in city history.
and he is only one of MANY generous rich men with BALLS that donated without conditions. before the current crop of cronies Tulsa had good philanthropists.
You are so full of bs. At least Conan makes some sense and tries to communicate like a reasonable person would. Take your obsession with balls and go play pocket billiards somewhere.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Uh, there was a tit-for-tat in Roscoe's support of a southie project. That's why he's pissed. He gave his support, now they've jerked him around. The south Tulsa project wasn't related to the river.
These conditional philanthropists are really starting to piss me and a lot of other people off.
I'm curious how many north Tulsan's are closing accounts at BOK after this week. I'm not advocating a boycot, but I can see how they would be developing a serious ire for the BOKF.
You're starting to concern me with all the conditional philanthropy talk. You seem to think Zink's help on the river was unconditional too. Any evidence of that? He ended up chairman of the RPA board at least.
I assert there is no such thing as unconditional. You expect way too much from hard nosed businesspeople.
What was one more board appointment to Mr. Zink?
Jack Zink and his father did a lot more things quietly for a many good causes over the years that a lot of people are not aware of. Anonymous giving, if you will.
Zink didn't make his contribution to the river contingent on a tax package financed by all citizens of the county, and he didn't back up and move his money elsewhere. That was one of the best examples of a public/private partnership in city history.
A couple things come to mind Conan. First, I'm not sure you want to call that the best example of public/private partnership in city history. The public voted down that plan for a dam. As they had many times before. Inhofe maneuvered the parties into position and pretty well slammed it down the city's throat. It all happened rather fast and the public input was nil. I met Jack Zink on several occasions and I liked him very much but he wasn't a slow witted businessman. Do you know for sure that there were no conditions to his contribution? None? Chairman of the RPA was a plum spot and he deserved it.
Second, many people do anonymous giving but that doesn't preclude that it has no conditions.
Third, try to understand why the government matches funding for such things as a dam. They want to make sure there is a strong committment by a community before just passing along sums of money that may be squandered. It is more likely to be a successful venture if the community has a stake in it. Well, foundations and philanthropists are the same way. Put some money down and we'll finish it off for you. You make it sound like he's a scrooge.
Lastly, what would happen with the money should he have just donated it and said you folks use it to do the river however you want. No leverage that's what. It would have been eaten up in studies, lawsuits, etc. and the taxpayers would not have passed any money to go with it. Why should they? Give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish.
I think he did the right thing.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
and he is only one of MANY generous rich men with BALLS that donated without conditions. before the current crop of cronies Tulsa had good philanthropists.
Inteller,
If you acted like this on the street, you'd be arrested for aggressive panhandling. Your last statement is ignorant, and I feel like educating you on this point.
Every foundation has "conditions"; they all have missions. They don't just hand out money to anybody that calls them up, "Hello, is the the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation? Where can I get my free Camaro?"
Asking for matching money is normal business practice with grants. It's akin to forming a business partnership. It's even like a bank asking you to put up equity funds in order to get a loan. It gets rid of the bullsh*tters.
You are trashing a guy for being a smart businessman. I thought you conservatives appreciated that sort of thing? Anyways, good luck with that free Trans Am or whatever.
Banks don't loan money, they collateralize it.
The same is becoming true for philantropy.
It's the same mentality which thinks development can no longer occur unless the public kicks in.
Business people aren't stupid, but the public hasn't convinced me yet. Business at least thinks that if it can be done that way, why not? It only improves the return on investment, when it really isn't needed.
Just watch, we've already had three of the the three major proposed river developments suggest they may have a way to proceed without public money.
Like they never thought of it before.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
They talked about that F&M thing, too, but the conversation on the northside thing was in reference to BOK.
Also. Artist. Do you want to a) retract your statement b) explain how it is not racist c) change your handle here and try again?
In order to explain "how it is not racist". I would be interested to hear how you thought it was?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
That's where competition comes in. If those people are qualified for better loans, surely someone will offer them a better rate to get their business. God bless capitalism.
What's more, predatory lending is a two part game. The lender who knows he is not delivering the best product and the borrower who knows he can not afford the mortgage he is getting. Neither aspect is illegal, though both are unfortunate.
A law require the best product for situation is worthless. It will result in lenders have yet another piece of paper signed in the mortgage folder and nothing more. OR... it will ban certain types of loans and the "working poor" will simply go without home ownership.
Is there no responsibility for the people taking these mortgages? Or are all of the "working poor" so stupid that they need the government to protect them from buying more than they can afford? At what income level do people become intelligent?
You know, I'm a firm believer that "stupidity should never be rewarded," but why do you insist the "working poor" be as intelligent as you are? I don't assume they're as intelligent as I am... yet I've made my fair share of financial mistakes over a few decades, mostly back when I was first in Chicago being a "young bohemian" and too busy working to realize I was getting price gouged for every small mistake or error in judgement...
A single mother works for 40+ hours per week while at the same time trying to raise her kid/kids... who has the time/patience to read all the indiscernable, lawyeristic fine print in the "Terms & Conditions?" What happens if this person finally gets a lease/purchase on a home but then the toilet breaks... or the plumbing in the shower screws up and there's hundreds of dollars in damage... god forbid any of her kids get sick and she has to be at home taking care of them... or find out she's "underinsured."
Enter, "Check-into-cash." It gives the hand-to-mouth, desperate working poor a really bad deal compared to what most other folks would get. Glorified loan shark... with the government there to protect the industry over the consumer...
A couple who BOTH work and are trying to raise kids start looking for loans on a new home... they're told that they qualify for a "special" loan... a few years later, after failing to completely understand the mounds of paperwork only an MBA could make heads-or-tails of... documents composed to confuse the masses.... then the couple watches as the thousands of dollars they saved up to close, the downpayment, $$$ to move, etc... all goes up in smoke.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17929461/
Of course, these people should show more restraint or more responsibility. But does the "punishment fit the crime?" In my opinion, it doesn't. If our CEO of Tulsa fails at her day job as mayor, will she be forced to work night shifts at McDonald's? I think not.
If you're late on your cable or cell phone bill, maybe you'll see a $5 late fee. Late on a utility bill?... well that is well regulated by the government... But try being late on a predatory credit card... It'll only cost you $30-plus if you're lucky... but add another $29 fee for being over your credit limit that was caused by the first $30 fee... then, you've dug yourself a hole...
And god forbid you try to get a "free credit score." Because they'll ask for your credit card number and tell you that this is for your "free month" of membership, but ask them if you could cancel that right now? Er, uh... then the slick salesmanship comes into play--no outsourcing of jobs at this point in the process... and they
assure you that you can call back and cancel before the end of the month... then you call back and someone who goes by the name "Susan" from Bangladesh has no clue what you are talking about, transfers your call three times, and by the end of it, your work break is over, so you'll have to try it again in a few days... then, an unexpected 29.95 shows up on your credit card bill, causing a $30 late fee, causing another $29 over the limit fee......... then you forget that this is the month you get hit for that 89.95 "annual membership fee." But wait, there's more, now how much would you pay?... turns out you also failed to notice the $7 per month that will show on your bill as an $84 "annual statement fee"???.... but at least you have the nice 9.9 APR offered on that card, right?...
"We're sorry, your late payments have forced us to bump the interest rate to 19.9 percent... have a nice day!" ...and now you've learned to no longer trust any credit card offer with your name on it, the one specially pre-screened just for you, SUCKER!... yeah, that's really swell...
There was a time when a $20 payment towards a high bill was a "sign of goodwill" to convince the billing people you were trying to pay... these days, credit card companies LOVE to see $20 per month and hate it when you pay your balance in full.
I think the high schools should be teaching their seniors some financial skills in what to look for, how to budget their money in modern world, and hands-on training at what to look for when tempted by predatory credit card companies... nobody's perfect... I remember lots of otherwise-intelligent college students running up high credit card bills... but they were never treated with the utter contempt the modern lending industry treats the working poor...
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Banks don't loan money, they collateralize it.
The same is becoming true for philantropy.
It's the same mentality which thinks development can no longer occur unless the public kicks in.
Business people aren't stupid, but the public hasn't convinced me yet. Business at least thinks that if it can be done that way, why not? It only improves the return on investment, when it really isn't needed.
Just watch, we've already had three of the the three major proposed river developments suggest they may have a way to proceed without public money.
Like they never thought of it before.
So, in your book a $117 million dollar donation is no longer a philonthropic act?[}:)]
Pardon me for laughing in your face. You "conservatives" don't believe in government, taxes, or the public good. You worship at the alter of the free market. And, when one of your idols offers to give something back, you find fault in him for employing the same business practices that made him a billionaire in the first place? Oh, the irony.
It must be tearing you apart, huh? On the outside you tell yourself that you are self-made, but on the inside you can't help but feel you are entitled to a handout. Your inner "Welfare Queen" is trying to get out. Shameless, yes, but not surprising.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Banks don't loan money, they collateralize it.
The same is becoming true for philantropy.
It's the same mentality which thinks development can no longer occur unless the public kicks in.
Business people aren't stupid, but the public hasn't convinced me yet. Business at least thinks that if it can be done that way, why not? It only improves the return on investment, when it really isn't needed.
Just watch, we've already had three of the the three major proposed river developments suggest they may have a way to proceed without public money.
Like they never thought of it before.
So, in your book a $117 million dollar donation is no longer a philonthropic act?[}:)]
Pardon me for laughing in your face. You "conservatives" don't believe in government, taxes, or the public good. You worship at the alter of the free market. And, when one of your idols offers to give something back, you find fault in him for employing the same business practices that made him a billionaire in the first place? Oh, the irony.
It must be tearing you apart, huh? On the outside you tell yourself that you are self-made, but on the inside you can't help but feel you are entitled to a handout. Your inner "Welfare Queen" is trying to get out. Shameless, yes, but not surprising.
I'm thinking I could write an entire book on that statement alone.
When did I suggest a $117 (or, $10,000) was not philontropic? I said they attach strings, because they can.
If I gave $100 for a trash can on 5th street downtown, I'd expect it to be spent on a trash can and placed on 5th street downtown. (I might even add the expectation that it be emptied once a week or so, and perhaps re-painted every five years)
If some politician decided my $100 bucks would be better spent on a new light fixture at the entrance to the Mayor's office, I be upset and probably not donate again.
Mr. Kaiser & Company gifts were isolated to shoreline improvements to a project contingent on public funding of river improvements. Fine.
While, personally, I feel it misplaced and acted as a leverage upon voters to pass a [questionable] tax increase, it's fine if that's what the donors wanted. It is their right.
But, your contention that in order to take advantage of it, voters were stupid because they didn't pass a poorly conceived tax upon themselves to obtain it is not valid. Wishful thinking, like today's World editorial on the BOK Arena missing out on Garth concerts.
They are what they are. A handout it is not.
^Wrinkle, perhaps you and I are talking past each other. I'm not talking about the deal itself...I had problems with that, too.
I am talking about people who are just now realizing that their "NO" vote delivers exactly that...nothing. No public investment and no private philanthropy. Bupkis. And they are looking for someone to blame: Taylor's a "quitter" in spite of the fact that you left her with no resources to make something happen; Kaiser has no "balls" because he's not giving over his money unconditionally.
Conservatives have created this landscape. You guys are the ones that made "welfare" a dirty word. There is no "common good" that you are willing to pay for; what little faith you have is blindly placed in the hands of private interests with private motives. And then you are galled to discover that the private sector makes deals? That they manage their risk? That they leverage their investments? That they operate behind a veil?
Wow. Banks aren't altruistic. (Well, duh.[}:)]) I'd like to think that you guys are smart enough to know better. But threads like this seem to indicate otherwise. You guys made this bed and you refuse to lay in it. That's what I find indecent.
I am talking about people who are just now realizing that their "NO" vote delivers exactly that...nothing. No public investment and no private philanthropy. Bupkis
You do not know that as a fact in the slightest.....
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
You do not know that as a fact in the slightest.....
There you go again, placing all of your faith in the free market. To answer your question, no, I do not know what will happen next on the River. Neither do you.
We chose not to form a social contract to do something. Granted, it probably would have been sloppy, but there would have been a
guarantee that
something would happen.
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
You do not know that as a fact in the slightest.....
There you go again, placing all of your faith in the free market. To answer your question, no, I do not know what will happen next on the River. Neither do you.
We chose not to form a social contract to do something. Granted, it probably would have been sloppy, but there would have been a
guarantee that
something would happen.
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
I am talking about people who are just now realizing that their "NO" vote delivers exactly that...nothing. No public investment and no private philanthropy. Bupkis
You do not know that as a fact in the slightest.....
We know that the donations, or the vast majority of them are not coming, that the development plan is "off the table" and that the public money will not be collected or spent. So what exactly do we not know at this point?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
I am talking about people who are just now realizing that their "NO" vote delivers exactly that...nothing. No public investment and no private philanthropy. Bupkis
You do not know that as a fact in the slightest.....
We know that the donations, or the vast majority of them are not coming, that the development plan is "off the table" and that the public money will not be collected or spent. So what exactly do we not know at this point?
That's not true.....
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
That's not true.....
Yes, it is.
quote:
Ken Levit, executive director of the George Kaiser Family Foundation, confirmed Wednesday that the $117 million in private-sector funding pledged for river enhancements will not be available now that the river tax has failed...
The same goes for the $5 million pledged for maintenance and repair of city parks and pools. "We're basically going to refocus on other priorities," Levit said. "The voters reached their conclusion."
And who, other than a few
pretend conservatives, can blame them?
The developement plan is not off the table....Do you think they are going to walk away from all they have invested in that project.....Lol...you guys crack me up......
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
The developement plan is not off the table....Do you think they are going to walk away from all they have invested in that project.....Lol...you guys crack me up......
While you are laughing, why don't you try to explain away the previous statement from Kaiser's camp, From Taylor, "...moving on...", from Miller, "...no Plan B..."
It's over, dude. The River is officially a third rail, touch it and you die. Thank yourself.
Like swake said, tell us what you know, breadburner.
Your going to take what Miller and Taylor say as fact, give me a break...... I bet You believe Al Gore gave you the internet as well....Huffman's developement is far from off the table...Now your the one making your-self look silly......
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
The developement plan is not off the table....Do you think they are going to walk away from all they have invested in that project.....Lol...you guys crack me up......
While you are laughing, why don't you try to explain away the previous statement from Kaiser's camp, From Taylor, "...moving on...", from Miller, "...no Plan B..."
It's over, dude. The River is officially a third rail, touch it and you die. Thank yourself.
This is more extreme than anything voters said.
At worst, we're exactly where we were in June, no more, no less.
And, we don't have to surrender huge sums of public money to an ill-conceived "development plan" which consisted mostly of money, but also took all things river and would've passed control of to a hand-selected set of 9 Authority board members, leaving Cities and the public completely out of the loop.
It also would've granted this authority unlimited latitude to simply change its' mind about what it was going to do with the pile of money. Unabashed control.
I, for one, don't think that's what few had in mind when they voted either.
The "yessirs" are just as contemptable for thinking it was all good and roses, for the kids and benefited Tulsa more than other communities, which it did not.
Poor plan top to bottom, with the possible exception of contributions, which are meaningless if having to be swallowed with a stink pill.
The river may be third rail for politicians, but left to free market forces will do quite nicely, thank you.
It's anything but over. It's just beginning, after being held hostage for months by Taylor and Miller.
One wonders why you keep parading out these arguments. Its as though you have to keep selling to yourselves the idea that you made the right decision to poison the well. Sure, some elements of this plan may end up in future plans but find a leader who wants to stake his future on any plan after the thrashing leaders got with this one.
Let me remind you of what happened to popular council members who championed the widening of Riverside Drive over a decade ago. They also were pilloried and hounded out of office. The only one I know that survived politically went to the state legislature.
Never seen such poor winners in my life. Swallow your success and the consequences it brought. Is it because in Tulsa the thing actually passed and you're afraid it might pass with a little more bait thrown out to the burbs next time?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
One wonders why you keep parading out these arguments. Its as though you have to keep selling to yourselves the idea that you made the right decision to poison the well. Sure, some elements of this plan may end up in future plans but find a leader who wants to stake his future on any plan after the thrashing leaders got with this one.
Let me remind you of what happened to popular council members who championed the widening of Riverside Drive over a decade ago. They also were pilloried and hounded out of office. The only one I know that survived politically went to the state legislature.
Never seen such poor winners in my life. Swallow your success and the consequences it brought. Is it because in Tulsa the thing actually passed and you're afraid it might pass with a little more bait thrown out to the burbs next time?
You have given up....Your moving....Why do you care what we think....Not to mention the fact your off base.....
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
This is more extreme than anything voters said.
Really? I fail to see the nuance. "No" means no...last I checked, anyway. Please explain.
quote:
At worst, we're exactly where we were in June, no more, no less.
Except for the the free $117 million.
quote:
And, we don't have to surrender huge sums of public money to an ill-conceived "development plan" which consisted mostly of money, but also took all things river and would've passed control of to a hand-selected set of 9 Authority board members, leaving Cities and the public completely out of the loop.
It also would've granted this authority unlimited latitude to simply change its' mind about what it was going to do with the pile of money. Unabashed control.
I, for one, don't think that's what few had in mind when they voted either.
The "yessirs" are just as contemptable for thinking it was all good and roses, for the kids and benefited Tulsa more than other communities, which it did not.
Poor plan top to bottom, with the possible exception of contributions, which are meaningless if having to be swallowed with a stink pill.
The river may be third rail for politicians, but left to free market forces will do quite nicely, thank you.
It's anything but over. It's just beginning, after being held hostage for months by Taylor and Miller.
Again with the cult of the free market stuff? Blind faith, that's all you have. Or, do you have something more to share with us? The private market had over a century to "do it's thing" on the River. Please explain to me how the prospect for private development has improved in the last week. That's just silly, don't you think?
Again. Never said it was a great plan. It was heavily leveraged, to the tune of 30%. In the end, the choice was easy for me.
And, it was easy for you, too. So, why haven't you moved on? Why are you guys still wriggling about and saying stupid stuff? Holding the River hostage? Forgive me, but I'm not aware of
any development that would have otherwise happened in run up to this vote. Please share what you know.
I could have predicted that some of you would try and find someone else to blame. But when Inteller and others mentioned blaming Kaiser, I was surprised. I wonder how someone gets to that conclusion? And it's also not surprising that Breadburner still doesn't realize the $117 million is gone.
But, the real puzzler is how some of you have convinced yourselves, apparently, that by voting "no", you have somehow unleashed the wheels of industry and cleared the way for the free market. That seems like fanaticism.
Why are you guys still "explaining"? You killed an idea...i.e., River development; mission accomplished. You cheapskates don't have to explain anything. Move on.
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
One wonders why you keep parading out these arguments. Its as though you have to keep selling to yourselves the idea that you made the right decision to poison the well. Sure, some elements of this plan may end up in future plans but find a leader who wants to stake his future on any plan after the thrashing leaders got with this one.
Let me remind you of what happened to popular council members who championed the widening of Riverside Drive over a decade ago. They also were pilloried and hounded out of office. The only one I know that survived politically went to the state legislature.
Never seen such poor winners in my life. Swallow your success and the consequences it brought. Is it because in Tulsa the thing actually passed and you're afraid it might pass with a little more bait thrown out to the burbs next time?
You have given up....Your moving....Why do you care what we think....Not to mention the fact your off base.....
Poe would be proud.
From theTell-Tale Heart (//%22http://www.pambytes.com/poe/stories/heart.html%22):
quote:
The officers were satisfied. My manner had convinced them. I was singularly at ease. They sat, and while I answered cheerily, they chatted of familiar things. But, ere long, I felt myself getting pale and wished them gone. My head ached, and I fancied a ringing in my ears: but still they sat and still chatted. The ringing became more distinct: --It continued and became more distinct: I talked more freely to get rid of the feeling: but it continued and gained definiteness --until, at length, I found that the noise was not within my ears.
Th-thump--th-thump--th-thump.
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Your going to take what Miller and Taylor say as fact, give me a break...... I bet You believe Al Gore gave you the internet as well....Huffman's developement is far from off the table...Now your the one making your-self look silly......
How about quotes from him?
From Fox23:
Huffman says he needs time to talk to city and county leaders but right now all plans, at least for now, are off the table.
http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=4d509acd-6717-444f-932a-40f7559e67e6
From KOTV:
Huffman said, "From our perspective right now, it's probably dead.
http://www.kotv.com/news/topstory/?id=137657
And as for the $117 million in donations:
Ken Levit, executive director of the George Kaiser Family Foundation, confirmed Wednesday that the $117 million in private-sector funding pledged for river enhancements will not be available now that the river tax has failed.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071011_1_A1_hBoth58247
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
One wonders why you keep parading out these arguments. Its as though you have to keep selling to yourselves the idea that you made the right decision to poison the well. Sure, some elements of this plan may end up in future plans but find a leader who wants to stake his future on any plan after the thrashing leaders got with this one.
Let me remind you of what happened to popular council members who championed the widening of Riverside Drive over a decade ago. They also were pilloried and hounded out of office. The only one I know that survived politically went to the state legislature.
Never seen such poor winners in my life. Swallow your success and the consequences it brought. Is it because in Tulsa the thing actually passed and you're afraid it might pass with a little more bait thrown out to the burbs next time?
Man, I guess you guys have to blame someone other than our supposed leaders for this one.
That's o.k., we'll take credit for its' defeat, proudly. We saved millions in wasted spending and putting the County in control of everything river.
Remember, they still owe us river dams in Vision2025. Perhaps they'll decide to get on them.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
This is more extreme than anything voters said.
Really? I fail to see the nuance. "No" means no...last I checked, anyway. Please explain.
quote:
At worst, we're exactly where we were in June, no more, no less.
Except for the the free $117 million.
quote:
And, we don't have to surrender huge sums of public money to an ill-conceived "development plan" which consisted mostly of money, but also took all things river and would've passed control of to a hand-selected set of 9 Authority board members, leaving Cities and the public completely out of the loop.
It also would've granted this authority unlimited latitude to simply change its' mind about what it was going to do with the pile of money. Unabashed control.
I, for one, don't think that's what few had in mind when they voted either.
The "yessirs" are just as contemptable for thinking it was all good and roses, for the kids and benefited Tulsa more than other communities, which it did not.
Poor plan top to bottom, with the possible exception of contributions, which are meaningless if having to be swallowed with a stink pill.
The river may be third rail for politicians, but left to free market forces will do quite nicely, thank you.
It's anything but over. It's just beginning, after being held hostage for months by Taylor and Miller.
Again with the cult of the free market stuff? Blind faith, that's all you have. Or, do you have something more to share with us? The private market had over a century to "do it's thing" on the River. Please explain to me how the prospect for private development has improved in the last week. That's just silly, don't you think?
Again. Never said it was a great plan. It was heavily leveraged, to the tune of 30%. In the end, the choice was easy for me.
And, it was easy for you, too. So, why haven't you moved on? Why are you guys still wriggling about and saying stupid stuff? Holding the River hostage? Forgive me, but I'm not aware of any development that would have otherwise happened in run up to this vote. Please share what you know.
I could have predicted that some of you would try and find someone else to blame. But when Inteller and others mentioned blaming Kaiser, I was surprised. I wonder how someone gets to that conclusion? And it's also not surprising that Breadburner still doesn't realize the $117 million is gone.
But, the real puzzler is how some of you have convinced yourselves, apparently, that by voting "no", you have somehow unleashed the wheels of industry and cleared the way for the free market. That seems like fanaticism.
Why are you guys still "explaining"? You killed an idea...i.e., River development; mission accomplished. You cheapskates don't have to explain anything. Move on.
Silly is the river tax plan proposed.
Actually, there are more descriptive adjectives, but I won't use them.
The idea of that plan should be put completely out of its misery. The idea of river development lives on. Short-sighted would be an all-or-nothing mindset.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
One wonders why you keep parading out these arguments. Its as though you have to keep selling to yourselves the idea that you made the right decision to poison the well. Sure, some elements of this plan may end up in future plans but find a leader who wants to stake his future on any plan after the thrashing leaders got with this one.
Let me remind you of what happened to popular council members who championed the widening of Riverside Drive over a decade ago. They also were pilloried and hounded out of office. The only one I know that survived politically went to the state legislature.
Never seen such poor winners in my life. Swallow your success and the consequences it brought. Is it because in Tulsa the thing actually passed and you're afraid it might pass with a little more bait thrown out to the burbs next time?
Man, I guess you guys have to blame someone other than our supposed leaders for this one.
That's o.k., we'll take credit for its' defeat, proudly. We saved millions in wasted spending and putting the County in control of everything river.
Remember, they still owe us river dams in Vision2025. Perhaps they'll decide to get on them.
Even the Patron Saint of "No", Bates, admits that he knew that the 2025 money was intended as matching funds for federal money. Matching funds that our "conservative" Republican congressional delegation has FAILED to secure.
Inhofe's current bill (a likely veto victim) that authorizes $50 million for the river still contains no money for the river. And our other senator voted against the very same bill. The reason 2025 isn't building dams is because of the failure of our "conservative" delegation to get us any money.
I think we are owed better representation more than we are "owed" dams. How about we all agree to vote against Inhofe and Coburn? I will agree to vote against Randi Miller (again).
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
One wonders why you keep parading out these arguments. Its as though you have to keep selling to yourselves the idea that you made the right decision to poison the well. Sure, some elements of this plan may end up in future plans but find a leader who wants to stake his future on any plan after the thrashing leaders got with this one.
Let me remind you of what happened to popular council members who championed the widening of Riverside Drive over a decade ago. They also were pilloried and hounded out of office. The only one I know that survived politically went to the state legislature.
Never seen such poor winners in my life. Swallow your success and the consequences it brought. Is it because in Tulsa the thing actually passed and you're afraid it might pass with a little more bait thrown out to the burbs next time?
Man, I guess you guys have to blame someone other than our supposed leaders for this one.
That's o.k., we'll take credit for its' defeat, proudly. We saved millions in wasted spending and putting the County in control of everything river.
Remember, they still owe us river dams in Vision2025. Perhaps they'll decide to get on them.
Even the Patron Saint of "No", Bates, admits that he knew that the 2025 money was intended as matching funds for federal money. Matching funds that our "conservative" Republican congressional delegation has FAILED to secure.
Inhofe's current bill (a likely veto victim) that authorizes $50 million for the river still contains no money for the river. And our other senator voted against the very same bill. The reason 2025 isn't building dams is because of the failure of our "conservative" delegation to get us any money.
I think we are owed better representation more than we are "owed" dams. How about we all agree to vote against Inhofe and Coburn? I will agree to vote against Randi Miller (again).
The question of Federal Funds is moot. The County openly stated there would be large collection overages in Vision2025 and that they would be used to assure completion of ALL projects, including dams, if need be.
They went so far as to suggest the possibility that those funds might not come through, and which have not (to date). So, use the collection overages from Vision2025 to complete ALL projects promised.
Simple, really.
If they don't, then their legal ground for using collection overages for any other purpose is clear. They cannot.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
One wonders why you keep parading out these arguments. Its as though you have to keep selling to yourselves the idea that you made the right decision to poison the well. Sure, some elements of this plan may end up in future plans but find a leader who wants to stake his future on any plan after the thrashing leaders got with this one.
Let me remind you of what happened to popular council members who championed the widening of Riverside Drive over a decade ago. They also were pilloried and hounded out of office. The only one I know that survived politically went to the state legislature.
Never seen such poor winners in my life. Swallow your success and the consequences it brought. Is it because in Tulsa the thing actually passed and you're afraid it might pass with a little more bait thrown out to the burbs next time?
Man, I guess you guys have to blame someone other than our supposed leaders for this one.
That's o.k., we'll take credit for its' defeat, proudly. We saved millions in wasted spending and putting the County in control of everything river.
Remember, they still owe us river dams in Vision2025. Perhaps they'll decide to get on them.
Even the Patron Saint of "No", Bates, admits that he knew that the 2025 money was intended as matching funds for federal money. Matching funds that our "conservative" Republican congressional delegation has FAILED to secure.
Inhofe's current bill (a likely veto victim) that authorizes $50 million for the river still contains no money for the river. And our other senator voted against the very same bill. The reason 2025 isn't building dams is because of the failure of our "conservative" delegation to get us any money.
I think we are owed better representation more than we are "owed" dams. How about we all agree to vote against Inhofe and Coburn? I will agree to vote against Randi Miller (again).
The question of Federal Funds is moot. The County openly stated there would be large collection overages in Vision2025 and that they would be used to assure completion of ALL projects, including dams, if need be.
They went so far as to suggest the possibility that those funds might not come through, and which have not (to date). So, use the collection overages from Vision2025 to complete ALL projects promised.
Simple, really.
If they don't, then their legal ground for using collection overages for any other purpose is clear. They cannot.
Document your statements. Until then they are worth nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
The question of Federal Funds is moot. The County openly stated there would be large collection overages in Vision2025 and that they would be used to assure completion of ALL projects, including dams, if need be.
They went so far as to suggest the possibility that those funds might not come through, and which have not (to date). So, use the collection overages from Vision2025 to complete ALL projects promised.
Simple, really.
If they don't, then their legal ground for using collection overages for any other purpose is clear. They cannot.
Document your statements. Until then they are worth nothing.
The county stated no such thing. BATES stated their will be overages. EAGLETON said their will be overages. The county stated they might collect something like $20M extra, but they won't have a real good idea until 2012 and they won't know for sure until 2015.
Unlike what Eagleton suggests, the age of sub-prime mortgages are over. We can't build a dam anytime soon based on hopes, wishes or rainbows.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
One wonders why you keep parading out these arguments. Its as though you have to keep selling to yourselves the idea that you made the right decision to poison the well. Sure, some elements of this plan may end up in future plans but find a leader who wants to stake his future on any plan after the thrashing leaders got with this one.
Let me remind you of what happened to popular council members who championed the widening of Riverside Drive over a decade ago. They also were pilloried and hounded out of office. The only one I know that survived politically went to the state legislature.
Never seen such poor winners in my life. Swallow your success and the consequences it brought. Is it because in Tulsa the thing actually passed and you're afraid it might pass with a little more bait thrown out to the burbs next time?
Man, I guess you guys have to blame someone other than our supposed leaders for this one.
That's o.k., we'll take credit for its' defeat, proudly. We saved millions in wasted spending and putting the County in control of everything river.
Remember, they still owe us river dams in Vision2025. Perhaps they'll decide to get on them.
Even the Patron Saint of "No", Bates, admits that he knew that the 2025 money was intended as matching funds for federal money. Matching funds that our "conservative" Republican congressional delegation has FAILED to secure.
Inhofe's current bill (a likely veto victim) that authorizes $50 million for the river still contains no money for the river. And our other senator voted against the very same bill. The reason 2025 isn't building dams is because of the failure of our "conservative" delegation to get us any money.
I think we are owed better representation more than we are "owed" dams. How about we all agree to vote against Inhofe and Coburn? I will agree to vote against Randi Miller (again).
The question of Federal Funds is moot. The County openly stated there would be large collection overages in Vision2025 and that they would be used to assure completion of ALL projects, including dams, if need be.
They went so far as to suggest the possibility that those funds might not come through, and which have not (to date). So, use the collection overages from Vision2025 to complete ALL projects promised.
Simple, really.
If they don't, then their legal ground for using collection overages for any other purpose is clear. They cannot.
Document your statements. Until then they are worth nothing.
So, Randi can just say "there is no overage" and you believe her?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Silly is the river tax plan proposed.
Actually, there are more descriptive adjectives, but I won't use them.
The idea of that plan should be put completely out of its misery. The idea of river development lives on. Short-sighted would be an all-or-nothing mindset.
Way to duck the question. Forget the plan; the plan
is out of its misery. Your augury is that the "free market" is going to fix everything. We're listening, but it's obvious we're not unquestioningly swallowing your rhetoric. I think it's therefore only fair that you explain to us exactly how the prospects for private development are
improved by the public's failure to invest in it.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
The question of Federal Funds is moot. The County openly stated there would be large collection overages in Vision2025 and that they would be used to assure completion of ALL projects, including dams, if need be.
They went so far as to suggest the possibility that those funds might not come through, and which have not (to date). So, use the collection overages from Vision2025 to complete ALL projects promised.
Simple, really.
If they don't, then their legal ground for using collection overages for any other purpose is clear. They cannot.
Document your statements. Until then they are worth nothing.
The county stated no such thing. BATES stated their will be overages. EAGLETON said their will be overages. The county stated they might collect something like $20M extra, but they won't have a real good idea until 2012 and they won't know for sure until 2015.
Unlike what Eagleton suggests, the age of sub-prime mortgages are over. We can't build a dam anytime soon based on hopes, wishes or rainbows.
Hey, don't rely on me, read it yourself:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=050617_Ne_A1_Visio
quote:
The $5.6 million allocated in Vision 2025 for river projects only pays for a portion of two low-water dams. It is supposed to be used along with federal funds, but Miller said officials may need the extra money to make sure the dams get built.
Oh, and even since that article (which was prior to the election) the amounts have grown substantially, County itself now says $750 Million Gross Vision2025, which actually remains low. That's $125 Million over the numbers John Piercey used to come up with his most recent $80 Million surplus.
Now try to tell me there's no money for dams.
Of course, the current "plan" is to deny all and demand proof. I call BS on your "won't know until...".
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
The question of Federal Funds is moot. The County openly stated there would be large collection overages in Vision2025 and that they would be used to assure completion of ALL projects, including dams, if need be.
They went so far as to suggest the possibility that those funds might not come through, and which have not (to date). So, use the collection overages from Vision2025 to complete ALL projects promised.
Simple, really.
If they don't, then their legal ground for using collection overages for any other purpose is clear. They cannot.
Document your statements. Until then they are worth nothing.
The county stated no such thing. BATES stated their will be overages. EAGLETON said their will be overages. The county stated they might collect something like $20M extra, but they won't have a real good idea until 2012 and they won't know for sure until 2015.
Unlike what Eagleton suggests, the age of sub-prime mortgages are over. We can't build a dam anytime soon based on hopes, wishes or rainbows.
Hey, don't rely on me, read it yourself:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=050617_Ne_A1_Visio
quote:
The $5.6 million allocated in Vision 2025 for river projects only pays for a portion of two low-water dams. It is supposed to be used along with federal funds, but Miller said officials may need the extra money to make sure the dams get built.
Oh, and even since that article (which was prior to the election) the amounts have grown substantially, County itself now says $750 Million Gross Vision2025, which actually remains low. That's $125 Million over the numbers John Piercey used to come up with his most recent $80 Million surplus.
Now try to tell me there's no money for dams.
Of course, the current "plan" is to deny all and demand proof. I call BS on your "won't know until...".
Yes, in June of 2005 there was a projected surplus of $65 million. Then in July 2006 $45.5 million of that was put to the arena cost overruns.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20060719/ai_n16542408
That leaves a projection of $19.5 that will be available sometime in 2013. You want to take a loan out against that last $19 million? After paying bonding costs it would pay for about half a dam.
Thank you for proving our point.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Silly is the river tax plan proposed.
Actually, there are more descriptive adjectives, but I won't use them.
The idea of that plan should be put completely out of its misery. The idea of river development lives on. Short-sighted would be an all-or-nothing mindset.
Way to duck the question. Forget the plan; the plan is out of its misery. Your augury is that the "free market" is going to fix everything. We're listening, but it's obvious we're not unquestioningly swallowing your rhetoric. I think it's therefore only fair that you explain to us exactly how the prospects for private development are improved by the public's failure to invest in it.
If the County builds the dams they promised in Vision2025, we have the major portion of the County's river tax plan, less pedestrian bridges to nowhere and perhaps a gathering place or three.
HCM is once again proceeding on their intent to build a Tulsa Landing on the west bank, if the City of Tulsa can help with a TIF. He's back on track where he left off before Taylor and Miller iced him during the campaign.
RiverWalk II is proceeding. The $1 Billion Jenks development is proceeding (saying it wasn't depending on the tax passage), the Bixby development is proceeding.
Jenks says they may have a way to fund their own dam using private monies.
Not sure just where you're seeing any loss, other than a new tax with a conditional gift and a new authority to take control.
If those projects do not spur additional development, it wouldn't have happened with over a quarter billion in public funds either.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
the amounts have grown substantially, County itself now says $750 Million Gross Vision2025, which actually remains low. That's $125 Million over the numbers John Piercey used to come up with his most recent $80 Million surplus.
Why don't you try to document this?
^Wait a minute, Wrinkle. Are we supposed to trust what Miller says or not. 'Cause your last two posts sorta swing both ways.
Also,
There is this, when the arena went over budget, part of the deal was the future surpluses would be spent on projects outside of Tulsa:
Suburban mayors supported the supplement to counter the city's construction cost overruns only after being assured that any future additional funding paid from the county's Vision 2025 sales taxes would be targeted for projects outside Tulsa.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=060719_Ne_A1_Tulsa33517
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
The question of Federal Funds is moot. The County openly stated there would be large collection overages in Vision2025 and that they would be used to assure completion of ALL projects, including dams, if need be.
They went so far as to suggest the possibility that those funds might not come through, and which have not (to date). So, use the collection overages from Vision2025 to complete ALL projects promised.
Simple, really.
If they don't, then their legal ground for using collection overages for any other purpose is clear. They cannot.
Document your statements. Until then they are worth nothing.
The county stated no such thing. BATES stated their will be overages. EAGLETON said their will be overages. The county stated they might collect something like $20M extra, but they won't have a real good idea until 2012 and they won't know for sure until 2015.
Unlike what Eagleton suggests, the age of sub-prime mortgages are over. We can't build a dam anytime soon based on hopes, wishes or rainbows.
Hey, don't rely on me, read it yourself:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=050617_Ne_A1_Visio
quote:
The $5.6 million allocated in Vision 2025 for river projects only pays for a portion of two low-water dams. It is supposed to be used along with federal funds, but Miller said officials may need the extra money to make sure the dams get built.
Oh, and even since that article (which was prior to the election) the amounts have grown substantially, County itself now says $750 Million Gross Vision2025, which actually remains low. That's $125 Million over the numbers John Piercey used to come up with his most recent $80 Million surplus.
Now try to tell me there's no money for dams.
Of course, the current "plan" is to deny all and demand proof. I call BS on your "won't know until...".
Yes, in June of 2005 there was a projected surplus of $65 million. Then in July 2006 $45.5 million of that was put to the arena cost overruns.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20060719/ai_n16542408
That leaves a projection of $19.5 that will be available sometime in 2013. You want to take a loan out against that last $19 million? After paying bonding costs it would pay for about half a dam.
Thank you for proving our point.
Wrong again. That $65 Million was projected before the tax passed, and based upon revenue projections of $625 Million (ref: John Piercey's Vision2025 Summary - http://www.batesline.com/archives/Vision2025FinancialSummary-20070910.pdf ). The County upped it's revenue projections to $750 Million in January 2007. And, John Piercey's estimated overage, after paying $45.5 Million in arena cost overruns, and including interest costs, remains at $78 Million, but still based upon only $635 Million in revenues. There's between $125 and $140 Million missing, making the current expected overage something over $200 Million, with only something like a 2.5% escalation factor for future growth. The past 20-year average escalation has been over 3.0% per year, so actual revenues will likely be even greater.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070121_Ne_A13_Taxre37067
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Also,
There is this, when the arena went over budget, part of the deal was the future surpluses would be spent on projects outside of Tulsa:
Suburban mayors supported the supplement to counter the city's construction cost overruns only after being assured that any future additional funding paid from the county's Vision 2025 sales taxes would be targeted for projects outside Tulsa.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=060719_Ne_A1_Tulsa33517
That's what was said, according to the Whirled, but Miller later denied any deal for new projects was made to fund arena overages. In fact, it would be improper to do so. The resolution clearly states ALL projects must be completed before any additional projects may be considered with any surplus funding.
The dams were promised and listed as Vision2025 projects. The dams must be funded before surplus funds can be used for any additional projects.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Also,
There is this, when the arena went over budget, part of the deal was the future surpluses would be spent on projects outside of Tulsa:
Suburban mayors supported the supplement to counter the city's construction cost overruns only after being assured that any future additional funding paid from the county's Vision 2025 sales taxes would be targeted for projects outside Tulsa.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=060719_Ne_A1_Tulsa33517
That's what was said, according to the Whirled, but Miller later denied any deal for new projects was made to fund arena overages. In fact, it would be improper to do so. The resolution clearly states ALL projects must be completed before any additional projects may be considered with any surplus funding.
Document this statement.
And you are not including in your figures any money for debt service. There simply is no big pot of money. I agree that there may well be more money than is projected. But are you willing to gamble on that by taking out a loan against POSSIBLE surpluses? Who is the conservative here?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Also,
There is this, when the arena went over budget, part of the deal was the future surpluses would be spent on projects outside of Tulsa:
Suburban mayors supported the supplement to counter the city's construction cost overruns only after being assured that any future additional funding paid from the county's Vision 2025 sales taxes would be targeted for projects outside Tulsa.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=060719_Ne_A1_Tulsa33517
That's what was said, according to the Whirled, but Miller later denied any deal for new projects was made to fund arena overages. In fact, it would be improper to do so. The resolution clearly states ALL projects must be completed before any additional projects may be considered with any surplus funding.
Document this statement.
And you are not including in your figures any money for debt service. There simply is no big pot of money. I agree that there may well be more money than is projected. But are you willing to gamble on that by taking out a loan against POSSIBLE surpluses? Who is the conservative here?
EVERY PROJECT in Vision2025 was funded on the basis of anticipated future revenues. Their projected revenues, which began at $635 million and revised, by them, to $750 million.
John Piercey's numbers include debt service costs for everything but dams.
Two $27.5 Million dams, three years from now require about 7 years in bond term. $55 Million bonded at 5% for 7 years costs about $66 Million. John Piercey's $78 Million overage will easily cover that, without even considering the additional $125-$140 million in surplus in their own projections. I'm not making up 'possible' surpluses here, it's the County's own numbers.
All numbers I present are based upon the SAME conservative posture the County took in funding those projects, and which can actually be considered excessively conservative.
It's not a gamble.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
If the County builds the dams they promised in Vision2025, we have the major portion of the County's river tax plan, less pedestrian bridges to nowhere and perhaps a gathering place or three.
HCM is once again proceeding on their intent to build a Tulsa Landing on the west bank, if the City of Tulsa can help with a TIF. He's back on track where he left off before Taylor and Miller iced him during the campaign.
RiverWalk II is proceeding. The $1 Billion Jenks development is proceeding (saying it wasn't depending on the tax passage), the Bixby development is proceeding.
Jenks says they may have a way to fund their own dam using private monies.
Not sure just where you're seeing any loss, other than a new tax with a conditional gift and a new authority to take control.
If those projects do not spur additional development, it wouldn't have happened with over a quarter billion in public funds either.
Thanks for responding.
So we start off down $117 million; we build dams with V2025 money that even Bates says isn't really there; we settle for fewer public improvements; and, presuming the Huffman and Jenks deals can be done with TIFs (do you links to show that either are actually going through with their developments?), we ensure that neither city will see a dime of revenue from these developments for many years whilst they pay off the TIFs.
Heck, I'll even give you the bridges...I thought they were pointless without a better West Bank plan. I'll even suspend my disbelief long enough for you to make the claim that we can actually pay for
some kind of public improvement along the River without a tax.
Even without 'em, I'm seeing a second-rate "solution" with a dicier outlook and fewer direct benefits. Moreover, if I were either of those developers, I'd be scaling back my proposals to something befitting this lesser product. I'd also put the screws to the cities in order to reduce my risk.
So, yeah, even still, I think we're losing a lot.
I'm going to revise my commets significantly.
There's errors in John Piercey's Summary. He does not account for revenues to date of $180 Million already collected in his "Revenue Sources" section. If one were to subtract the $39M 'held by County'from prior proceeds, there's $141 million of that not accounted for in his spreadsheet.
The simple, logical math says that $535 million in project costs (now $580.5 million with the $45.5 million arena cost overruns) cannot have $200 Million in overages, making a total of $780.5 Million covered with $750M in revenues, before debt service. I grant that.
But, his $78M in projected overages still covers the cost of dams, including debt service. So, if one were to add the $141 to his projected overage, that's where the $200M+ number came from.
Conservative revenue estimates (slightly less conservative than the County's ultra-conservative posture) still suggests overages will be at least twice John Piercey's $78M amount.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Also,
There is this, when the arena went over budget, part of the deal was the future surpluses would be spent on projects outside of Tulsa:
Suburban mayors supported the supplement to counter the city's construction cost overruns only after being assured that any future additional funding paid from the county's Vision 2025 sales taxes would be targeted for projects outside Tulsa.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=060719_Ne_A1_Tulsa33517
That's what was said, according to the Whirled, but Miller later denied any deal for new projects was made to fund arena overages. In fact, it would be improper to do so. The resolution clearly states ALL projects must be completed before any additional projects may be considered with any surplus funding.
Document this statement.
And you are not including in your figures any money for debt service. There simply is no big pot of money. I agree that there may well be more money than is projected. But are you willing to gamble on that by taking out a loan against POSSIBLE surpluses? Who is the conservative here?
EVERY PROJECT in Vision2025 was funded on the basis of anticipated future revenues. Their projected revenues, which began at $635 million and revised, by them, to $750 million.
John Piercey's numbers include debt service costs for everything but dams.
Two $27.5 Million dams, three years from now require about 7 years in bond term. $55 Million bonded at 5% for 7 years costs about $66 Million. John Piercey's $78 Million overage will easily cover that, without even considering the additional $125-$140 million in surplus in their own projections. I'm not making up 'possible' surpluses here, it's the County's own numbers.
All numbers I present are based upon the SAME conservative posture the County took in funding those projects, and which can actually be considered excessively conservative.
It's not a gamble.
Sorry, a little flaw in your figures.
Three dams, Zink needs to be rebuilt, and fixing Zink is ALSO in 2025.
And you have not addressed your claim that the county backtracked on it's pledge to the suburbs on arena overruns.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Also,
There is this, when the arena went over budget, part of the deal was the future surpluses would be spent on projects outside of Tulsa:
Suburban mayors supported the supplement to counter the city's construction cost overruns only after being assured that any future additional funding paid from the county's Vision 2025 sales taxes would be targeted for projects outside Tulsa.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=060719_Ne_A1_Tulsa33517
That's what was said, according to the Whirled, but Miller later denied any deal for new projects was made to fund arena overages. In fact, it would be improper to do so. The resolution clearly states ALL projects must be completed before any additional projects may be considered with any surplus funding.
Document this statement.
And you are not including in your figures any money for debt service. There simply is no big pot of money. I agree that there may well be more money than is projected. But are you willing to gamble on that by taking out a loan against POSSIBLE surpluses? Who is the conservative here?
EVERY PROJECT in Vision2025 was funded on the basis of anticipated future revenues. Their projected revenues, which began at $635 million and revised, by them, to $750 million.
John Piercey's numbers include debt service costs for everything but dams.
Two $27.5 Million dams, three years from now require about 7 years in bond term. $55 Million bonded at 5% for 7 years costs about $66 Million. John Piercey's $78 Million overage will easily cover that, without even considering the additional $125-$140 million in surplus in their own projections. I'm not making up 'possible' surpluses here, it's the County's own numbers.
All numbers I present are based upon the SAME conservative posture the County took in funding those projects, and which can actually be considered excessively conservative.
It's not a gamble.
Sorry, a little flaw in your figures.
Three dams, Zink needs to be rebuilt, and fixing Zink is ALSO in 2025.
And you have not addressed your claim that the county backtracked on it's pledge to the suburbs on arena overruns.
The $2.1 million to fix Zink dam is already funded in Vision2025 and by Piercey's numbers, as is the $5.6 Million for dams, that's $7.7 Million.
Lest we also not forget the Corps estimate for dams was less than $9 Million each. The County hasn't documented how that got to $27.5 Million, so that burden would be on them, not me. 'Enhancement' doesn't quite cover it. But, anyone can work within a budget, even the County.
The County doesn't have to backtract on its pledge (if one were made, Miller denied that was the case, and formally, no additional projects have been authorized by the Vision2025 authority). It only has to honor the County's original pledge to complete all projects before excess funds are used for other projects. Besides, the two new dams are outside of Tulsa, IIRC.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Also,
There is this, when the arena went over budget, part of the deal was the future surpluses would be spent on projects outside of Tulsa:
Suburban mayors supported the supplement to counter the city's construction cost overruns only after being assured that any future additional funding paid from the county's Vision 2025 sales taxes would be targeted for projects outside Tulsa.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=060719_Ne_A1_Tulsa33517
That's what was said, according to the Whirled, but Miller later denied any deal for new projects was made to fund arena overages. In fact, it would be improper to do so. The resolution clearly states ALL projects must be completed before any additional projects may be considered with any surplus funding.
Document this statement.
And you are not including in your figures any money for debt service. There simply is no big pot of money. I agree that there may well be more money than is projected. But are you willing to gamble on that by taking out a loan against POSSIBLE surpluses? Who is the conservative here?
EVERY PROJECT in Vision2025 was funded on the basis of anticipated future revenues. Their projected revenues, which began at $635 million and revised, by them, to $750 million.
John Piercey's numbers include debt service costs for everything but dams.
Two $27.5 Million dams, three years from now require about 7 years in bond term. $55 Million bonded at 5% for 7 years costs about $66 Million. John Piercey's $78 Million overage will easily cover that, without even considering the additional $125-$140 million in surplus in their own projections. I'm not making up 'possible' surpluses here, it's the County's own numbers.
All numbers I present are based upon the SAME conservative posture the County took in funding those projects, and which can actually be considered excessively conservative.
It's not a gamble.
Sorry, a little flaw in your figures.
Three dams, Zink needs to be rebuilt, and fixing Zink is ALSO in 2025.
And you have not addressed your claim that the county backtracked on it's pledge to the suburbs on arena overruns.
The $2.1 million to fix Zink dam is already funded in Vision2025 and by Piercey's numbers, as is the $5.6 Million for dams, that's $7.7 Million.
Lest we also not forget the Corps estimate for dams was less than $9 Million each. The County hasn't documented how that got to $27.5 Million, so that burden would be on them, not me. 'Enhancement' doesn't quite cover it. But, anyone can work within a budget, even the County.
The County doesn't have to backtract on its pledge (if one were made, Miller denied that was the case, and formally, no additional projects have been authorized by the Vision2025 authority). It only has to honor the County's original pledge to complete all projects before excess funds are used for other projects. Besides, the two new dams are outside of Tulsa, IIRC.
When did Miller deny that was the case, you have NOT shown that.
And, check your map, but that dam to be placed at 106th would be inside Tulsa on the east bank and inside Jenks on the west bank. It will impound water to about 71st and the Jenks northerm city limits on the west bank are at 91st, so about 3/4s of the shoreline created will be in Tulsa.
And the reconstruction of Zink is going to be much higher than 2.1 million, it's the exact same thing as the two new dams, it's part of the river package of 2025 and that is entirely in Tulsa.
Three dams, one in Sand Springs, one mostly in Tulsa with some shoreline being for Jenks and the last being entirely in Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Also,
There is this, when the arena went over budget, part of the deal was the future surpluses would be spent on projects outside of Tulsa:
Suburban mayors supported the supplement to counter the city's construction cost overruns only after being assured that any future additional funding paid from the county's Vision 2025 sales taxes would be targeted for projects outside Tulsa.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=060719_Ne_A1_Tulsa33517
That's what was said, according to the Whirled, but Miller later denied any deal for new projects was made to fund arena overages. In fact, it would be improper to do so. The resolution clearly states ALL projects must be completed before any additional projects may be considered with any surplus funding.
Document this statement.
And you are not including in your figures any money for debt service. There simply is no big pot of money. I agree that there may well be more money than is projected. But are you willing to gamble on that by taking out a loan against POSSIBLE surpluses? Who is the conservative here?
EVERY PROJECT in Vision2025 was funded on the basis of anticipated future revenues. Their projected revenues, which began at $635 million and revised, by them, to $750 million.
John Piercey's numbers include debt service costs for everything but dams.
Two $27.5 Million dams, three years from now require about 7 years in bond term. $55 Million bonded at 5% for 7 years costs about $66 Million. John Piercey's $78 Million overage will easily cover that, without even considering the additional $125-$140 million in surplus in their own projections. I'm not making up 'possible' surpluses here, it's the County's own numbers.
All numbers I present are based upon the SAME conservative posture the County took in funding those projects, and which can actually be considered excessively conservative.
It's not a gamble.
Sorry, a little flaw in your figures.
Three dams, Zink needs to be rebuilt, and fixing Zink is ALSO in 2025.
And you have not addressed your claim that the county backtracked on it's pledge to the suburbs on arena overruns.
The $2.1 million to fix Zink dam is already funded in Vision2025 and by Piercey's numbers, as is the $5.6 Million for dams, that's $7.7 Million.
Lest we also not forget the Corps estimate for dams was less than $9 Million each. The County hasn't documented how that got to $27.5 Million, so that burden would be on them, not me. 'Enhancement' doesn't quite cover it. But, anyone can work within a budget, even the County.
The County doesn't have to backtract on its pledge (if one were made, Miller denied that was the case, and formally, no additional projects have been authorized by the Vision2025 authority). It only has to honor the County's original pledge to complete all projects before excess funds are used for other projects. Besides, the two new dams are outside of Tulsa, IIRC.
When did Miller deny that was the case, you have NOT shown that.
And, check your map, but that dam to be placed at 106th would be inside Tulsa on the east bank and inside Jenks on the west bank. It will impound water to about 71st and the Jenks northerm city limits on the west bank are at 91st, so about 3/4s of the shoreline created will be in Tulsa.
And the reconstruction of Zink is going to be much higher than 2.1 million, it's the exact same thing as the two new dams, it's part of the river package of 2025 and that is entirely in Tulsa.
Three dams, one in Sand Springs, one mostly in Tulsa with some shoreline being for Jenks and the last being entirely in Tulsa.
Whether Randi Miller denied it or not is totally irrelevant to the point. She did, but I'm not going to dig it up to show you. It doesn't affect anything. Same with whether the dams are inside Tulsa or not.
Here's the fundamental issue:
1. Were two new dams and Zink dam modifications included in the Vision2025 Project Listing voted upon and passed?
2. Did the County pledge to complete all projects with collection overages prior to considering any other projects?
3. Are there going to be collection overages?
The answer to all three is YES.
IF some side deal were made with Vision2025 Authority members in exchange for their vote to approve the funding of $45.5M in arena cost overruns, then those overages do not occur until AFTER dams are completed.
To begin with, Wrinkle, I've watched your whole argument fall apart before. I can go directly to the vision 2025 website and click, Zink Lake information are read this: (//%22http://www.vision2025.info/category.php?category=zinklakeshorelinebeautification%22)
quote:
Local funding will be used to match anticipated federal dollars to help with the beautification effort and attract private investment along the river.
On the low-water dams link I can find this:
quote:
This local funding is a key component in attracting federal money for the dams and other river channel improvements and will also serve as a catalyst for private investment.
These statements do not promise low-water dams. They indicate that the V2025 funds will be used as federal matching money. And that's the County's position. Nitpick all you want, they aren't budging; I've seen it with my own eyes.
This has played out already many times. You can watch it for yourself. Go to 48:45 on the TulsaNow debate (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/%22) and watch. Eagleton makes your exact pitch and it is squarely rejected by Letcher and Pinc. They say that was never their intent and not what Vision 2025 says. It was matching money and they can prove it. Further, they say that there is no surplus and that there
may be a surplus in 2017.
At this point, Eagleton tosses out some apparently off-the-cuff quote from Bob Dick and uses to launch into yet another unsubstantiated raving about how the County intentionally requested more money than was needed.
You are having trouble arguing your position because, basically, it is speculative bullsh*t. And, in the real world, it takes about three minutes for it to collapse into a heap of conspiracy nonsense.
Who, exactly, is preparing your lawsuit? Nobody. In fact, your friends don't even want to talk about this nonsense anymore. This whole V2025 funding story was a canard created for the campaign in order to trick a few people like you into believing that you can get something for nothing. It worked.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
To begin with, Wrinkle, I've watched your whole argument fall apart before. I can go directly to the vision 2025 website and click, Zink Lake information are read this: (//%22http://www.vision2025.info/category.php?category=zinklakeshorelinebeautification%22)quote:
Local funding will be used to match anticipated federal dollars to help with the beautification effort and attract private investment along the river.
On the low-water dams link I can find this:quote:
This local funding is a key component in attracting federal money for the dams and other river channel improvements and will also serve as a catalyst for private investment.
These statements do not promise low-water dams. They indicate that the V2025 funds will be used as federal matching money. And that's the County's position. Nitpick all you want, they aren't budging; I've seen it with my own eyes.
This has played out already many times. You can watch it for yourself. Go to 48:45 on the TulsaNow debate (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/%22) and watch. Eagleton makes your exact pitch and it is squarely rejected by Letcher and Pinc. They say that was never their intent and not what Vision 2025 says. It was matching money and they can prove it. Further, they say that there is no surplus and that there may be a surplus in 2017.
At this point, Eagleton tosses out some apparently off-the-cuff quote from Bob Dick and uses to launch into yet another unsubstantiated raving about how the County intentionally requested more money than was needed.
You are having trouble arguing your position because, basically, it is speculative bullsh*t. And, in the real world, it takes about three minutes for it to collapse into a heap of conspiracy nonsense.
Who, exactly, is preparing your lawsuit? Nobody. In fact, your friends don't even want to talk about this nonsense anymore. This whole V2025 funding story was a canard created for the campaign in order to trick a few people like you into believing that you can get something for nothing. It worked.
Nice try. But, you're getting your info from the wrong end of the horse.
I wouldn't attempt to use a September 2007 debate of this issue as evidence.
If you go back to the actual ballot and appended County Resolution, you'll see "Construct two low water dams...". You won't see any conditions, inferences, appendages or waffling.
If you also go to Mr. Dick's "off-the-cuff" remarks, he did state the County intentionally underestimated revenues with the intent of assuring completion of all listed projects.
As for making a case, the County put those items in the project listing, prepared the ballot and put it to the public for a vote.
It's all there in black and white, and I didn't write a word of it. No conspiracy, no nonsense, no canards, no speculative BS. Read it yourself.
I'm sure County officals would love to put this issue to rest. But, there's some hanging chads to deal with.
You and I can disagree, but it really comes down to what was put into the legal documents, what was actually promoted and what officials stated at the time. Not what they say now.
I'm sure that will be explored fully, especially if supposed 'extra' funds are attempted to be spent on other projects.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
If you also go to Mr. Dick's "off-the-cuff" remarks, he did state the County intentionally underestimated revenues with the intent of assuring completion of all listed projects.
Could you provide proof? I looked and found nothing.
quote:
As for making a case, the County put those items in the project listing, prepared the ballot and put it to the public for a vote.
It's all there in black and white, and I didn't write a word of it. No conspiracy, no nonsense, no canards, no speculative BS. Read it yourself.
Terrific. County sez no, so, why are your watchdog friends not doing a dang thing about this?
quote:
I'm sure County officals would love to put this issue to rest. But, there's some hanging chads to deal with.
Seems like the noisy no taxes people are suddenly more than happy to let this particular claim quietly go away. It's out of character. They are changing their story (//%22https://tulsanow.org/wp/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7795&whichpage=1%22), or simply avoiding the connversation altogether. You're alone, don't you wonder why? Could it be because everybody knows it's a crock of sh*t?
quote:
You and I can disagree, but it really comes down to what was put into the legal documents, what was actually promoted and what officials stated at the time. Not what they say now.
Who is dealing with this alleged discrepancy? Nobody. How come nobody, including your friends, wants to make hay out of this alleged breach of public trust? It's so cut and dried. The County
must be lying, right? Seems like an enormous opportunity for some of the most blatant opportunists this town has ever seen. Why would your gang pass up such a ripe target? We all know why...because it's bullsh*t.
quote:
I'm sure that will be explored fully, especially if supposed 'extra' funds are attempted to be spent on other projects.
In 2017? Speculative BS.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
That's not true.....
Yes, it is.
quote:
Ken Levit, executive director of the George Kaiser Family Foundation, confirmed Wednesday that the $117 million in private-sector funding pledged for river enhancements will not be available now that the river tax has failed...
The same goes for the $5 million pledged for maintenance and repair of city parks and pools. "We're basically going to refocus on other priorities," Levit said. "The voters reached their conclusion."
And who, other than a few pretend conservatives, can blame them?
Unnecessary
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Unnecessary
If we are going to start stereotyping people, can we start with the
Dumb Okies who don't know their math? [;)]
They donate $117mil, if we are taxed $282mil.
Taking out a calculator, that is $1 to $2.41.
I didn't realize that the entire $117mil was donated by "Jewish philanthropists"... And how much private $$$ was donated for OKC's MAPS projects?
Does a certain bear need a nap?!? [:o)]
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Unnecessary
If we are going to start stereotyping people, can we start with the Dumb Okies who don't know their math? [;)]
They donate $117mil, if we are taxed $282mil.
Taking out a calculator, that is $1 to $2.41.
I didn't realize that the entire $117mil was donated by "Jewish philanthropists"... And how much private $$$ was donated for OKC's MAPS projects?
Does a certain bear need a nap?!? [:o)]
The failed
KAISER RIVER TAX had
NO CAP. It was to be $0.004 for Seven Years. Period.
No Cap.
Again, the County flat-lined their projections, to have some extra OPM to play with, just like they did in Vision 2025.
OPM being:
Other Peoples Money. It would easily have collected $400 million.
Anyone curious about the other two shortest books in the world?
[:P]
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
If you also go to Mr. Dick's "off-the-cuff" remarks, he did state the County intentionally underestimated revenues with the intent of assuring completion of all listed projects.
Could you provide proof? I looked and found nothing.
Try this: Tulsa World 7/23/2003 (pre-vote) (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=030723_Ne_a1_reven%22)
quote:
Dick said the Vision 2025 package also was designed to ensure no project gets left behind due to a lack of funding.
quote:
"I think the worst thing you could do is promise you are going to build something and then not have enough money to build it," Dick said.
quote:
"I guess I am optimistic by nature in that I think we will realize more than that over that period of time," said County Commissioner Bob Dick, referring to the sales tax projections.
quote:
Dick said the Vision 2025 measure was structured with the assumption that sales tax would experience no growth over the next 13 years.
quote:
Vision proponents concede room for error is built into some project cost estimates.
"I don't know specifically what it is really going to cost to build a low-water dam," Dick said.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Unnecessary
If we are going to start stereotyping people, can we start with the Dumb Okies who don't know their math? [;)]
They donate $117mil, if we are taxed $282mil.
Taking out a calculator, that is $1 to $2.41.
I didn't realize that the entire $117mil was donated by "Jewish philanthropists"... And how much private $$$ was donated for OKC's MAPS projects?
Does a certain bear need a nap?!? [:o)]
The failed KAISER RIVER TAX had NO CAP. It was to be $0.004 for Seven Years. Period.
No Cap.
Again, the County flat-lined their projections, to have some extra OPM to play with. OPM being:
Other Peoples Money.
It would easily have collected $400 million.
Anyone curious about the other two shortest books in the world?
[:P]
I'll bite....
Oh, and your $400 Million projection is about right as to what that tax would've raised.
You'll note the cutoff promise was carefully worded as "once all projects are funded" and "when construction costs are met", not when $282.25 million was achieved.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Unnecessary
If we are going to start stereotyping people, can we start with the Dumb Okies who don't know their math? [;)]
They donate $117mil, if we are taxed $282mil.
Taking out a calculator, that is $1 to $2.41.
I didn't realize that the entire $117mil was donated by "Jewish philanthropists"... And how much private $$$ was donated for OKC's MAPS projects?
Does a certain bear need a nap?!? [:o)]
The failed KAISER RIVER TAX had NO CAP. It was to be $0.004 for Seven Years. Period.
No Cap.
Again, the County flat-lined their projections, to have some extra OPM to play with. OPM being:
Other Peoples Money.
It would easily have collected $400 million.
Anyone curious about the other two shortest books in the world?
[:P]
I'll bite....
Oh, and your $400 Million projection is about right as to what that tax would've raised.
You'll note the cutoff promise was carefully worded as "once all projects are funded" and "when construction costs are met", not when $282.25 million was achieved.
Wrinkle has figured out a few things hereabouts.
Good job.
Also unnecessary
Thanks for the link (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=030723_Ne_a1_reven%22) from July 2003. Yep, it's clearly before the Vision 2025 vote:
quote:
Ballot proposition No. 4 includes $5.6 million that would be used as matching funds to build two low-water dams on the Arkansas River.
Emphasis mine. Looks to me like the previous line provides some additional context. You may have overlooked this. Keep stacking that poo, Wrinkle. Looks like Friendly Bear believes you. [}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Also unnecessary
are you kidding me? this is what this forum has come to? slanderous epithets disguised as jokes? pancakes?
USRuf:
Most "working poor" are as intelligent as I am. They may not be as educated as I am, but certainly they are as intelligent as I. And I do not think it requires an advanced degree to realize that on $30,000 a year it is unlikely one can afford to pay $15,000 towards a mortgage. They know what they are getting into it, and most hop in hoping it will work out in the end or assuring themselves that they will save money to make it work.
To decry the poor as unintelligent masses is a very draconian 17th century mentality. The poor are stupid. I know so because they are poor.
What's more, in order to put such practices fairly to use the government would have to evaluate everyones intelligence. "Smart enough to decide for themselves" or "too stupid, government needs to take care of them." Clearly, no one wants that. Who draws the line and where?
Frankly, its an unworkable system that assumes poor people are stupid.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
USRuf:
Most "working poor" are as intelligent as I am. They may not be as educated as I am, but certainly they are as intelligent as I. And I do not think it requires an advanced degree to realize that on $30,000 a year it is unlikely one can afford to pay $15,000 towards a mortgage. They know what they are getting into it, and most hop in hoping it will work out in the end or assuring themselves that they will save money to make it work.
To decry the poor as unintelligent masses is a very draconian 17th century mentality. The poor are stupid. I know so because they are poor.
What's more, in order to put such practices fairly to use the government would have to evaluate everyones intelligence. "Smart enough to decide for themselves" or "too stupid, government needs to take care of them." Clearly, no one wants that. Who draws the line and where?
Frankly, its an unworkable system that assumes poor people are stupid.
He was scolding Friendly Bear for posting an antisemitic "joke". In this since deleted post, FB proved not only that he wasn't funny, but that he had poor math skills.
Ahhh, well... my point still stands. I did not intend to imply that Ruf thinks poor people are stupid or anything. But in light of heavy moderation I did take his post out of context.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Quote
He was scolding Friendly Bear for posting an antisemitic "joke". In this since deleted post, FB proved not only that he wasn't funny, but that he had poor math skills.
you forgot to add, "and a bigot"...
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Quote
He was scolding Friendly Bear for posting an antisemitic "joke". In this since deleted post, FB proved not only that he wasn't funny, but that he had poor math skills.
you forgot to add, "and a bigot"...
Ditto..........!
(http://www.queenstribune.com/guides/2006_Queens100/images/who1.jpg)
Freindly Bigot
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Banks don't loan money, they collateralize it.
The same is becoming true for philantropy.
It's the same mentality which thinks development can no longer occur unless the public kicks in.
Business people aren't stupid, but the public hasn't convinced me yet. Business at least thinks that if it can be done that way, why not? It only improves the return on investment, when it really isn't needed.
Just watch, we've already had three of the the three major proposed river developments suggest they may have a way to proceed without public money.
Like they never thought of it before.
When the public is involved or has skin in the game they get some say on how/where/what development moves forward. We want cohesive river development not wily-nily storge lots and convenience stores.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Banks don't loan money, they collateralize it.
The same is becoming true for philantropy.
It's the same mentality which thinks development can no longer occur unless the public kicks in.
Business people aren't stupid, but the public hasn't convinced me yet. Business at least thinks that if it can be done that way, why not? It only improves the return on investment, when it really isn't needed.
Just watch, we've already had three of the the three major proposed river developments suggest they may have a way to proceed without public money.
Like they never thought of it before.
When the public is involved or has skin in the game they get some say on how/where/what development moves forward. We want cohesive river development not wily-nily storge lots and convenience stores.
Maybe someone should invent Zoning. It's way less expensive.
Nice try, but zoning only designates parcels for Residential, Office Light, Commercial, and so forth. It doesn't regulate the type of developement that is deployed. How do you think we got a cement compound on the river in the first place?
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
USRuf:
Most "working poor" are as intelligent as I am. They may not be as educated as I am, but certainly they are as intelligent as I. And I do not think it requires an advanced degree to realize that on $30,000 a year it is unlikely one can afford to pay $15,000 towards a mortgage. They know what they are getting into it, and most hop in hoping it will work out in the end or assuring themselves that they will save money to make it work.
To decry the poor as unintelligent masses is a very draconian 17th century mentality. The poor are stupid. I know so because they are poor.
What's more, in order to put such practices fairly to use the government would have to evaluate everyones intelligence. "Smart enough to decide for themselves" or "too stupid, government needs to take care of them." Clearly, no one wants that. Who draws the line and where?
Frankly, its an unworkable system that assumes poor people are stupid.
He was scolding Friendly Bear for posting an antisemitic "joke". In this since deleted post, FB proved not only that he wasn't funny, but that he had poor math skills.
Lighten up, people.
It was meant in jest, launching on the Conditional Philanthophy of the richest man in Oklahoma.
Faux Generosity. The World's Shortest Book just got shorter.
Would that make Mr. K an Indian Giver?
Sorry Swake....There's that handy slang expression used again.
You know Cannon, sometimes Liberals and Libertarians cross paths and since we have agreed once or twice, I've had a question mark about you, but I realize now that you suffer from a severe case of dogma.
I can imagine the conversations in your home: Mrs. Cannon to Mr. Cannon. Honey, don't forget to take out the trash. Mr. Cannon responds: If I was supposed to take out the trash the market would have created incentives for me to do so.
Real life is full of nuance and shades of gray and very little clear cut black and white. To dismiss predatory lending as a matter of market forces is simplistic. Predatory lenders target elderly, immigrants and poor folks because their research tells them these are the people least able make an informed decision. In your vision, if a multi-billion dollar banking corporation targets an elderly widow, foists an inappropriate loan on her, and then takes her life savings and her home from her when she is unable to make payments, it is just a matter of market forces. I don't think so, Cannon.
Now, if I was Roscoe Turner and I was unhappy with Bank of Oklahoma and their relationship to my constituents, I would look at what role BOK has played in sub-prime lending. I would also take a close look at their record of lending to my neighborhood to see if they might be guilty of redlining low income neighborhoods. If I found anything that cast an unfavorable light on BOK in this regard I would think long and hard about what I would do with the information. But it might come in handy.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Lighten up, people.
It was meant in jest, launching on the Conditional Philanthophy of the richest man in Oklahoma.
We've already been over this ground in this thread. All philanthropy is conditional. Call up the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and demand a free Trans Am. Tell us how that works out for you. You,
especially you, don't deserve a handout. Quit demanding one.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Lighten up, people.
It was meant in jest, launching on the Conditional Philanthophy of the richest man in Oklahoma.
We've already been over this ground in this thread. All philanthropy is conditional. Call up the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and demand a free Trans Am. Tell us how that works out for you. You, especially you, don't deserve a handout. Quit demanding one.
When I make a charitable contribution to American Red Cross, United Way, Salvation Army, or any of my other favorite charities, I do NOT set any terms or conditions on my gift.
None.
Occasionally, I can direct the contribution toward a particular aspect of the Charity or Non-Profits operations, such as specific dollars for Thanksgiving Meals.
That's about it.
Nothing conditional about my giving.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Lighten up, people.
It was meant in jest, launching on the Conditional Philanthophy of the richest man in Oklahoma.
We've already been over this ground in this thread. All philanthropy is conditional. Call up the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and demand a free Trans Am. Tell us how that works out for you. You, especially you, don't deserve a handout. Quit demanding one.
When I make a charitable contribution to American Red Cross, United Way, Salvation Army, or any of my other favorite charities, I do NOT set any terms or conditions on my gift.
None.
Occasionally, I can direct the contribution toward a particular aspect of the Charity or Non-Profits operations, such as specific dollars for Thanksgiving Meals.
That's about it.
Nothing conditional about my giving.
If the Red Cross closed the day after you mailed your check, wouldn't you want your money back?
A huge percentage goes to the Red Cross fro "Katrina Relief" or "9-11 families" which is just as conditional.
You can write a check to a church and put any condition you want in the memo field.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
but I realize now that you suffer from a severe case of dogma.
. . .
Real life is full of nuance and shades of gray and very little clear cut black and white. To dismiss predatory lending as a matter of market forces is simplistic. Predatory lenders target elderly, immigrants and poor folks because their research tells them these are the people least able make an informed decision. In your vision, if a multi-billion dollar banking corporation targets an elderly widow, foists an inappropriate loan on her, and then takes her life savings and her home from her when she is unable to make payments, it is just a matter of market forces. I don't think so, Cannon.
1) Dogma, by definition, is adherence to a belief with lack of support and in spite of proof to the contrary. My market force explanations are the most LOGICAL explanations I am able to formulate in most situations. They are welcome to challenge and are not unfounded. Nor, for that matter, are they proclaimed as true. They merely make the most sense to me and I can rely upon them to both explain and predict behaviors - a good test for any hypothesis.
2) Mrs. Fodder would not have to ask me to take out the trash, either she or I would see that it needs to be done and it would be so.
Of course, such a discussion is worthless to the topic of market forces - since the prospect of hiring someone or governmental regulation on my trash taking out is not really an option. The reason such a discussion is valid in the case of predatory lending is because home ownership represents a major asset, a major expense, a large business, and is subject to heavy governmental regulation.
3) Predatory lending is a problem, I did not imply that it was not. I merely said that there is nothing practical the government can do to stop it that will appease any party. The government can not say "if a person is poor and stupid you can not loan them money."
In fact, the US government in the 1990's encouraged banks to make alternative loans to "at risk" and moderate income families. They did. They went bad. What is the bank suppose to do? Take the loss?
"Multi-Billion Dollar Banks" nor any other lending institution should make loans they expect a high percentage to default. However,
when they do not make these loans they are accused of racism and class bias. When they do make them and they are forced to repossess they are evil "multi-billion dollar banks" that are out to hurt the little guy. They can't win.
Here is a news flash:
BANKS LOSE MONEY ON REPOSSESSIONS. They do not want to make loans that fail. They do not want to take the bad PR, the financial losses, nor the human toll of a home repossession (don't forget, corporations don't
DO anything - people do).
So lets look at the market forces at play - since you keyed that in your response in spite of the fact that I scantly mentioned it:
a) Governmental interference in encouraging lenders to make loans to "at risk," minority, and fixed income groups. They did this by publishing a report that lists the loan rate for each group and chastising those banks that were too careful in their lending - which was used by groups to show racist lending policies. Thus, this market interference led to over lending in at risk sections.
b) Exuberance of originators to sell as many mortgages as possible. They were encouraged to draft notes to anyone that could sign on the dotted line and some bank somewhere would purchase the note. The originators are the only ones that win out in the long run and were encouraged to make poor loans by the compensation structure.
c) Availability of capital. The availability of capital in a rising housing market meant that anyone could get a loan. If BOk would not lend the money, BoA certainly would. In most areas, the rising real estate market guaranteed the banks asset.
d) Federal law encourages home ownership. The staple of American law giving tax incentives to own homes strongly encourages people to own homes. For their financial better or detriment.
e) Greed. That staple of market forces. People's eyes are often larger than their wallet. Coupled with originators that are trying to sell loans and capital markets willing to fund them the greedy were able to acquire more property than they could really afford.
f) Ignorance. Market theory operates in a vacuum, it assumes everyone has equal perfect knowledge (just like gravity ignores the fact of wind resistance in stating 9.8m/s^2). Of course, such is not the case and many borrowers lacked proper knowledge when making the largest purchase of their lives. Unfortunately, this was enabled by originators encouraged to lend, government policy encouraging them to buy, and lenders willing to take on the risk.
- - -
So there is my 2 minute market analysis of the predatory lending issue. You'll note that government interference is 2/5 causes I pegged - that's why I'm doubtful that MORE government will cure the problem. In all likelihood, any governmental solution will be a new form the buyer signs saying "XY and Z" were explain to them and will have no effect what so ever.
Really, what can the government do? Unless you want them to pre-qualify every loan in the country or set national standards on who can buy a home there is very little the government can do. Shall it police what the "best product" for a given situation is? Perhaps set minimum incomes for home ownership - if it does, will there be exceptions for minorities (White people must make $45K, Black people can buy a house at $38K)? Maybe require a college degree or a finance course before you can buy a house, but what about the people that are not good with finance but earn plenty of money? Not to mention the minority problem would still be there since minorities are less likely to go to college.
Clearly there is a problem. And clearly it IS explained by market forces (inherently, large scale lending activity is). I believe (and hope) the large losses taken by the banks is incentive enough to correct the problem. However, the result will be a lower rate of lending to the poor, to minorities, and to people on fixed incomes.
I would be happy to hear your proposed solutions to the problems. Not to just punish people who acted in ways you do not like, but how do we actually solve the problem in such a way that parties with more risk can get loans, people will want to make loans, and banks are willing to take the risk on such loans?
While you accuse me of simplifying the problem and attributing it dogmatically to market forces, I strongly contend that I have reasoned the causes and pondered solutions to this issue before replying. Again, I would welcome discussion on solutions to this issue that would satisfy all needed parties.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
When I make a charitable contribution to American Red Cross, United Way, Salvation Army, or any of my other favorite charities, I do NOT set any terms or conditions on my gift.
Sure you do. What do you mean by "favorite" charities? Is the Anti-Defamation League among them? When you give to the Red Cross you do so knowing that it will go towards disaster relief and blood drives. They have a specifically outlined, narrowly focused mission, and you give knowing that they will adhere to that mission. You choose charities according to your own terms and conditions.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
When I make a charitable contribution to American Red Cross, United Way, Salvation Army, or any of my other favorite charities, I do NOT set any terms or conditions on my gift.
Sure you do. What do you mean by "favorite" charities? Is the Anti-Defamation League among them? When you give to the Red Cross you do so knowing that it will go towards disaster relief and blood drives. They have a specifically outlined, narrowly focused mission, and you give knowing that they will adhere to that mission. You choose charities according to your own terms and conditions.
I do NOT practice conditional philanthropy.
Period.
American Red Cross or Salvation Army can use the contribution for any aspect of their operations. I impose no terms or conditions.
If I became aware that the money was being misspent, I would find another charity.
Such as was the case back in 1992 with the national office of United Way's lavish spending by their President William Aramony. Many people, including me, were justifiably offended, and withheld contributions until reforms were instituted.
I don't know enough about the ADL of B'nai Brith to consider them for a contribution.
F.B., take your rantings and anti-Semitic slurs to the Voice of Tulsa. You'll fit in better there with other dozen or so bigots, misanthropes and nutcases.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
and he is only one of MANY generous rich men with BALLS that donated without conditions. before the current crop of cronies Tulsa had good philanthropists.
Inteller,
If you acted like this on the street, you'd be arrested for aggressive panhandling. Your last statement is ignorant, and I feel like educating you on this point.
Every foundation has "conditions"; they all have missions. They don't just hand out money to anybody that calls them up, "Hello, is the the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation? Where can I get my free Camaro?"
Asking for matching money is normal business practice with grants. It's akin to forming a business partnership. It's even like a bank asking you to put up equity funds in order to get a loan. It gets rid of the bullsh*tters.
You are trashing a guy for being a smart businessman. I thought you conservatives appreciated that sort of thing? Anyways, good luck with that free Trans Am or whatever.
Conditioning giving that it be through school systems, homeless shelters, Habitat For Humanity, drug programs, etc. isn't the same as yanking your funding when matching funds don't materialize. I'd say that's the exception rather than the rule.
Care to share other recent examples of matching funds between philanthropists which require matching public funding via taxes or otherwise or are you pulling this out of a corner of your brain?
I think we all get that you don't just call up a foundation for personal transportation or housing needs. That's pretty elementary.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
I do NOT practice conditional philanthropy.
Period.
Yes, you do. Exclamation point.
quote:
American Red Cross or Salvation Army can use the contribution for any aspect of their operations.
Because you approve of them. There are other charities to which you do not contribute because you do not like them or agree with their mission. I have no problem with you giving money under these
terms.
quote:
I impose no terms or conditions.
If I became aware that the money was being misspent, I would find another charity.
That's a
condition. Granted, it's a wise condition, but a condition nonetheless.
quote:
Such as was the case back in 1992 with the national office of United Way's lavish spending by their President William Aramony. Many people, including me, were justifiably offended, and withheld contributions until reforms were instituted.
Yeah, we know. There are lot of people you don't like. What's this guy's problem? You don't like gypsies or something?
quote:
I don't know enough about the ADL of B'nai Brith to consider them for a contribution.
You don't give to organizations that you don't know anything about. Again, those are reasonable terms.
All giving is conditional. Don't be a hypocrite. The terms and conditions under which you will give to a cause are every bit as meticulous as Kaiser's, they are just different.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
and he is only one of MANY generous rich men with BALLS that donated without conditions. before the current crop of cronies Tulsa had good philanthropists.
Inteller,
If you acted like this on the street, you'd be arrested for aggressive panhandling. Your last statement is ignorant, and I feel like educating you on this point.
Every foundation has "conditions"; they all have missions. They don't just hand out money to anybody that calls them up, "Hello, is the the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation? Where can I get my free Camaro?"
Asking for matching money is normal business practice with grants. It's akin to forming a business partnership. It's even like a bank asking you to put up equity funds in order to get a loan. It gets rid of the bullsh*tters.
You are trashing a guy for being a smart businessman. I thought you conservatives appreciated that sort of thing? Anyways, good luck with that free Trans Am or whatever.
Conditioning giving that it be through school systems, homeless shelters, Habitat For Humanity, drug programs, etc. isn't the same as yanking your funding when matching funds don't materialize. I'd say that's the exception rather than the rule.
Care to share other recent examples of matching funds between philanthropists which require matching public funding via taxes or otherwise or are you pulling this out of a corner of your brain?
I think we all get that you don't just call up a foundation for personal transportation or housing needs. That's pretty elementary.
Examples? Turn on 89.5 KWGS right this minute. People offer matching contributions all the time. For instance, if small donors give $2,000 before 10 am, so-and-so will match it with another $2,000. It's
very common.
I'm with Chicken Little on this.
To suggest there is no conditional philanthropy is to ignore all the evidence -- and options -- all around you.
Conditional philanthropy allows the giver to provide an incentive for a cause he or she likes. Nothing like injecting a bit of free enterprise into the mix.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
F.B., take your rantings and anti-Semitic slurs to the Voice of Tulsa. You'll fit in better there with other dozen or so bigots, misanthropes and nutcases.
Lighten up.
In the best tradition of comedians Myron V. Cohen, Don Rickles, Henny Youngman, Alan King, Jerry Lewis, Joey Bishop, and a host of other Jewish comedians who have made careers out of making fun of their religion, their wives, the Catskills, etc., it was only a joke.
Unfortunately my
Wink "Smilie" [;)]was deleted by the heavy hand of the Forum Gestapo when he/she edited my comment as
Unnecessary.
[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
and he is only one of MANY generous rich men with BALLS that donated without conditions. before the current crop of cronies Tulsa had good philanthropists.
Inteller,
If you acted like this on the street, you'd be arrested for aggressive panhandling. Your last statement is ignorant, and I feel like educating you on this point.
Every foundation has "conditions"; they all have missions. They don't just hand out money to anybody that calls them up, "Hello, is the the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation? Where can I get my free Camaro?"
Asking for matching money is normal business practice with grants. It's akin to forming a business partnership. It's even like a bank asking you to put up equity funds in order to get a loan. It gets rid of the bullsh*tters.
You are trashing a guy for being a smart businessman. I thought you conservatives appreciated that sort of thing? Anyways, good luck with that free Trans Am or whatever.
Conditioning giving that it be through school systems, homeless shelters, Habitat For Humanity, drug programs, etc. isn't the same as yanking your funding when matching funds don't materialize. I'd say that's the exception rather than the rule.
Care to share other recent examples of matching funds between philanthropists which require matching public funding via taxes or otherwise or are you pulling this out of a corner of your brain?
I think we all get that you don't just call up a foundation for personal transportation or housing needs. That's pretty elementary.
Examples? Turn on 89.5 KWGS right this minute. People offer matching contributions all the time. For instance, if small donors give $2,000 before 10 am, so-and-so will match it with another $2,000. It's very common.
I think Conan might have a valid point.
Matching a conditional philanthopy with TAX DOLLARS is hardly comparable to NPR and KWGS "matches" between contributors. Both parties are VOLUNTARILY contributing.
If the Kaiser River Tax had passed, even if I voted against it, I would have been INVOLUNTARILY compelled to support Mr. K's philanthropy with higher sales taxes for seven years.
When do you recall that PRIVATE philanthropy being conditioned on voters raising their own taxes?
I suspect that Mr. K would like to be-head whoever persuaded him into putting his prestige and his good name on the failed River Tax.
If he now went ahead and carried through with the $122 million pledged, I'd be the first to vote to change the name of the Arkansas River to:
The Kaiser River.
Am I hearing this correctly. Is someone actually complaining about a $117 Million charitable gift because such was conditional that the other needed 200 plus million dollars
come from the public.
If I am the Kaisers or any other family with similar megawealth who donate money to make Tulsa a better place to live, I tell that ingrate as well as any other complainer that you can count on not receiving another nickel.
Oh, unless those ingrates are in the habit of making multi-multi million dollar philonthrapic donations, do not even try to compare what you donate into the argument.
Jeez, why can't the vote "No" people on this page be gracious winners.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Am I hearing this correctly. Is someone actually complaining about a $117 Million charitable gift because such was conditional that the other needed 200 plus million dollars
come from the public.
If I am the Kaisers or any other family with similar megawealth who donate money to make Tulsa a better place to live, I tell that ingrate as well as any other complainer that you can count on not receiving another nickel.
Oh, unless those ingrates are in the habit of making multi-multi million dollar philonthrapic donations, do not even try to compare what you donate into the argument.
Jeez, why can't the vote "No" people on this page be gracious winners.
What wonderful public policy you propose:
If any questions are asked, threaten to withhold future contributions.
And, I am very happy to not return again to the recent Kaiser River Tax election.
However, I do not believe that the Tulsa County Tax Vampires will rest for long. They've tasted County Sales Taxes with Vision 2025, the Jail Tax, and 4-to-Fix-the-County, and they will be back again shortly with a re-packaged River Tax Ploy, Version 2.0
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Am I hearing this correctly. Is someone actually complaining about a $117 Million charitable gift because such was conditional that the other needed 200 plus million dollars
come from the public.
If I am the Kaisers or any other family with similar megawealth who donate money to make Tulsa a better place to live, I tell that ingrate as well as any other complainer that you can count on not receiving another nickel.
Oh, unless those ingrates are in the habit of making multi-multi million dollar philonthrapic donations, do not even try to compare what you donate into the argument.
Jeez, why can't the vote "No" people on this page be gracious winners.
What wonderful public policy you propose:
If any questions are asked, threaten to withhold future contributions.
And, I am very happy to not return again to the recent Kaiser River Tax election.
However, I do not believe that the Tulsa County Tax Vampires will rest for long. They've tasted County Sales Taxes with Vision 2025, the Jail Tax, and 4-to-Fix-the-County, and they will be back again shortly with a re-packaged River Tax Ploy, Version 2.0
You are not asking questions. You are accusing those persons who are voluntarily giving away their own, personal wealth for the benefit of other people of engaging in nefarious and underhanded activity. So stop with the "I am just asking questions" crap. That's an argument "troofers" make.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
F.B., take your rantings and anti-Semitic slurs to the Voice of Tulsa. You'll fit in better there with other dozen or so bigots, misanthropes and nutcases.
Lighten up.
In the best tradition of comedians Myron V. Cohen, Don Rickles, Henny Youngman, Alan King, Jerry Lewis, Joey Bishop, and a host of other Jewish comedians who have made careers out of making fun of their religion, their wives, the Catskills, etc., it was only a joke.
Unfortunately my Wink "Smilie" [;)]was deleted by the heavy hand of the Forum Gestapo when he/she edited my comment as Unnecessary.
[;)]
bigot
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Am I hearing this correctly. Is someone actually complaining about a $117 Million charitable gift because such was conditional that the other needed 200 plus million dollars
come from the public.
If I am the Kaisers or any other family with similar megawealth who donate money to make Tulsa a better place to live, I tell that ingrate as well as any other complainer that you can count on not receiving another nickel.
Oh, unless those ingrates are in the habit of making multi-multi million dollar philonthrapic donations, do not even try to compare what you donate into the argument.
Jeez, why can't the vote "No" people on this page be gracious winners.
What wonderful public policy you propose:
If any questions are asked, threaten to withhold future contributions.
And, I am very happy to not return again to the recent Kaiser River Tax election.
However, I do not believe that the Tulsa County Tax Vampires will rest for long. They've tasted County Sales Taxes with Vision 2025, the Jail Tax, and 4-to-Fix-the-County, and they will be back again shortly with a re-packaged River Tax Ploy, Version 2.0
You are not asking questions. You are accusing those persons who are voluntarily giving away their own, personal wealth for the benefit of other people of engaging in nefarious and underhanded activity. So stop with the "I am just asking questions" crap. That's an argument "troofers" make.
Actually, the so-called philanthropic contributions, due to their intentional vagueness of how they will be used, could have just as easily been styled "Investments" in For-Profit ventures along the River.
There were NO DETAILS on exactly how the $117 million that Kaiser bundled would actually be spent.
It may have been invested in residential housing along the river, shopping venues along the river, restaurants along the river......
I think a lot of people ASSUMED that the money would be used for a public purpose, for parks and such.
It may or it may NOT have been used that way.
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
F.B., take your rantings and anti-Semitic slurs to the Voice of Tulsa. You'll fit in better there with other dozen or so bigots, misanthropes and nutcases.
Lighten up.
In the best tradition of comedians Myron V. Cohen, Don Rickles, Henny Youngman, Alan King, Jerry Lewis, Joey Bishop, and a host of other Jewish comedians who have made careers out of making fun of their religion, their wives, the Catskills, etc., it was only a joke.
Unfortunately my Wink "Smilie" [;)]was deleted by the heavy hand of the Forum Gestapo when he/she edited my comment as Unnecessary.
[;)]
bigot
Am not.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
and he is only one of MANY generous rich men with BALLS that donated without conditions. before the current crop of cronies Tulsa had good philanthropists.
Inteller,
If you acted like this on the street, you'd be arrested for aggressive panhandling. Your last statement is ignorant, and I feel like educating you on this point.
Every foundation has "conditions"; they all have missions. They don't just hand out money to anybody that calls them up, "Hello, is the the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation? Where can I get my free Camaro?"
Asking for matching money is normal business practice with grants. It's akin to forming a business partnership. It's even like a bank asking you to put up equity funds in order to get a loan. It gets rid of the bullsh*tters.
You are trashing a guy for being a smart businessman. I thought you conservatives appreciated that sort of thing? Anyways, good luck with that free Trans Am or whatever.
Conditioning giving that it be through school systems, homeless shelters, Habitat For Humanity, drug programs, etc. isn't the same as yanking your funding when matching funds don't materialize. I'd say that's the exception rather than the rule.
Care to share other recent examples of matching funds between philanthropists which require matching public funding via taxes or otherwise or are you pulling this out of a corner of your brain?
I think we all get that you don't just call up a foundation for personal transportation or housing needs. That's pretty elementary.
Examples? Turn on 89.5 KWGS right this minute. People offer matching contributions all the time. For instance, if small donors give $2,000 before 10 am, so-and-so will match it with another $2,000. It's very common.
Different type of match. What you are alluding to is voluntary matching and giving. If it were similar w/ the river, it would have been: For every dollar raised through voluntary donations, KFF will match with a 1 to 1 or 2 to 1 donation, etc.
Honestly, had it been brought about in such a manner and the city were managing the project under the auspices of a trust or oversight group, I'd gladly have given $1000 and shut my mouth.
A KWGS or PBS fund-raiser doesn't require the impoundment of sales tax dollars to stimulate the match.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
F.B., take your rantings and anti-Semitic slurs to the Voice of Tulsa. You'll fit in better there with other dozen or so bigots, misanthropes and nutcases.
Lighten up.
In the best tradition of comedians Myron V. Cohen, Don Rickles, Henny Youngman, Alan King, Jerry Lewis, Joey Bishop, and a host of other Jewish comedians who have made careers out of making fun of their religion, their wives, the Catskills, etc., it was only a joke.
Unfortunately my Wink "Smilie" [;)]was deleted by the heavy hand of the Forum Gestapo when he/she edited my comment as Unnecessary.
[;)]
bigot
Am not.
bigot
FB: "Actually, the so-called philanthropic contributions..."
So now the $117 is not even philanthropic or a contribution. Whatever.
F.B. wrote, defending his anti-Semitism:
In the best tradition of comedians Myron V. Cohen, Don Rickles, Henny Youngman, Alan King, Jerry Lewis, Joey Bishop, and a host of other Jewish comedians who have made careers out of making fun of their religion, their wives, the Catskills, etc., it was only a joke.
<end clip>
The big difference is that those people you mentioned are funny and sharp.
You are neither.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Different type of match. What you are alluding to is voluntary matching and giving. If it were similar w/ the river, it would have been: For every dollar raised through voluntary donations, KFF will match with a 1 to 1 or 2 to 1 donation, etc.
Honestly, had it been brought about in such a manner and the city were managing the project under the auspices of a trust or oversight group, I'd gladly have given $1000 and shut my mouth.
A KWGS or PBS fund-raiser doesn't require the impoundment of sales tax dollars to stimulate the match.
Cut the cr*p. There aren't 37 kinds of giving, it's just giving. And giving is always conditional. However you slice it, it was a generous offer and you rejected it.
You don't have a problem with his gift, you have a problem paying taxes. Your cheeseparing has cost the city $117 million. That's not his fault, it's yours. Show some dignity.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Actually, the so-called philanthropic contributions...
Ditto, cheapskate.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
and he is only one of MANY generous rich men with BALLS that donated without conditions. before the current crop of cronies Tulsa had good philanthropists.
Inteller,
If you acted like this on the street, you'd be arrested for aggressive panhandling. Your last statement is ignorant, and I feel like educating you on this point.
Every foundation has "conditions"; they all have missions. They don't just hand out money to anybody that calls them up, "Hello, is the the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation? Where can I get my free Camaro?"
Asking for matching money is normal business practice with grants. It's akin to forming a business partnership. It's even like a bank asking you to put up equity funds in order to get a loan. It gets rid of the bullsh*tters.
You are trashing a guy for being a smart businessman. I thought you conservatives appreciated that sort of thing? Anyways, good luck with that free Trans Am or whatever.
Conditioning giving that it be through school systems, homeless shelters, Habitat For Humanity, drug programs, etc. isn't the same as yanking your funding when matching funds don't materialize. I'd say that's the exception rather than the rule.
Care to share other recent examples of matching funds between philanthropists which require matching public funding via taxes or otherwise or are you pulling this out of a corner of your brain?
I think we all get that you don't just call up a foundation for personal transportation or housing needs. That's pretty elementary.
Examples? Turn on 89.5 KWGS right this minute. People offer matching contributions all the time. For instance, if small donors give $2,000 before 10 am, so-and-so will match it with another $2,000. It's very common.
Different type of match. What you are alluding to is voluntary matching and giving. If it were similar w/ the river, it would have been: For every dollar raised through voluntary donations, KFF will match with a 1 to 1 or 2 to 1 donation, etc.
Honestly, had it been brought about in such a manner and the city were managing the project under the auspices of a trust or oversight group, I'd gladly have given $1000 and shut my mouth.
A KWGS or PBS fund-raiser doesn't require the impoundment of sales tax dollars to stimulate the match.
Do you remember when Zarrow gave money to the schools based on matching contributions from smaller donors and how it really brought the community together? KFF should have went that route for river development.
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
F.B., take your rantings and anti-Semitic slurs to the Voice of Tulsa. You'll fit in better there with other dozen or so bigots, misanthropes and nutcases.
Lighten up.
In the best tradition of comedians Myron V. Cohen, Don Rickles, Henny Youngman, Alan King, Jerry Lewis, Joey Bishop, and a host of other Jewish comedians who have made careers out of making fun of their religion, their wives, the Catskills, etc., it was only a joke.
Unfortunately my Wink "Smilie" [;)]was deleted by the heavy hand of the Forum Gestapo when he/she edited my comment as Unnecessary.
[;)]
bigot
Am not.
bigot
Am NOT.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Different type of match. What you are alluding to is voluntary matching and giving. If it were similar w/ the river, it would have been: For every dollar raised through voluntary donations, KFF will match with a 1 to 1 or 2 to 1 donation, etc.
Honestly, had it been brought about in such a manner and the city were managing the project under the auspices of a trust or oversight group, I'd gladly have given $1000 and shut my mouth.
A KWGS or PBS fund-raiser doesn't require the impoundment of sales tax dollars to stimulate the match.
Cut the cr*p. There aren't 37 kinds of giving, it's just giving. And giving is always conditional. However you slice it, it was a generous offer and you rejected it.
You don't have a problem with his gift, you have a problem paying taxes. Your cheeseparing has cost the city $117 million. That's not his fault, it's yours. Show some dignity.
A Mother's Gift of Love to her child is not Conditional.
You must be barren.............
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
F.B., take your rantings and anti-Semitic slurs to the Voice of Tulsa. You'll fit in better there with other dozen or so bigots, misanthropes and nutcases.
Lighten up.
In the best tradition of comedians Myron V. Cohen, Don Rickles, Henny Youngman, Alan King, Jerry Lewis, Joey Bishop, and a host of other Jewish comedians who have made careers out of making fun of their religion, their wives, the Catskills, etc., it was only a joke.
Unfortunately my Wink "Smilie" [;)]was deleted by the heavy hand of the Forum Gestapo when he/she edited my comment as Unnecessary.
[;)]
bigot
Am not.
bigot
Am NOT.
i'm giving a talk at Tulsa School for Science & Technology tody, got any funny black "jokes" that i can use to break the ice??
the worst kind of racist are the ones who won't own up to it..
bigot...
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
F.B., take your rantings and anti-Semitic slurs to the Voice of Tulsa. You'll fit in better there with other dozen or so bigots, misanthropes and nutcases.
Lighten up.
In the best tradition of comedians Myron V. Cohen, Don Rickles, Henny Youngman, Alan King, Jerry Lewis, Joey Bishop, and a host of other Jewish comedians who have made careers out of making fun of their religion, their wives, the Catskills, etc., it was only a joke.
Unfortunately my Wink "Smilie" [;)]was deleted by the heavy hand of the Forum Gestapo when he/she edited my comment as Unnecessary.
[;)]
bigot
Am not.
bigot
Am NOT.
i'm giving a talk at Tulsa School for Science & Technology tody, got any funny black "jokes" that i can use to break the ice??
the worst kind of racist are the ones who won't own up to it..
bigot...
As to an introductory joke to use as an icebreaker in your remarks, you might seek out some early Bill Cosby, Red Foxx or Richard Pryor recordings.
Early in their careers as comedians, they used to say very self-deprecating (and hilarious) remarks concerning "stereotypical" behavior by African Americans.
In fact, the worst racists I've ever encountered are found among a few African Americans, being as they are too acutely aware of their race when in fact they had NO CHOICE in the matter. None.
Stuck in the vortex of a Perpetual Pity-Party, feeling aggrieved for what someone maybe did to their Great-Great-Great Granddaddy, or someone who maybe dissed their Granddaddy when they lived here in Jim Crow Land - O.k.l.a.h.o.m.a.
Oh yes, it was the legal law of the Oklahoma- Jim Crow Land that African Americans used the Colored-Only restrooms, and the Colored Waiting room at the Tulsa Union Depot, and when leaving or entering Oklahoma, had to sit in the Colored railway car.
Those are a few suggestions for comic relief.
You should be a huge hit. Be sure and punctuate your remarks with periodic references to "
You People", a la Presidential Candidate Ross Perot and his NAACP address, if you really want to stir up your audience.
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
F.B., take your rantings and anti-Semitic slurs to the Voice of Tulsa. You'll fit in better there with other dozen or so bigots, misanthropes and nutcases.
Lighten up.
In the best tradition of comedians Myron V. Cohen, Don Rickles, Henny Youngman, Alan King, Jerry Lewis, Joey Bishop, and a host of other Jewish comedians who have made careers out of making fun of their religion, their wives, the Catskills, etc., it was only a joke.
Unfortunately my Wink "Smilie" [;)]was deleted by the heavy hand of the Forum Gestapo when he/she edited my comment as Unnecessary.
[;)]
bigot
Am not.
bigot
Am NOT.
i'm giving a talk at Tulsa School for Science & Technology tody, got any funny black "jokes" that i can use to break the ice??
the worst kind of racist are the ones who won't own up to it..
bigot...
By the way, there is actually NO EVIDENCE of any untoward remarks emanating from hereabouts.
The Forum Gestapo happily dropped my earlier jocular comments down the George Orwell ThoughtCrime Memory Hole, labeling simply as
Unncessary.
Not bigoted. Not profane. Not racist.
Unnecessary.
No evidence at all....
[;)]
Please Friendly Bear...
Please don't turn this forum into a discussion of what is the appropriate level of racist jokes.
Stop it. Your jokes are not funny and not welcome here.
If I read any more, I will urge the Administrator to ban you for life.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Please Friendly Bear...
Please don't turn this forum into a discussion of what is the appropriate level of racist jokes.
Stop it. Your jokes are not funny and not welcome here.
If I read any more, I will urge the Administrator to ban you for life.
BrunoFlipper seems intent on prolonging this useless discussion, by asking for some guidance on Ice-Breaker jokes for his upcoming audience.
I readily complied, but provided no specific examples, just general guidance regarding what comedians have used.
So, you can come down off of your sanctimonious High Horse before you break the poor creature's back.
[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
and he is only one of MANY generous rich men with BALLS that donated without conditions. before the current crop of cronies Tulsa had good philanthropists.
Inteller,
If you acted like this on the street, you'd be arrested for aggressive panhandling. Your last statement is ignorant, and I feel like educating you on this point.
Every foundation has "conditions"; they all have missions. They don't just hand out money to anybody that calls them up, "Hello, is the the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation? Where can I get my free Camaro?"
Asking for matching money is normal business practice with grants. It's akin to forming a business partnership. It's even like a bank asking you to put up equity funds in order to get a loan. It gets rid of the bullsh*tters.
You are trashing a guy for being a smart businessman. I thought you conservatives appreciated that sort of thing? Anyways, good luck with that free Trans Am or whatever.
Conditioning giving that it be through school systems, homeless shelters, Habitat For Humanity, drug programs, etc. isn't the same as yanking your funding when matching funds don't materialize. I'd say that's the exception rather than the rule.
Care to share other recent examples of matching funds between philanthropists which require matching public funding via taxes or otherwise or are you pulling this out of a corner of your brain?
I think we all get that you don't just call up a foundation for personal transportation or housing needs. That's pretty elementary.
Examples? Turn on 89.5 KWGS right this minute. People offer matching contributions all the time. For instance, if small donors give $2,000 before 10 am, so-and-so will match it with another $2,000. It's very common.
Different type of match. What you are alluding to is voluntary matching and giving. If it were similar w/ the river, it would have been: For every dollar raised through voluntary donations, KFF will match with a 1 to 1 or 2 to 1 donation, etc.
Honestly, had it been brought about in such a manner and the city were managing the project under the auspices of a trust or oversight group, I'd gladly have given $1000 and shut my mouth.
A KWGS or PBS fund-raiser doesn't require the impoundment of sales tax dollars to stimulate the match.
What the Kaiser River Tax campaign promised or did not promise in regards to the Private "Donations" just got a bit more difficult to verify:
Access to www.ourriveryes.com is now
BLOCKED.To facilitate flushing the whole mess down an Orwellian TulsaMetroChamber NewSpeak Memory Hole?
Its not blocked. The page has simply been removed from the server. The vote is over and the registrant doesn't want to pay for bandwidth so they have removed the page. You can still view a cached version here:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:bLheGrcqicoJ:www.ourriveryes.com/+OurRiverYes.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Not everything is a conspiracy. "The man" hasn't blocked anything. Learn something about the internets before you post ridiculous accusations of blocking websites. When you delete a directory on a web server and restrict access to public folders (which everyone with a web server had better do) the directory listing comes back as forbidden. Instead of a DNS 404 error, you get a forbidden error until the DNS listing expires.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
F.B., take your rantings and anti-Semitic slurs to the Voice of Tulsa. You'll fit in better there with other dozen or so bigots, misanthropes and nutcases.
Lighten up.
In the best tradition of comedians Myron V. Cohen, Don Rickles, Henny Youngman, Alan King, Jerry Lewis, Joey Bishop, and a host of other Jewish comedians who have made careers out of making fun of their religion, their wives, the Catskills, etc., it was only a joke.
Unfortunately my Wink "Smilie" [;)]was deleted by the heavy hand of the Forum Gestapo when he/she edited my comment as Unnecessary.
[;)]
bigot
Am not.
bigot
Am NOT.
i'm giving a talk at Tulsa School for Science & Technology tody, got any funny black "jokes" that i can use to break the ice??
the worst kind of racist are the ones who won't own up to it..
bigot...
By the way, there is actually NO EVIDENCE of any untoward remarks emanating from hereabouts.
The Forum Gestapo happily dropped my earlier jocular comments down the George Orwell ThoughtCrime Memory Hole, labeling simply as Unncessary.
Not bigoted. Not profane. Not racist.
Unnecessary.
No evidence at all....
[;)]
wink? cute.
bigot.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Its not blocked. The page has simply been removed from the server. The vote is over and the registrant doesn't want to pay for bandwidth so they have removed the page. You can still view a cached version here:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:bLheGrcqicoJ:www.ourriveryes.com/+OurRiverYes.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Not everything is a conspiracy. "The man" hasn't blocked anything. Learn something about the internets before you post ridiculous accusations of blocking websites. When you delete a directory on a web server and restrict access to public folders (which everyone with a web server had better do) the directory listing comes back as forbidden. Instead of a DNS 404 error, you get a forbidden error until the DNS listing expires.
Actually, your Cache link doesn't work. Nor does pasting it to a URL Address.
Still comes back
Forbidden.
And, I posted my aside as a
Question.............not some Grand Tulsa Oligarch Families - MetroChamberPots Conspiracy Theory.
I presume they simply killed access because they want us to "just move along"......
You think that the OurRiverYes organization actually still WANTS any record of their failed Sales Tax Initiative?
A re-packaged
River Tax - Part Deux will likely come out in the next year or so.
The Tax Vampires are always HUNGRY............
Wow, it really doesnt like me to post that link in here...
past the entire thing in the URL:
72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:bLheGrcqicoJ:www.ourriveryes.com/+ourriveryes.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Its not blocked. The page has simply been removed from the server. The vote is over and the registrant doesn't want to pay for bandwidth so they have removed the page. You can still view a cached version here:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:bLheGrcqicoJ:www.ourriveryes.com/+OurRiverYes.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Not everything is a conspiracy. "The man" hasn't blocked anything. Learn something about the internets before you post ridiculous accusations of blocking websites. When you delete a directory on a web server and restrict access to public folders (which everyone with a web server had better do) the directory listing comes back as forbidden. Instead of a DNS 404 error, you get a forbidden error until the DNS listing expires.
Actually, your Cache link doesn't work. Nor does pasting it to a URL Address.
Still comes back Forbidden.
And, I posted my aside as a Question.............not some Grand Tulsa Oligarch Families - MetroChamberPots Conspiracy Theory.
I presume they simply killed access because they want us to "just move along"......
You think that the OurRiverYes organization actually still WANTS any record of their failed Sales Tax Initiative?
A re-packaged River Tax - Part Deux will likely come out in the next year or so.
The Tax Vampires are always HUNGRY............
Are you still talking?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Its not blocked. The page has simply been removed from the server. The vote is over and the registrant doesn't want to pay for bandwidth so they have removed the page. You can still view a cached version here:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:bLheGrcqicoJ:www.ourriveryes.com/+OurRiverYes.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Not everything is a conspiracy. "The man" hasn't blocked anything. Learn something about the internets before you post ridiculous accusations of blocking websites. When you delete a directory on a web server and restrict access to public folders (which everyone with a web server had better do) the directory listing comes back as forbidden. Instead of a DNS 404 error, you get a forbidden error until the DNS listing expires.
Actually, your Cache link doesn't work. Nor does pasting it to a URL Address.
Still comes back Forbidden.
And, I posted my aside as a Question.............not some Grand Tulsa Oligarch Families - MetroChamberPots Conspiracy Theory.
I presume they simply killed access because they want us to "just move along"......
You think that the OurRiverYes organization actually still WANTS any record of their failed Sales Tax Initiative?
A re-packaged River Tax - Part Deux will likely come out in the next year or so.
The Tax Vampires are always HUNGRY............
Are you still talking?
Yes, apparently so.
My Forum Execution has evidently been postponed, not commuted or pardoned, but I'm praying for a reprieve...........
I throw myself on the tender mercies of the Forum GeheimeStaatsPolizei:
Don't Taze me, Bro!And, I solemnly promise to never hijack another Forum Thread, or as BrunoFlipper so delicately intoned,
ThreadCrapping.
Promise.
[8D]
I don't believe your promises, F.B.
You can't control yourself from spouting half-baked conspiracy theories, unfunny slurs and tedious rants.
Frankly, whatever nuggets of good information or discussion you bring to the TulsaNow table is overwhelmed by gigantic piles of trash.
That's the sad and honest truth.
I'd say let the execution commence.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I don't believe your promises, F.B.
You can't control yourself from spouting half-baked conspiracy theories, unfunny slurs and tedious rants.
Frankly, whatever nuggets of good information or discussion you bring to the TulsaNow table is overwhelmed by gigantic piles of trash.
That's the sad and honest truth.
I'd say let the execution commence.
The Tulsa Now Forum Execution Protocol:
1. Ready.
2. FIRE.
3. Aim?
[?]
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Am I hearing this correctly. Is someone actually complaining about a $117 Million charitable gift because such was conditional that the other needed 200 plus million dollars
come from the public.
If I am the Kaisers or any other family with similar megawealth who donate money to make Tulsa a better place to live, I tell that ingrate as well as any other complainer that you can count on not receiving another nickel.
Oh, unless those ingrates are in the habit of making multi-multi million dollar philonthrapic donations, do not even try to compare what you donate into the argument.
Jeez, why can't the vote "No" people on this page be gracious winners.
Wow. Can someone please give me a towel because my head just exploded... I find myself in complete agreement with Guido-doh-doh...
All the comedians FB refers to were engaging in "self-deprication"...
I can be self-depricating by naming my fantasy football team the "East Tulsa Methheads" because I live there... if I changed the name to "Midtown Elitists"??? Er, uh... is this funny?!?... not so much...
And since I'm one of them thar publick hi-skool gra-jee-ates from Hale, I couldn't find a good source... so I'm posting a link from Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deprecation
quote:
Self-deprecation (etymologically better is self-depreciation) is a form of humor in which people or comedians make jokes about themselves, their shortcomings, or their culture, usually without being guided by any underlying self-esteem issues.
The boundaries for this kind of humor are often more relaxed than for other kinds of humor. For example, whereas a Jewish joke told by a non-Jew may be considered anti-semitic and offensive, the same joke told by a Jew may be taken in good humor. The ability to laugh at oneself and the absurdities in one's own culture is often considered a good character trait.
It ain't the joke, it's the teller. I don't think Rush Limbaugh is very funny when he uses
"Halfrican American," however lightheadedly, to describe Barack Obama and Halle Berry. And I wouldn't like hearing redneck jokes told to me by Ted Kennedy, either...
Get it?
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Am I hearing this correctly. Is someone actually complaining about a $117 Million charitable gift because such was conditional that the other needed 200 plus million dollars
come from the public.
If I am the Kaisers or any other family with similar megawealth who donate money to make Tulsa a better place to live, I tell that ingrate as well as any other complainer that you can count on not receiving another nickel.
Oh, unless those ingrates are in the habit of making multi-multi million dollar philonthrapic donations, do not even try to compare what you donate into the argument.
Jeez, why can't the vote "No" people on this page be gracious winners.
Wow. Can someone please give me a towel because my head just exploded... I find myself in complete agreement with Guido-doh-doh...
All the comedians FB refers to were engaging in "self-deprication"...
I can be self-depricating by naming my fantasy football team the "East Tulsa Methheads" because I live there... if I changed the name to "Midtown Elitists"??? Er, uh... is this funny?!?... not so much...
And since I'm one of them thar publick high-skool gra-jee-ates from Hale, I couldn't find a good source... so I'm posting a link from Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deprecation
quote:
Self-deprecation (etymologically better is self-depreciation) is a form of humor in which people or comedians make jokes about themselves, their shortcomings, or their culture, usually without being guided by any underlying self-esteem issues.
The boundaries for this kind of humor are often more relaxed than for other kinds of humor. For example, whereas a Jewish joke told by a non-Jew may be considered anti-semitic and offensive, the same joke told by a Jew may be taken in good humor. The ability to laugh at oneself and the absurdities in one's own culture is often considered a good character trait.
It ain't the joke, it's the teller. I don't think Rush Limbaugh is very funny when he uses "Halfrican American" jokingly to describe Barack Obama and Halle Berry. And I wouldn't like hearing redneck jokes told to me by Ted Kennedy, either...
Get it?
RAMPANT Political Correctness has just about rung the Death Knell of any such self-deprecating humor.
Everyone is entirely TOO sensitive today.
It isn't even considered politically-correct humor if Teddy Kennedy makes jokes about drunken Irish Americans, and he's an Expert.
But FB is not politically correct, is he?
I'll take that as a "no," you really don't get it.
Oh, and my problem with predatory lending, Mister Fodder, is that it makes things worse for people of all economic classes.
I find myself wondering why things keep getting worse gradually, bit-by-bit for people simply because they may not be as financially literate as they should be... and am wondering if the bottom rung on our "ladder of opportunity" is replaced by a rung made of barbed-wire, if anyone would notice or take action?
Re: the river tax, the quote from north Tulsa's Jane Malone in the TW says alot about why this didn't pass, despite all the private $$$ promised... "This is not about wants; it's about needs. They shouldn't have planned for us but with us."
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I don't believe your promises, F.B.
You can't control yourself from spouting half-baked conspiracy theories, unfunny slurs and tedious rants.
Frankly, whatever nuggets of good information or discussion you bring to the TulsaNow table is overwhelmed by gigantic piles of trash.
That's the sad and honest truth.
I'd say let the execution commence.
I guess you're not nominating me for TulsaNow Forum Poster of the Year?
Sad. [:(]
P.S. Name one half-baked conspiracy theory that F.B. has spouted.
[:P]
Ladies & Gentlemen, please don't feed the bear.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Ladies & Gentlemen, please don't feed the bear.
Are we sure it's not Tay again? I'm just wondering.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Ladies & Gentlemen, please don't feed the bear.
The Tax Vampires are hungrier than the
Bear. They
NEED to FEED their GREED.
They crave ever more Taxes. The Bear only craves Honey.
And, Love.
They brought the Bear back from Hibernation.
[:D]
Paul?
Well FB, we won, so go back to hibernation until the next tax vampire crisis.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Well FB, we won, so go back to hibernation until the next tax vampire crisis.
A lengthy Hibernation Cycle is a customary End-of-Tax-Vampire-Campaign for a friendly bear.
However, that was before PowerGlade and RedBull became available!
[:X]
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
I'll take that as a "no," you really don't get it.
Oh, and my problem with predatory lending, Mister Fodder, is that it makes things worse for people of all economic classes.
I agree that it makes things bad for everyone. I just do not see an effective and fair way for the government to regulate it. Sorry I am not following this thread too closely, its just really degraded to the point that I'm checking it every now and then and scanning for my monicker.
Paul?
Isnt it interesting to see how on the one hand people complain about how people cant understand an adjustable rate mortgage, then the same people complain that the "yes" river vote people were saying they didnt understand, or were suggesting they were ignorant, about the benefits of the river plan.
We need protection because we cant be expected to know. How dare you insult us by suggesting we dont understand.
USRufnex: "Wow. Can someone please give me a towel because my head just exploded... I find myself in complete agreement with Guido-doh-doh..."
It's okay. This is just an aberration. I will be getting under your skin soon enough.
BTW, if you have looked through this thread, you can see I have agreed with several of my typical adversaries: RW, Bruno (a little) and I think Chicken Little.
I believe this is so because I am not a toe the line conservative, specifically as to economic policy. In my opinion, there is a place for public funds (yes, obtained through tax) to improve the quality of life for everyone. As to the River Tax, we have been listening to the "we want river development crowd" whine loudly since 2025. Although I was not overjoyed with this particular plan for the river, the fact that the private sector ponied up more that 100 million dollars merited I give the idea serious attention. Now, we have people assaulting the integrity of those giving away their personal wealth so my family, your family, and even the ingrate FB's family could have river development.
There are no words for this abject lack of appreciation for what the KFF would have given this county. It's sickening.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20070827/ai_n19488741
"He has invested a great deal of his fortune in early-childhood initiatives, saying once that, "America hasn't fulfilled its social contract that everyone has an equal opportunity at birth. I've wrestled for years with how we might do something to change that - to provide for a more mobile society."
<guido wrote:
BTW, if you have looked through this thread, you can see I have agreed with several of my typical adversaries: RW, Bruno (a little) and I think Chicken Little.
I believe this is so because I am not a toe the line conservative, specifically as to economic policy. In my opinion, there is a place for public funds (yes, obtained through tax) to improve the quality of life for everyone. As to the River Tax, we have been listening to the "we want river development crowd" whine loudly since 2025. Although I was not overjoyed with this particular plan for the river, the fact that the private sector ponied up more that 100 million dollars merited I give the idea serious attention. Now, we have people assaulting the integrity of those giving away their personal wealth so my family, your family, and even the ingrate FB's family could have river development.
<end clip>
Funny ... it just occurred to me that people assume that I voted for the river tax.
I did not. I didn't make up my mind until the night before the election, but I did mark the "no" part of the ballot.
My reasons for doing so are fairly complex and multipronged ... certainly not the simplistic "all taxes are regressive" argument that doesn't hold water at further examination. I'm not about to get into the myriad reasons, as I'm tired and am very busy right now.
But please note that I did not attack the "yes" voters. I thought their reasons were well-thought-out and sound.
But I thought my reasons were, too.
Point of clarification on my part. People who voted no, voted no...I can accept that. What I can't stomach are people who complaining about the $117 million in private donations.
It's not your money. You are not entitled to it. And by whining and trying to smear a guy simply for making a generous offer, you prove that you don't deserve it.
You turned down $117 million, either you care about that our you don't. Regardless, at least have the dignity to stop rattling your tin cup in our ears.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Point of clarification on my part. People who voted no, voted no...I can accept that. What I can't stomach are people who complaining about the $117 million in private donations.
It's not your money. You are not entitled to it. And by whining and trying to smear a guy simply for making a generous offer, you prove that you don't deserve it.
You turned down $117 million, either you care about that our you don't. Regardless, at least have the dignity to stop rattling your tin cup in our ears.
You're offering Revisionist History on the Kaiser River Tax.
Please supply any documentation that the $117 million being raised from the private contributors were actually an unconditional donation to the newly established County River Parks Authority.
The $117 million was in fact planned as an investment by various wealthy local interests to fund entertainment, housing, and shopping venues along the River, primarily on the east side of the Arkansas River.
Various "hubs" were envisioned along a 6-7 mile stretch.
It wasn't a donation, although the River Tax promoters frequently used that term. It was a FOR-PROFIT investment with an implicit but unpublished ROI.
They promised to "invest" $117 million if we forked over a minimum of $282 million and probably more likely in the neighborhood of $400 million in new sales tax dollars at the rate of $0.004 for seven years.
[:O]
Tulsa needs to invest in itself. Was this the best way to go about it? Dunno. Political efforts are rarely the best way to do anything... but they can certainly be better than the alternative... ????
Somehow OKC can do these things and most Republicans can vote for it as an investment in their city.
Let's see; whom should I trust?
A Tulsan who has an MBA from Harvard who is trying to invest in/help Tulsa by donating millions of dollars and raising millions of dollars more from other organizations.... or should I trust a naysaying, trollific internet predator who characterizes as "tax-vampires" everyone who supported a .004 tax to make the river a lot nicer than it ever was before.... a person who refuses to shutup even after he's proved himself to be a racist bigot... and FB, you ARE politically correct... your posts read like a cartoon-character's tribute to the Tulsa Beacon... a paper that makes the Daily Oklahoman look liberal...
You know, Kaiser could have done this for OKC... or if a Tulsan didn't take over and build BOk into what it is today, it could have been someone from KC or Dallas or Little Rock or Springfield, MO, running BOk from those cities while giving millions in either outright donations or investments to their respective municipalities... so I'm glad he's on our side and would gladly pay .004 in extra sales taxes to send a certain bear to KC or Dallas so he can see where all those "tax-vampire" conspiracies get him there...
Unfortunately, a certain Bear can't tell the difference between self-deprication and self-defacation... [:(!]
Pity.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
You're offering Revisionist History on the Kaiser River Tax.
Please supply any documentation that the $117 million being raised from the private contributors were actually an unconditional donation to the newly established County River Parks Authority.
The $117 million was in fact planned as an investment by various wealthy local interests to fund entertainment, housing, and shopping venues along the River, primarily on the east side of the Arkansas River.
Various "hubs" were envisioned along a 6-7 mile stretch.
It wasn't a donation, although the River Tax promoters frequently used that term. It was a FOR-PROFIT investment with an implicit but unpublished ROI.
They promised to "invest" $117 million if we forked over a minimum of $282 million and probably more likely in the neighborhood of $400 million in new sales tax dollars at the rate of $0.004 for seven years.
[:O]
Talk about revisionism. "...implicit but unpublished ROI"? Your paranoid junk is wearing thin. He had no stake (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071006_1_A1_hrpah70288%22) in the developent
quote:
"None of the contributors has anything to gain from the expenditure of public or private funds other than the general enhancement of our city," Kaiser said.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are an idler that spits on the back of anyone who doesn't fill your cup.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Tulsa needs to invest in itself. Was this the best way to go about it? Dunno. Political efforts are rarely the best way to do anything... but they can certainly be better than the alternative... ????
Somehow OKC can do these things and most Republicans can vote for it as an investment in their city.
Let's see; whom should I trust?
A Tulsan who has an MBA from Harvard who is trying to invest in/help Tulsa by donating millions of dollars and raising millions of dollars more from other organizations.... or should I trust a naysaying, trollific internet predator who characterizes as "tax-vampires" everyone who supported a .004 tax to make the river a lot nicer than it ever was before.... a person who refuses to shutup even after he's proved himself to be a racist bigot... and FB, you ARE politically correct... your posts read like a cartoon-character's tribute to the Tulsa Beacon... a paper that makes the Daily Oklahoman look liberal...
You know, Kaiser could have done this for OKC... or if a Tulsan didn't take over and build BOk into what it is today, it could have been someone from KC or Dallas or Little Rock or Springfield, MO, running BOk from those cities while giving millions in either outright donations or investments to their respective municipalities... so I'm glad he's on our side and would gladly pay .004 in extra sales taxes to send a certain bear to KC or Dallas so he can see where all those "tax-vampire" conspiracies get him there...
Unfortunately, a certain Bear can't tell the difference between self-deprication and self-defacation... [:(!]
Pity.
Where did I ever say, and I quote you, that I:
"
characterizes as "tax-vampires" everyone who supported a .004 tax."The Tax Vampires are only the connected local construction companies, and an associated small connected crony coven of architects, engineers, accountants, bond underwriters, attorneys and sub-contractors who feed off of the tax blood of their fellow citizens, freely funding without limit new Tax Campaigns, and employing fully disposable political mouth-pieces, like Randi Miller, to prostitute their message to the public.
Political mouthpieces whose credibility and therefore their usefulness, when extinguished by serial lies and half-truths, become instantly discardable.
Again, show me where the $117 million Investment was an unconditional DONATION to the Tulsa County River Parks Authority?
It never was. It was an "investment" in FOR-PROFIT ventures along primarily the East side of the Arkansas River to achieve financial gain, and conditional only on the voters approval of the seven year $0.004 River Sales tax.
An investment is not a DONATION, although the promoters used the terms interchangeably.
The EXACT wording in last week's Tulsa World article one day before the election referred to the $117 million in private "donations" as:
"If the plan wins approval, private individuals have pledged $117 million for
enhancements and gathering spots along the river and $5 million for Tulsa pools and parks.
The gathering spots would be built at 31st, 36th, 41st, 61st and 71st streets and at Turkey Mountain.
A signature bridge over Crow Creek is also planned."
The deal was about certain connected local Oligarch families making money, while everyone else's families PROVIDED the tax money so the Oligarch families could build their fortunes.
Overall, the Kaiser River Tax was another tax-and-spend scheme along the lines of Great Plains Airlines to benefit a tiny few at the cost to the MANY, but this time on steroids.
This doesn't even have legs anymore, it's starting to grow mold.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
This doesn't even have legs anymore, it's starting to grow mold.
I'm more than happy to retire this thread, and "just move on", BUT, not in the face of blatant Revisionist History being posted by certain others who been drinking the MetroTulsaChamberPot Kool-Aid.
Long Live Winston Smith![:(!]
FB, you can't even prove that your own charitable gifts are free of strings, remember? Even if you tossed cash in the air, you would still be choosing where and when. All gifts have conditions. You just don't like these terms. The problem here is that you are demanding something for nothing...just like you always do. Sadly, this time it's not the city you are hustling, it's a generous man.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
FB, you can't even prove that your own charitable gifts are free of strings, remember? Even if you tossed cash in the air, you would still be choosing where and when. All gifts have conditions. You just don't like these terms. The problem here is that you are demanding something for nothing...just like you always do. Sadly, this time it's not the city you are hustling, it's a generous man.
Uh, their donation was never a gift. It was an investment in entertainment "hubs" and venues along the Kaiser River, I mean, ARKANSAS River.
And, Mr. K. probably knows exactly who hustled him. Again.
After his bank got hustled on Great Plains Airlines for $8 million
And, it wasn't by FB.
Wonder if they EVER got their loan paid back??
He'll think twice before he lends his name to such a dubious enterprise as the River Tax in the future.
[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
FB, you can't even prove that your own charitable gifts are free of strings, remember? Even if you tossed cash in the air, you would still be choosing where and when. All gifts have conditions. You just don't like these terms. The problem here is that you are demanding something for nothing...just like you always do. Sadly, this time it's not the city you are hustling, it's a generous man.
Didn't you hear B4?
A Mother's Gift of LOVE to her Child is UNCONDITIONAL.
Are you barren? Right? Then, you just wouldn't understand.
And, NO, as you WRONGLY state, all gifts are NOT conditional.
In fact, a $10 Xmas gift is not conditional.
Writing a $100 check to the Salvation Army is not conditional.
Dropping $1 into the Salvation Army Bell's Ringers' pot at Xmas is not conditional.
Writing a $12 million check to the River Parks Authority to improve bike and walking trails does NOT have to be conditional.
However, there may in fact be conditions to Mr. K's early "pump-priming" River Development gift just prior to the proposed Kaiser River Tax, but we are not privy to those conditions.
Privacy, of course. You do NOT know if there are or are not conditions, nor do I.
No, you are simply wrong to assert that all giving is conditional.
Maybe that's how you give your Love.
FB prefers UNCONDITIONAL love. And, he is soooooooo unloved.
[8)]
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
This doesn't even have legs anymore, it's starting to grow mold.
I'm more than happy to retire this thread, and "just move on", BUT, not in the face of blatant Revisionist History being posted by certain others who been drinking the MetroTulsaChamberPot Kool-Aid.
Long Live Winston Smith!
[:(!]
Blatant Revisionist history? The only thing you have in common with Winston Smith is that you are also a fictional character... [}:)]
I stayed away from your verbose, bombastic psuedo-criminal accusations and constant name calling over the River Tax for months.... your side WON, you freak...
Every time I read any of your posts, it made me MUCH MORE LIKELY to vote for the 4/10's of a penny tax to beautify the river... you prove that over and over and over and over again in your posts ad infinitum that engaging in any kind of reasonable discussion is impossible... you talk in circles, a victim of your own anti-tax cultlike dogma...
I moved here from Chicago last year...... I suppose a few local "oligarchs" and "corrupt unions" and "construction interests" benfitted greatly from the construction of Millineum Park, which went millions and millions and millions of dollars over budget... I bet some of those "tax-vampires" made some good money, and I bet there was some corruption and cronyism involved...
But you know whut?........ most everybody LOVES the new park. It's about "quality of life." It doesn't have to be done on a Chicago-scale. It's what makes OKC fun to drive to because of Bricktown... it's what could make Tulsa worth investing in... it could give Tulsa an area that could become "a destination"...
What have YOU done for Tulsa other than engage in MetroChamberPot conspiracy thoeories worthy of the poorly named "Voice of Tulsa"....????????
I'm sick and tired of the intensely partisan dogmatic psuedo-conservative republican ILK that threatens to destroy the city of Tulsa from within... seems that anyone who doesn't toe the anti-any-and-every-tax line is politically incorrect and shall forever more be called a "RINO."
I talked to someone from Oklahoma City shortly before the Vision2025 vote in 2003. I asked him how the same anti-everything OKC people I remember from my college days there in the 80s did an about-face?... how did a majority of its citizens vote to approve these MAPS projects?
He said that in his opinion, the people who hated the
gubmint and hated the crime and hated the "foreigners" and hated the city in general were getting older and older...
Finally, enough of these old hateful, bitter, sticks-in-the-mud and their families put their money where their naysaying mouths were and moved on to "greener pastures" in Mustang, Yukon, Harrah, etc...... after that, the REAL people of OKC could have a reasonable debate, come to consensus, and form a supportable, if imperfect, plan for the city... and it probably didn't hurt when old man Gaylord relinquished the reins of the Daily Oklahoman to a younger, more mellow family member...(better late than never)...
These statements from George Kaiser make more sense than ANYTHING YOU'VE EVER POSTED and reflect the sentiments of many, many Tulsans AND ex-Tulsans...
"We are dissolving into hostile camps," Kaiser said this week. "We need a transformative event to rejuvenate our economy and spirit."For Kaiser, the river development proposal presents an opportunity to bridge the gap between those people who might consider supporting a government-driven project and those who resent the very idea because "they feel they've been misled on occasion in the past.""I think it's the INCOG (Indian Nations Council of Governments) plan and I don't have any preference," as long as the basic objectives are met, he said.
The Tennessee Valley Authority, consultants hired by the Kaiser foundation and others, worked with INCOG to address the river's persistent problem locally -- a lack of a steady flow of water.
USREF: I seen a few swipes at Voice of Tulsa. What is the deal with that site? And before you go there, don't go there...
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
FB, you can't even prove that your own charitable gifts are free of strings, remember? Even if you tossed cash in the air, you would still be choosing where and when. All gifts have conditions. You just don't like these terms. The problem here is that you are demanding something for nothing...just like you always do. Sadly, this time it's not the city you are hustling, it's a generous man.
Didn't you hear B4?
A Mother's Gift of LOVE to her Child is UNCONDITIONAL.
Are you barren? Right? Then, you just wouldn't understand.
And, NO, as you WRONGLY state, all gifts are NOT conditional.
In fact, a $10 Xmas gift is not conditional.
Writing a $100 check to the Salvation Army is not conditional.
Dropping $1 into the Salvation Army Bell's Ringers' pot at Xmas is not conditional.
Writing a $12 million check to the River Parks Authority to improve bike and walking trails does NOT have to be conditional.
However, there may in fact be conditions to Mr. K's early "pump-priming" River Development gift just prior to the proposed Kaiser River Tax, but we are not privy to those conditions.
Privacy, of course. You do NOT know if there are or are not conditions, nor do I.
No, you are simply wrong to assert that all giving is conditional.
Maybe that's how you give your Love.
FB prefers UNCONDITIONAL love. And, he is soooooooo unloved.
[8)]
You obviously havent met my mom.
10dollar xmas gift, hope you know what I like or need or it will be "regifted", though thats fine, becomes the gift that keeps on giving.
Writing a 100 dollar gift to the Salvation Army. Your deciding to give to them and not some other organization. There has to be some reason you choose to give to them. (I do not give to them because of their stance on some issues and I hope you dont give blindly)
Same as above with the 1 dollar bell ringer. Why not just give that dollar directly to the needy? Why not avoid the "conditional" middle man organization?
12 million dollar check to river parks to improve bike and walking trails. Well having the river parks use that money only for bike and walking trails IS a condition. Plus who knows how they would even use it for bikes and trails, may not be the way you want or think is best. Not just going to give them 12 mill and say, have at it and do whatever you want with it. Who knows what they could come up with in this city. Perhaps more statues?
Unconditional love? You can say you give your love unconditionally, BUT,there is always a But lol, everything else does have conditions on it. How you treat them, what you give them, what behavior you expect from them, etc. I could say I love everyone unconditionally, but what does that really mean? How does that translate into day to day reality? You hit me, I will still love you, I may or may not hit you back, not out of hate or becase I dont love you, but because I decide that you need to be hit back to see what it is like to be hit lol. I expect to be treated right, its not a condition for my love. If you choose to leave because you cant hit me without being hit back. You wont be leaving because I didnt love you, it would be because you want to misbehave and dont like being hit back lol. ( may not be the best example but I hope ya get my drift, and no I am not a violent person, course I dont get hit either, but if I did.... [B)])
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
USREF: I seen a few swipes at Voice of Tulsa. What is the deal with that site? And before you go there, don't go there...
Well, it's pretty one-sided, in my opinion... I should be nicer to them though. At least a couple of those posters are old Tulsa Roughnecks' fans... [:D]
I haven't gone to that site in months?... think that site was the first place I saw
MetroTulsaChamberPot used in a post but I could be wrong.
To each his own. Free country... I just don't drink their kool-aid... [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Blatant Revisionist history? The only thing you have in common with Winston Smith is that you are also a fictional character... [}:)]
Nice. 2nd sentence in and you know it's going to be worth reading.
Great post. I have seen the silver bean!
Artist gets points, too.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
USREF: I seen a few swipes at Voice of Tulsa. What is the deal with that site? And before you go there, don't go there...
Well, it's pretty one-sided, in my opinion... I should be nicer to them though. At least a couple of those posters are old Tulsa Roughnecks' fans... [:D]
I haven't gone to that site in months?... think that site was the first place I saw MetroTulsaChamberPot used in a post but I could be wrong.
To each his own. Free country... I just don't drink their kool-aid... [:P]
Actually, FBob posted that here first. You see, TulsaNow is a FRONT for the TAXTHIRSTY somethin' whatever [snore....]
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
This doesn't even have legs anymore, it's starting to grow mold.
I'm more than happy to retire this thread, and "just move on", BUT, not in the face of blatant Revisionist History being posted by certain others who been drinking the MetroTulsaChamberPot Kool-Aid.
Long Live Winston Smith!
[:(!]
Blatant Revisionist history? The only thing you have in common with Winston Smith is that you are also a fictional character... [}:)]
I stayed away from your verbose, bombastic psuedo-criminal accusations and constant name calling over the River Tax for months.... your side WON, you freak...
Every time I read any of your posts, it made me MUCH MORE LIKELY to vote for the 4/10's of a penny tax to beautify the river... you prove that over and over and over and over again in your posts ad infinitum that engaging in any kind of reasonable discussion is impossible... you talk in circles, a victim of your own anti-tax cultlike dogma...
I moved here from Chicago last year...... I suppose a few local "oligarchs" and "corrupt unions" and "construction interests" benfitted greatly from the construction of Millineum Park, which went millions and millions and millions of dollars over budget... I bet some of those "tax-vampires" made some good money, and I bet there was some corruption and cronyism involved...
But you know whut?........ most everybody LOVES the new park. It's about "quality of life." It doesn't have to be done on a Chicago-scale. It's what makes OKC fun to drive to because of Bricktown... it's what could make Tulsa worth investing in... it could give Tulsa an area that could become "a destination"...
What have YOU done for Tulsa other than engage in MetroChamberPot conspiracy thoeories worthy of the poorly named "Voice of Tulsa"....????????
I'm sick and tired of the intensely partisan dogmatic psuedo-conservative republican ILK that threatens to destroy the city of Tulsa from within... seems that anyone who doesn't toe the anti-any-and-every-tax line is politically incorrect and shall forever more be called a "RINO."
I talked to someone from Oklahoma City shortly before the Vision2025 vote in 2003. I asked him how the same anti-everything OKC people I remember from my college days there in the 80s did an about-face?... how did a majority of its citizens vote to approve these MAPS projects?
He said that in his opinion, the people who hated the gubmint and hated the crime and hated the "foreigners" and hated the city in general were getting older and older...
Finally, enough of these old hateful, bitter, sticks-in-the-mud and their families put their money where their naysaying mouths were and moved on to "greener pastures" in Mustang, Yukon, Harrah, etc...... after that, the REAL people of OKC could have a reasonable debate, come to consensus, and form a supportable, if imperfect, plan for the city... and it probably didn't hurt when old man Gaylord relinquished the reins of the Daily Oklahoman to a younger, more mellow family member...(better late than never)...
These statements from George Kaiser make more sense than ANYTHING YOU'VE EVER POSTED and reflect the sentiments of many, many Tulsans AND ex-Tulsans...
"We are dissolving into hostile camps," Kaiser said this week. "We need a transformative event to rejuvenate our economy and spirit."
For Kaiser, the river development proposal presents an opportunity to bridge the gap between those people who might consider supporting a government-driven project and those who resent the very idea because "they feel they've been misled on occasion in the past."
"I think it's the INCOG (Indian Nations Council of Governments) plan and I don't have any preference," as long as the basic objectives are met, he said.
The Tennessee Valley Authority, consultants hired by the Kaiser foundation and others, worked with INCOG to address the river's persistent problem locally -- a lack of a steady flow of water.
Chicago city government, like our local Tulsa County Ring, is badly in need of reform and greater oversight and governance of tax spending, regardless of how much you personnally like a particular urban development project. The FEDS regularly indict and convict Chicago and Cook County government officials and associated Ward cronies.
Maybe our own local U.S. Attorney could wake up and take a look at the Tulsa County Ring sometime.
Lack of Tulsa County Government accountability is one of the key reasons for the failure of the Kaiser River Tax. Tulsa County Government is a total PATRONAGE system, to whom the victor goes the spoils (and the jobs!).
Tulsa County has not provided an honest monitoring attempt to prevent 50% cost overruns on the BOK Arena, has studiously avoided funding of the Vision 2025-approved low-water dams, and generates a total obfuscation smoke screen by their financial advisor John Piercey,"dear" friend of former County Commissioner Dirty Bob Dick, concerning the projected approximate $200 million+ overcollection of the Vision 2025 sales tax.
Commissioner Randi Miller's snake-oil salesmen act also did not help. Mayor Taylor, while an enthusiastic supporter of the Kaiser River Tax, seems to have retained a modicum of dignity after the Pro-River Tax campaign defeat.
I don't think it was a GOP or Democrat issue. The Pro-Tax side was mostly GOP, because most county offices and most city offices are currently occupied by RINO's, excepting Democrat Mayor Chatty Kathy Taylor.
The NO RIVER TAX side was peopled by True-Believer Republic Assembly-type principled Republicans like Randy Brogden and John Eagleton, and by Yellow-Dog Democrats like Councilors Turner and Henderson Friends-of-the- Common-man.
It certainly did not seem to be party-oriented, at all.
Rather the campaign appeared to be Mid-Town Elitists and Southern Hills Republicans vs. Mr. Average Tulsan County Resident.
I don't think the river vote had anything to do with partisan politics. I think it was all geography.
No precinct further than five miles of the river supported it and almost all of the ones close did.
If you don't see the river or recreate there, you didn't want to spend any money to improve it.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I don't think the river vote had anything to do with partisan politics. I think it was all geography.
No precinct further than five miles of the river supported it and almost all of the ones close did.
If you don't see the river or recreate there, you didn't want to spend any money to improve it.
Except for Bixby south of the river, Sand Springs, and a couple of precincts around 61st & Riverside. Lower income areas.
There are some SoTul precincts which are located about five miles or more away from proposed development areas on the river, where it did pass.
That's why I'm of the opinion it's not
strictly a proximity issue. That's the kind of head-in-the-sand thinking which will prevent any other public funding measure from passing on the river.
I really do believe that people in lower income areas looked at the tax as regressive and weren't willing to jump on.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
You obviously havent met my mom.
10dollar xmas gift, hope you know what I like or need or it will be "regifted", though thats fine, becomes the gift that keeps on giving.
Writing a 100 dollar gift to the Salvation Army. Your deciding to give to them and not some other organization. There has to be some reason you choose to give to them. (I do not give to them because of their stance on some issues and I hope you dont give blindly)
Same as above with the 1 dollar bell ringer. Why not just give that dollar directly to the needy? Why not avoid the "conditional" middle man organization?
12 million dollar check to river parks to improve bike and walking trails. Well having the river parks use that money only for bike and walking trails IS a condition. Plus who knows how they would even use it for bikes and trails, may not be the way you want or think is best. Not just going to give them 12 mill and say, have at it and do whatever you want with it. Who knows what they could come up with in this city. Perhaps more statues?
The first three are three examples of
discretionary, not
conditional giving. There are many pots someone can put their "giving" dollars into. When you drop a dollar in the Starvation Army kettle, you don't attach a note with a pre-paid envelope stating that it must be used to feed homeless people or else they must mail your donation back.
Kaiser's $12mm gift, we could parse words on this all we want. It's discretionary because he could have given those funds to TU, Gilcrease, Philbrook, St. John's Medical Center, etc. Yes there is the condition that those funds were for improving the trail system at RP. Specifying a use for the money is an earmark. Saying you will take your money back if it's not spent as agreed or some other match is not made is a condition.
Mom comment noted- our parents must know each other. I have gotten LOTS of conditional gifts from her over the years, she's never given me a painting, antique, or rug- it always seems to be on permanent loan! [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I don't think the river vote had anything to do with partisan politics. I think it was all geography.
No precinct further than five miles of the river supported it and almost all of the ones close did.
If you don't see the river or recreate there, you didn't want to spend any money to improve it.
Concise conclusion, and I agree with RM (Scarrrrry thought, there!).
[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The first three are three examples of discretionary, not conditional giving. There are many pots someone can put their "giving" dollars into. When you drop a dollar in the Starvation Army kettle, you don't attach a note with a pre-paid envelope stating that it must be used to feed homeless people or else they must mail your donation back.
Kaiser's $12mm gift, we could parse words on this all we want. It's discretionary because he could have given those funds to TU, Gilcrease, Philbrook, St. John's Medical Center, etc. Yes there is the condition that those funds were for improving the trail system at RP. Specifying a use for the money is an earmark. Saying you will take your money back if it's not spent as agreed or some other match is not made is a condition.
Mom comment noted- our parents must know each other. I have gotten LOTS of conditional gifts from her over the years, she's never given me a painting, antique, or rug- it always seems to be on permanent loan! [:P]
Kaiser's gift was discretionary, too.
dis·cre·tion [di-skresh-uhn] Pronunciation Key
1. the power or right to decide or act according to one's own judgment; freedom of judgment or choice:
hair·split·ting [hair-split-ing]
1. the making of unnecessarily fine distinctions.
tight·wad (tît'wahd')
n. Slang
A miser.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The first three are three examples of discretionary, not conditional giving. There are many pots someone can put their "giving" dollars into. When you drop a dollar in the Starvation Army kettle, you don't attach a note with a pre-paid envelope stating that it must be used to feed homeless people or else they must mail your donation back.
Kaiser's $12mm gift, we could parse words on this all we want. It's discretionary because he could have given those funds to TU, Gilcrease, Philbrook, St. John's Medical Center, etc. Yes there is the condition that those funds were for improving the trail system at RP. Specifying a use for the money is an earmark. Saying you will take your money back if it's not spent as agreed or some other match is not made is a condition.
Mom comment noted- our parents must know each other. I have gotten LOTS of conditional gifts from her over the years, she's never given me a painting, antique, or rug- it always seems to be on permanent loan! [:P]
Kaiser's gift was discretionary, too.
dis·cre·tion [di-skresh-uhn] Pronunciation Key
1. the power or right to decide or act according to one's own judgment; freedom of judgment or choice:
hair·split·ting [hair-split-ing]
1. the making of unnecessarily fine distinctions.
tight·wad (tît'wahd')
n. Slang
A miser.
You certainly should know the definition of Hair-splitter, being the ragged split-ender of all hair-splitting nit-pickers of all the Tulsa Now roster of posters.
[:P]
Bears should not throw food at chickens.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Bears should not throw food at chickens.
The Bear especially enjoyed the laser guided cluster bomb dropped by Oil Capital on a certain Chicken, followed up with low level napalming, concerning her patently hair-splitting obfuscation over a certain matter:
The BOK Vision 2025 Campaign Yard sign Employee "Opt-Out" policy.
Remember that Sweet-heart of an employee relations exploitation??
Remember??
FRIED chicken resulted.
I like my chicken finger lickin' good.Headin' to the Kentucky Colonel's now.......
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
You obviously havent met my mom.
10dollar xmas gift, hope you know what I like or need or it will be "regifted", though thats fine, becomes the gift that keeps on giving.
Writing a 100 dollar gift to the Salvation Army. Your deciding to give to them and not some other organization. There has to be some reason you choose to give to them. (I do not give to them because of their stance on some issues and I hope you dont give blindly)
Same as above with the 1 dollar bell ringer. Why not just give that dollar directly to the needy? Why not avoid the "conditional" middle man organization?
12 million dollar check to river parks to improve bike and walking trails. Well having the river parks use that money only for bike and walking trails IS a condition. Plus who knows how they would even use it for bikes and trails, may not be the way you want or think is best. Not just going to give them 12 mill and say, have at it and do whatever you want with it. Who knows what they could come up with in this city. Perhaps more statues?
The first three are three examples of discretionary, not conditional giving. There are many pots someone can put their "giving" dollars into. When you drop a dollar in the Starvation Army kettle, you don't attach a note with a pre-paid envelope stating that it must be used to feed homeless people or else they must mail your donation back.
Kaiser's $12mm gift, we could parse words on this all we want. It's discretionary because he could have given those funds to TU, Gilcrease, Philbrook, St. John's Medical Center, etc. Yes there is the condition that those funds were for improving the trail system at RP. Specifying a use for the money is an earmark. Saying you will take your money back if it's not spent as agreed or some other match is not made is a condition.
Mom comment noted- our parents must know each other. I have gotten LOTS of conditional gifts from her over the years, she's never given me a painting, antique, or rug- it always seems to be on permanent loan! [:P]
I completely disagree with you on the Salvation Army thing. They do have to do certain things with the money. If they didnt spend it on the homeless or something else you wanted it spent on they wouldnt get your donation, another organization or group of donors would get your money. You give your money to where it will do the most good, where it will have the most effect. You could give directly to the homeless, to the river, or you could give it more wisely as part of a larger group of people and their giving in order for your money to do more good. Kaiser et al have plenty of other places to give their money. If it wasnt going to do as much good in one place, use it to better effect in another. If it wasnt going to get everyone together to do more than they could by themselves, why not use it some place where people are getting together and doing more? Some things are too big to do by yourself, no matter how much money you have. Especially if your goal is to have a large impact.
If you want to start parcing words, one could say that the funds they were going to give were "incentivised giving" like a company 401K that says, if you put in x I will add y. You say you want to save, you say you want to do stuff along the river, I will help you get further and be able to do, "save" even more by adding to what you could do alone. I will pay for your college classes, if you make decent grades and pay for books. I will help you pay for part of the river plan if you pay for part as well. I dont see anything wrong with that at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
You certainly should know the definition of Hair-splitter, being the ragged split-ender of all hair-splitting nit-pickers of all the Tulsa Now roster of posters.
Oh, sorry, FB, here's some for you to read:
cir·cle [sur-kuhl] noun, verb, -cled, -cling.
–noun
9.
Logic. an argument ostensibly proving a conclusion but actually assuming the conclusion or its equivalent as a premise; vicious circle.
see Circular Reasoning (//%22http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/circular.html%22)
example (ref. above, or, any other Friendly Bear post). You are a hairsplitter because you are a hairsplitter.
so·ci·o·path [soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-]
Psychiatry. a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
You obviously havent met my mom.
10dollar xmas gift, hope you know what I like or need or it will be "regifted", though thats fine, becomes the gift that keeps on giving.
Writing a 100 dollar gift to the Salvation Army. Your deciding to give to them and not some other organization. There has to be some reason you choose to give to them. (I do not give to them because of their stance on some issues and I hope you dont give blindly)
Same as above with the 1 dollar bell ringer. Why not just give that dollar directly to the needy? Why not avoid the "conditional" middle man organization?
12 million dollar check to river parks to improve bike and walking trails. Well having the river parks use that money only for bike and walking trails IS a condition. Plus who knows how they would even use it for bikes and trails, may not be the way you want or think is best. Not just going to give them 12 mill and say, have at it and do whatever you want with it. Who knows what they could come up with in this city. Perhaps more statues?
The first three are three examples of discretionary, not conditional giving. There are many pots someone can put their "giving" dollars into. When you drop a dollar in the Starvation Army kettle, you don't attach a note with a pre-paid envelope stating that it must be used to feed homeless people or else they must mail your donation back.
Kaiser's $12mm gift, we could parse words on this all we want. It's discretionary because he could have given those funds to TU, Gilcrease, Philbrook, St. John's Medical Center, etc. Yes there is the condition that those funds were for improving the trail system at RP. Specifying a use for the money is an earmark. Saying you will take your money back if it's not spent as agreed or some other match is not made is a condition.
Mom comment noted- our parents must know each other. I have gotten LOTS of conditional gifts from her over the years, she's never given me a painting, antique, or rug- it always seems to be on permanent loan! [:P]
I completely disagree with you on the Salvation Army thing. They do have to do certain things with the money. If they didnt spend it on the homeless or something else you wanted it spent on they wouldnt get your donation, another organization or group of donors would get your money. You give your money to where it will do the most good, where it will have the most effect. You could give directly to the homeless, to the river, or you could give it more wisely as part of a larger group of people and their giving in order for your money to do more good. Kaiser et al have plenty of other places to give their money. If it wasnt going to do as much good in one place, use it to better effect in another. If it wasnt going to get everyone together to do more than they could by themselves, why not use it some place where people are getting together and doing more? Some things are too big to do by yourself, no matter how much money you have. Especially if your goal is to have a large impact.
If you want to start parcing words, one could say that the funds they were going to give were "incentivised giving" like a company 401K that says, if you put in x I will add y. You say you want to save, you say you want to do stuff along the river, I will help you get further and be able to do, "save" even more by adding to what you could do alone. I will pay for your college classes, if you make decent grades and pay for books. I will help you pay for part of the river plan if you pay for part as well. I dont see anything wrong with that at all.
Un-conditional giving means you expect nothing in return. Conditional means you expect something in return. I don't expect a homeless guy to come mow my yard when I drop a sheckel in the Starvation Army kettle.
Once your donation is given to the Salvation Army in the examples listed, it's given. You are making a "blind" donation into their general funds. There are no further directives nor conditions on who else must contribute for them to keep your money, nor which direction it goes once you have made your blind donation. You aren't setting forth any conditions on your donation other than "take my money and use it as you see fit."
That is a discretionary gift based on what you assume they normally do with donated funds.
Along the lines of the river, would it have not made sense, since the Kaiser Foundation must spent X amount of dollars per year to maintain it's status with the IRS, to have approached the KFF about making a gift two years down the road, instead of a rapid time-table which most assuredly led to the collapse of this initiative and left Kaiser red in the face?
Geez Conan, now you're starting to sound like FB with the whole idea of "unconditional giving."
Why do you insist on looking a gifthorse in the mouth? I didn't see $117mil in private monies promised to the MAPS for Kids project in OKC... a sales tax of a penny on the dollar for 7 years that promised $500mil in funding which could be higher depending on tax receipts... not unlike this defeated river tax.
Frankly, I think if LaFortune had been re-elected, a county-wide initiative would have had enough extras in it for BA, Owasso, Glenpool, etc. to have passed this tax... but then the backstabbers in the Republican party took care of that possibility, didn't they? "Regionalism is DEAD! Et tu, Brute..."
The only differences I see in Tulsa under limo-liberal Taylor versus southern-hills rebub LaFortune are ones of liberal "window dressing" on crime and clumsiness on passing the river tax...
If Mayor Taylor had been a smart enough politician to understand a few political realities and had made this a city-wide tax, it coulda passed. After two downtown-only plans that lost in city-wide votes in the 90s, why would anyone think a river-only plan would succeed in a county-wide vote?
Conan--"I really do believe that people in lower income areas looked at the tax as regressive and weren't willing to jump on."
Unless you've got some deeper numbers from exit polls nobody's seen yet that prove this, its simply your opinion. Which I'm surprised at, since it's usually my job to point out the class-warfare territorialism aspects of the problems that exist in Tulsa. [;)]
Regressive sales taxes weren't the big issue that really mattered to folks; unfair taxes that benefitted one area at the expense of others, is the issue I heard more often...
My guesses on this are anecdotal; from hearing people at an Applebee's down the street or the local east/south Tulsa "hole-in-the-mall" bar...
Twentysomethings who are either new homeowners or who rent at... hmmm, my apt complex?... were more likely ,IMO, to vote for this despite their "lower middle class" or "working poor" standing in life (so far). Besides, there are just as many (if not more) "lower middle class" and "working poor" in areas of Kendall-Whittier as there are in east Tulsa's Magic Circle, Fulton or Mayo neighborhoods. On the other end, middle-aged and older homeowners, most of whom aren't hurting for money, but were more likely to agree with the statement, "my neighborhood has gone to the dogs" bitterly opposed this tax... and had a tin ear for this plan ever since the Channels plan came along. After all, my favorite little ElChico-clone tex-mex restaurant down the street (La Mansion) had those "The Tulsa Channels" brochures for months and months after that plan had already died... there's a subset of people who took one look at THOSE plans, said "typical," and then conveniently dismissed the much improved closer-to-INCOG river plan presented to voters. It just never mattered what this plan was... the very idea of the Warrens drawing up a few man-made islands on a dinner napkin to spend the taxpayers "Boeing money"... then add $10mil for Bing Thom to tell us how the river is too wide... just reinforced the bitterness...
Of course, Bing Thom may get his wish now that this more modest plan (he also got a $10mil grant to design, btw) has gone down to defeat... the next dry summer will give us a chance to walk out on the sand bars and "waive to each other" from the shore... whoopee!
Ironic, no?
Ruf, I shudder to indulge you with a reply, but morbid curiosity to see what your next reply will be compels me to do so.
I know what a turd looks and smells like. I do my best to avoid them.
The county's cut-and-paste plan for the river was a turd.
Kaiser's contribution, while generous and tempting, wasn't enough of an incentive to get a lot of people's minds off the open-ended slush fund the tax would have created.
It's been suggested to me more than once in the last week that KFF didn't approach the county. Other way around. Something along the lines of: "Fine, we'll help out, if you want us to contribute though, it's got to be done in this time-frame."
I don't blame Kaiser for that. If his foundation doesn't spend a certain amount of funds every year, the IRS ceases to view it as a legitimate charitable tool, but rather a tax dodge. I do blame Randi Miller and whomever else was involved (I have a long list of possible people, but I don't care to be labled any more of a conspiracy crack-pot than I actually am, I leave the dirty work to FB). [;)]
There was no need to hurry this and usurp the hard work INCOG has put into the ARCMP. One positive thing which has come out of the $1.3mm to promote this plan is that there has been some serious discussion on a more realistic form of development than The Channels. Perhaps it can be refined, more details made known and will be re-sold with some modicum of reality attached to the sales job next time.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Ruf, I shudder to indulge you with a reply, but morbid curiosity to see what your next reply will be compels me to do so.
I know what a turd looks and smells like. I do my best to avoid them.
The county's cut-and-paste plan for the river was a turd.
Kaiser's contribution, while generous and tempting, wasn't enough of an incentive to get a lot of people's minds off the open-ended slush fund the tax would have created.
It's been suggested to me more than once in the last week that KFF didn't approach the county. Other way around. Something along the lines of: "Fine, we'll help out, if you want us to contribute though, it's got to be done in this time-frame."
I don't blame Kaiser for that. If his foundation doesn't spend a certain amount of funds every year, the IRS ceases to view it as a legitimate charitable tool, but rather a tax dodge. I do blame Randi Miller and whomever else was involved (I have a long list of possible people, but I don't care to be labled any more of a conspiracy crack-pot than I actually am, I leave the dirty work to FB). [;)]
There was no need to hurry this and usurp the hard work INCOG has put into the ARCMP. One positive thing which has come out of the $1.3mm to promote this plan is that there has been some serious discussion on a more realistic form of development than The Channels. Perhaps it can be refined, more details made known and will be re-sold with some modicum of reality attached to the sales job next time.
Perhaps Kaiser would have been willing to make the donation at the end of 2008, and the County thought that would be too far in the future. Perhaps afraid that municipalities (including possibly the City of Tulsa) could put forth other sales tax proposals in the next 15 months that would lessen the possibilities a County tax would have of passing?
Back to my conspiracy theory tendencies:
The slush fund aspect of the plan, the west bank land acquisition, and that TEENSY little problem of the studies not yet being complete to even tell us that the dams are ABLE to be built environmentally/structurally/what have you - That made me *slightly* concerned that this may have been a back-door for The Channels to slip through on us.
Imagine, we approve the tax. Subsequently, environmental studies say we can't build the dams as we wanted them. A huge crisis of what to do next develops. And suddenly The Channels resurfaces....
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Ruf, I shudder to indulge you with a reply, but morbid curiosity to see what your next reply will be compels me to do so.
I know what a turd looks and smells like. I do my best to avoid them.
The county's cut-and-paste plan for the river was a turd.
Kaiser's contribution, while generous and tempting, wasn't enough of an incentive to get a lot of people's minds off the open-ended slush fund the tax would have created.
The shrill sound of a critic who could see the forest... except for those pesky trees...
You calling this plan "a turd" tells me all I need to know... if you don't like aspects of the plan, fine. But calling it a "turd" tells me you'd oppose any plan that wasn't absolutely perfect...
Read too many of your posts in the past few months to think otherwise...
7 years is NOT open ended.
These same types of criticisms were leveled against MAPS and MAPS for Kids...
http://okc.about.com/od/citygovernment/a/okcmaps3.htm
quote:
It's hard to believe now as we look back that the original MAPS initiatives nearly didn't pass a vote of the people. Early polls showed less than fantastic support for the Metropolitan Area Projects, a bundle of 9 major Oklahoma City projects to be funded by a 5 year, 1 cent sales tax increase. But in December of 1993, MAPS squeaked by voters at 54%. The rest, as they say, is history.
Originally conceived by the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce and then-Mayor Ron Norick, MAPS included the following:
Construction of a 20,000-seat, indoor sports arena (The Ford Center)
Construction of a 15,000-seat ballpark (The AT&T Bricktown Ballpark)
Construction of a new downtown library
Construction of the Bricktown Canal
Development of a trolley transit system
Development along the North Canadian River
Renovations to the Civic Center Music Hall
Renovations to the Cox Convention Center
Renovations to the Oklahoma State Fairgrounds
Although there were delays and complications, most of the original MAPS goals were met.
And the resulting success has been nothing short of phenomenal. Most would attribute directly to MAPS the revitalization in Bricktown as well the great prospects for the continued presence of the NBA in OKC.
The 2nd set of MAPS projects went before voters in 2001. Dubbed "MAPS for Kids," the initiatives included over 100 Oklahoma City area school projects, from extensive renovations to new school constructions. Funded again by sales tax, MAPS for Kids would cost around $470 million.
That sales tax expires in 2008. Naturally, the talk of MAPS 3 began...
http://www.okc.gov/council/mayor/state_of_city/2007/index.html
Pretty nice turd.
The lesson here is not about "regressive sales taxes" or "rich Tulsa/poor Tulsa".... but is a lesson about passing legislation that isn't narrowly focused on one big downtown or riverfront project...
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
USREF: I seen a few swipes at Voice of Tulsa. What is the deal with that site? And before you go there, don't go there...
Well, it's pretty one-sided, in my opinion... I should be nicer to them though. At least a couple of those posters are old Tulsa Roughnecks' fans... [:D]
I haven't gone to that site in months?... think that site was the first place I saw MetroTulsaChamberPot used in a post but I could be wrong.
To each his own. Free country... I just don't drink their kool-aid... [:P]
Actually, FBob posted that here first. You see, TulsaNow is a FRONT for the TAXTHIRSTY somethin' whatever [snore....]
Actually, www.batesline.com
coined the ChamberPot moniker for the Tulsa Metro Chamber of Commerce, circa Vision 2025.
ChamberPot as equivalent to: Slop Jar.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Ruf, I shudder to indulge you with a reply, but morbid curiosity to see what your next reply will be compels me to do so.
I know what a turd looks and smells like. I do my best to avoid them.
The county's cut-and-paste plan for the river was a turd.
Kaiser's contribution, while generous and tempting, wasn't enough of an incentive to get a lot of people's minds off the open-ended slush fund the tax would have created.
The shrill sound of a critic who could see the forest... except for those pesky trees...
You calling this plan "a turd" tells me all I need to know... if you don't like aspects of the plan, fine. But calling it a "turd" tells me you'd oppose any plan that wasn't absolutely perfect...
Read too many of your posts in the past few months to think otherwise...
7 years is NOT open ended.
These same types of criticisms were leveled against MAPS and MAPS for Kids...
http://okc.about.com/od/citygovernment/a/okcmaps3.htm
quote:
It's hard to believe now as we look back that the original MAPS initiatives nearly didn't pass a vote of the people. Early polls showed less than fantastic support for the Metropolitan Area Projects, a bundle of 9 major Oklahoma City projects to be funded by a 5 year, 1 cent sales tax increase. But in December of 1993, MAPS squeaked by voters at 54%. The rest, as they say, is history.
Originally conceived by the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce and then-Mayor Ron Norick, MAPS included the following:
Construction of a 20,000-seat, indoor sports arena (The Ford Center)
Construction of a 15,000-seat ballpark (The AT&T Bricktown Ballpark)
Construction of a new downtown library
Construction of the Bricktown Canal
Development of a trolley transit system
Development along the North Canadian River
Renovations to the Civic Center Music Hall
Renovations to the Cox Convention Center
Renovations to the Oklahoma State Fairgrounds
Although there were delays and complications, most of the original MAPS goals were met.
And the resulting success has been nothing short of phenomenal. Most would attribute directly to MAPS the revitalization in Bricktown as well the great prospects for the continued presence of the NBA in OKC.
The 2nd set of MAPS projects went before voters in 2001. Dubbed "MAPS for Kids," the initiatives included over 100 Oklahoma City area school projects, from extensive renovations to new school constructions. Funded again by sales tax, MAPS for Kids would cost around $470 million.
That sales tax expires in 2008. Naturally, the talk of MAPS 3 began...
http://www.okc.gov/council/mayor/state_of_city/2007/index.html
Pretty nice turd.
The lesson here is not about "regressive sales taxes" or "rich Tulsa/poor Tulsa".... but is a lesson about passing legislation that isn't narrowly focused on one big downtown or riverfront project...
Winner of the most insightful post re the river development failure. Its also important to note that there wasn't much detail involved with that plan either. I wonder if that lesson will be learned.
The learning begins when the student arrives.
Ruf- MAPS is an example of a "chicken in every pot" package, just like V-2025. It's incredibly impressive especially to see the improvements to education which came from MAPS.
Working in a construction-related industry, it was rare a week went by that there wasn't some sort of MAPS project for schools in the construction bid services plan rooms.
The "open-ended" nature of the River Tax I spoke of was of the lack of a legal obligation for the county to build anything which was being advertised in the campaign. Yes, seven years was the defined time frame for the collection. What would have happened had sales tax collections dropped off and they only collected $225 mil? An extension of the tax, or leave out promised projects, or leave projects un-finished.
Honestly, I think this will need to be a city-wide quality-of-life package to pass next-time: Parks & rec improvements across the city, construct and utilize other public gathering spots, and consider tributary development in the plan. I wouldn't rest on the laurels of a 52% to 48% approval rating on this last vote in COT. Based on the turn-out Oct. 9, that might only be a couple of thousand votes.
I'm also going to take a closer look at my state representative and senator and see what they are doing to bring money back to Tulsa. I'm personally all for the state giving up 1 penny of it's sales tax share to cities and increasing personal income tax to make up the difference.
Conan: "I don't blame Kaiser for that. If his foundation doesn't spend a certain amount of funds every year, the IRS ceases to view it as a legitimate charitable tool, but rather a tax dodge."
Just another questioning the motives and intergrity of a donor. Never has there been so many who will NEVER be in a position to make a donation like KFF complain about or criticize it.
Here's a thought, instead of devoting time pondering how the KFF's $117 million donation was based on selfish or non-altruistic motives, try considering what you and your foundation has invested, spent, donated, etc. to make Tulsa a better place.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Conan: "I don't blame Kaiser for that. If his foundation doesn't spend a certain amount of funds every year, the IRS ceases to view it as a legitimate charitable tool, but rather a tax dodge."
Just another questioning the motives and intergrity of a donor. Never has there been so many who will NEVER be in a position to make a donation like KFF complain about or criticize it.
Here's a thought, instead of devoting time pondering how the KFF's $117 million donation was based on selfish or non-altruistic motives, try considering what you and your foundation has invested, spent, donated, etc. to make Tulsa a better place.
Guido- total mis-read of my comment. What part of "I don't blame Kaiser..." is confusing to you?
I fault whomever thought we needed to rush this enough to try to encumber funding from KFF
this year instead of a year or so down-line when there had been more planning for a campaign and public input. It's left Kaiser with egg on his face.
Oh, I get it. You were not blaming Kaiser, you were blaming the foundation for not wanting to have the IRS view the KFF as illegitimate or a "tax dodge" as the reason for the $117 M donation. Maybe you were not blaming anyone that KFF's decision to pony up the money was so it would not appear illegitimate or as a tax dodge.
Sorry I was confused. Perhaps if you wrote that you are grateful and appreciative of KFF's $117 M gesture would resolve any future confusion.