The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

This is a followup in a question asked by another TulsaNow Poster in another thread.

I have a couple of ideas that could raise revenue or lower expenses for financing public safety.

My first is to call for a public vote to raise the city of Tulsa sales tax to a flat 9%. The current three cents that Tulsa gets raises about $200 million per year so adding another .483 cents per dollar of goods purchased would raise another $32 million per year. Sand Springs is already at 9.012%, Sapulpa is already at 9.500% and Glenpool is already at 9.517%.

I would be fine with paying a little more for dedicated funding for public safety.

My second idea is to combine the Police department and the Sheriff's department. I know that the city and county don't work well sometimes and the two departments have different entrance requirements and training. That doesn't mean that entrance requirements can be changed nor existing personnel can't get additional training.

As a person who luckily doesn't interact much with the police or sheriff folk, I truly don't see much difference. They both have guns, cars, uniforms and the ability to arrest me if I break the law. I am sure there are some ego and territorial issues that make this more difficult than simply raising the tax rate, but now is the best time I know of to make the decision to merge.

These are my two first ideas. I got them from others and I am sure there are other ideas out there from other posters.

Minor technical correction: Raise the total sale tax in Tulsa to 9%, not the City Sales tax.

Also, Bixby is about 9.5% total sales tax.

Good suggestions so far. I would like to add ... do a full, independent audit on the Public Works Department to make sure things are actually running smoothly. Right now, we have a lot of conjecture and assumptions that PW is inefficient; let's actually confirm these assumptions before taking any steps.

No more tax.....They need to learn to live within their respective budgets.......

+1.

Really now, how long have I been wailing about how wasteful our streetlights are, and how many examples have I given of other communities that have quite literally saved millions of dollars annually by getting that waste under control?

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/lrc/nystreet/how-to-officials.pdf

http://content.calgary.ca/CCA/City+Hall/Business+Units/Roads/Streetlights/EnviroSmart+Streetlight+Retrofit/EnviroSmart+Streetlight+Retrofit.htm

And yet streetlight waste is but one aspect of a pattern of wasteful spending we have become accustomed to, in pretty much all departments all across the city.

To many this may seem like minutiae, but in reality a snowflake is minutiae until you allow yourself to get buried by it as you sit back and watch it accumulate.

Now that the negotiations are pretty much over with, maybe we will start to hear about new revenue sources.

If any ideas were floated before/during negotiations, there would have been no ability to make any movement on the expenditures side of things.  Best to get costs down first, then after every possible cut, start talking about future revenue streams.

Also, in budgeting for the future, we need to stop it with the projections based on rosy economic conditions.  If anything, we should take the numbers from the worst of this recession, and base all future budgets on it.  Do not allow politicians to assume revenues will be any better than they are right now.  If we luck out and have good economic times, invest any surpluses into any and everything that has been proven to create long term cost savings (I said proven, not cooked up schemes by people trying to dump a $75 million property on us)

I know I'm not being taxed enough.
In addition to our sales tax not being high enough, I wish I could pay higher property and income taxes..   Does the 1024 have a just take all my savings and spending money option?

We're paying to much as it is!
How about lowering taxes for once?
The police and fire salaries are inflated as it is!
City Salaries (incl police/fire) (http://www.tulsaworld.com/citypayroll)
Those are base salaries....  most opt to work 4 10-hour.   that's 40 hours.... yet those "extra" two hours a day are considered overtime...

If the answer is "throw more money at it," then you're asking the wrong questions.

Tax increases aren't the ansewr until government waste has been confronted and taken care of.  On that we can agree...
However, what makes you think the extra 2 hours is OT?  It is not unless the police union in Tulsa has some odd clause that allows that to be the case.  I have several family members and friends in policing and all work 10 hour days and it is not considered over time until you work over 10 hours. 

Police and fire are paid reasonable wages but they are not overpaid given their jobs, stresses and potential for injury/death.  The problem is ith city management.  Caving to union demands, giving unsustainable raises during good years.  Raising the city budget, raising services simply because revenues are up.  Instead they need to put 50% or more of all surpluses in good years in a rainy day fund.  Additionally the city needs to find new sources of stable revenue.

"They both have guns, cars, uniforms and the ability to arrest me if I break the law."


^^That's the way it is now.^^
 
Every Mayor since Susan Savage has stated that "Public Safety" would be the first priority.
The number of police academies, that have added to Tulsa's investment in public safety, during the same time, can be counted without using all the fingers of both your hands.

This was during a good economic climate and.. the current conditions.

Tulsa's investment in Safety, Education, Quality of life, and the other criteria major business looks for in locating and maintaining a work force, in an area, have all but been ignored or the monies have gone to projects that would "put us on the map".

Out of curiosity... "Casinos and gambling were to have fixed the Education Revenue shortfall."

Where is that money going?

Gambling, if anything is up, and continues to go up.

 Anyone know or is that one of those Oklahoma topics that one doesn't ask about.

"The arena, the ballpark, a new City Hall, will make us more desirable and a more family oriented place to live."

The truth of the matter is....

---

TULSA CRIME INDEX

4

100 is safest

This city is safer than 4% of the cities in the US.

---

Throwing more money to politicians that have proven they don't know their as$ from a hole in the ground is working real well.

Keep in mind crime is not just a policing issue though.

Any citizen of the city of Tulsa can under municipal statutes protest the city budget through the state auditor office which will be transferred to the OC court of tax appeals.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent for surveys to reduce the cost of city operations.  The general consensus has been “get rid of the top heavy management.”  Revenue bonds are issued to be repaid from the revenue they generate.  Tulsa is having a hard time generating revenue in the glass monstrosity with two vacant floors and furnish one half of the third one on a gratis basis.

We can increase sales taxes but when computer operated machines that operate without human error replacing hundreds of  jobs forever how do you create jobs.  The cell phone operating as a camera, texting, video and land line phones reduced future retail sales of now obsolete objects.  The migration of the rural resident to the easy life in the city created a influx of unemployment.  The internet payments to the banks has done away with hundreds of jobs.  The credit card industry has obligated the citizens thus stopping the expansion of the employment cycle.  We demand 44% of the worlds production of gasoline but we have closed the filling stations with great job losses.  We have many electronic machines that can replace police ticketing with an auto ticketing system that will mail the summons.  We have electronic meter readers that eliminate those jobs.  Government is the biggest employer and job creator.  The secretary of state in France seems to be trying to get WWlll started.   All of this and more while we want to talk about increasing revenue to expand government.

Oh well maybe we should talk about 2012 when the planets in our solar system align as predicted thousands of years ago and the gravitation forces of which we know nothing about except our solar system depends on it to function.  ;D ;D ;D      

Shadows child of the great depression,

You have been around long enough to see technology create new jobs to replace the ones it reduced or eliminated.  What makes you think this won't continue?

I've attempted this discussion with Shadows before... you won't get anywhere.

This little ole machine has let technology overtake the human brain.  Encased is the knowledge of a thousand professors with instant recall.

Our technology has created poverty here and is well on the way to create another black hole in the universe.  We search the ruins of other societies that existed thousands of years ago.  We are only a flash of light in the chain of life and have reached the point where others failed.  Demand=Supply=jobs.  Our goal has been to eliminate private jobs. 

Tea room tax for all us tea baggers.....

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=14886.new#new

A government job lost is a good thing..

Exact opposite of the real world private sector

I didn't really think I would.  I just wanted to see what kind of drivel he would post.

Absolutely NO on any increase to sales taxes.  Sales taxes are the most regressive, obnoxious form of taxation.

I read in the Tulsa World that most property insurance policies include a benefit for local fire departments responding to calls, around $500, yet the Tulsa fire department has never persued or claimed these benefits.  What morons.  Mayor Bartlett mentioned this, and the Tulsa FD is an idiot for not persuing this revenue source and should do so immediately.

Personally, I prefer a city income tax of say 3% on all personal incomes generated within the city limits over $100,000.00.  No deductions, no BS.  But unfortunately, OK state constitution/law does not permit municipalities to levy income taxes.  Pity.
 

A city income tax doesn't fix the corruption in the city or misallocation of tax payer dollars.  I agree other forms of revenue should be explored but not an income tax. 

In addition how would such a tax be handled on inviduals who work in the city but live outside the city limits?  You can't tax them the full rate for services they may only use during business hours. 


Perhaps a tax on all incomes above X dollars is worth a thorough vetting but my initial reaction is no way.  Increased sales tax, or state taxing online transactions and distributing the money based on the zip code of the purchaser would be a good option IMO.  Millions of dollars are lost to online purchasing which greatly harms our municpalities.  I used to be 100% against taxing purchases on the internet but given the rapid rise in internet sales and falloff in local saes we have little choice.  It's that or increased property taxes or an income tax.

I think to really start discussing this problem, people have to decide what kind of "long term" fixes are going to be possible. Some long term fixes, city income tax, combining TPD/TCSO, city getting a part of property taxes will take state law/statute changes that may or may not be possible.  The last time, the City of Tulsa tried to get a state statute changed regarding municipal funding it failed.  Also, people need to understand that what may be good for Tulsa may not be good for other municipalities/counties in the state and may be defeated.  

In regards to a metro police department, there is a reason that has not happened here or in the OKC metro area, where there is even more municipalities then the Tulsa area.  It was explained to TPD, TCSO and the city leaders that there are numerous state statute issues, OKlahoma Constitutional issues and pension system issues that would have to be addressed at the state level before it could be considered. This is why the Mayor and the new Chief of Police is no longer pushing for a "metro" police department.

As far as studies go, I'm all for an outside independent company to come in and do a manpower/effenciency study on all departments.  TPD just had one done last year under Mayor Taylor (http://www.tulsacouncil.org/pdfs/Tulsa%20Prsntn%208.26.08.pdf). It showed that the police department needs to civilianize some positions within the police department and add 75 more officers.  It sounded like a good plan to me.  However, now that we have laid-off 133 officers we are just that much more behind.

Wanna bet?  I belive any income earned within the city limits should be subject to an income tax, regardless of domicile, at say 3% over a combined household income of $100,000.  Who cares where they live, if they earn the money in Tulsa you should pay the tax.  But like I said before, municipalities in OK can not levy income taxes per the state constitution and this should be changed ASAP by a statewide vote.  And what are the chances of that happening?  Unfortunately, zilch.  

Unfortunately the problem with funding for safety and law enforcement is not localized to the Tulsa area.

The 2010 inmate rodeo in McCalister has been canceled due to budget woes.
One State Correction Department official was quoted as saying...

"Unfortunately, the reality is we just don't have the number of correctional officers available to transport and secure the offenders who participate in the event."

I agree wholeheartedly.

The act was passed to combine city/metro governments.  It was discussed at meeting in the north library by the author of the bill.  It was thrown out by the high court.

One state cannot place sales taxes on purchases of the citizens of another state.

The city cannot place a sales tax on articles delivered outside the city.

Internet sales are taxed by the city on the honor system called a use tax.

A general sales tax on the internet purchases would require a small business to file hundreds of different city tax forms twice a month.  Such would create more hundreds on the unemployed line as most sales at present are warehouse sales involving one or two persons.

The city already receives a property tax collected by the county.

If you have already bought off the internet you owe the city sales tax on it.

Be honest and divvy up before councilor Turner come knocking.  It is payable to the OTC who retains a percentage for collecting it. Call them and they will send you the forms.

Or give all the monies collected to the unions and let them distribute it out the way they want on budgets to all departments.  That mayor fellow seems to have gotten some spunk since he left the council.  He sure called their bluff.   
 
Next time read the ballot before you vote as it may not read as it has been  programmed for you.

You are mising the point, some of us do claim items purchased online when taxes are due, but most do not.  I personally try to shop locally even if it means spending more.  I like my local tax dollars going to my local community and there are ways to significantly reduce the drawbacks to enforcing sales tax on the internet, it is not nearly as difficult as you make it out to be.    Also do not think I am necessarily in favor of this, I am simply saying we have to find a way to keep local governments funded at a reasonable level. 

Assuming you could get the state constitution changed:

So you want businesses to move from Tulsa to the suburbs to help their employees avoid the "City of Tulsa Income Tax"?  What does the City of Tulsa offer to office dwellers that is not available in Owasso, Broken Arrow, Sapulpa, Sand Springs, Bixby, ....?  I don't know the percentage of businesses that own the buildings they occupy.  I expect those that rent have no real reason to stay if the cost goes up without an accompanying benefit.

Philadelphia, PA has (had in the 60s) a city income tax.  My dad was glad when his employer moved many of the office folk (including my dad) to King of Prussia.

What you propose will only work if all the neighboring cities/towns also enact a local income tax.

Sitting here as a suburbanite I often see the solution to Tulsa's problems (by many posters here) to be to make the City of Tulsa more unattractive to "outsiders".  You have a product, the City of Tulsa, that you are trying to sell and I consistently hear proposals of increasing fees on visitors, restricting road access (without a viable public transportation option available), and basically making a trip to Tulsa as expensive as possible.  Why?

Good post.

It is ridiculous to tax people who aren't citizens of the city for services they don't use.  If I became subject to such a tax I'd simply work from home and telecommute, which has some drawbacks but would be easy enough to do.

Everyone wants a free ride on Tulsa's back. We're the product, but no one thinks they should have to pay for it. Instead, they want our residents to pay for their wasteful lifestyles. Fine. Stay in your small burb/cities and watch the inevitable result. Your taxes will increase as you demand what Tulsa has always provided for you. Water and waste systems, power grids, emergency services, judicial and policing systems. Then you can move into Wagoner or Creek or Osage county and start the process again. A process that is a huge waste of resources and creates stagnant, decreasing value neighborhoods as you leapfrog to newer, cheaper digs with whiter, more conservative schools. Knock yourselves out, but don't expect us to chuckle.

Companies don't decide to move offices because of their employees having to pay higher taxes. They usually don't care unless its their taxes affected. Does Houston have a city income tax? Dallas? Yeah, I just can't see companies moving to the likes of Broken Arrow because the city of Tulsa needs to pay for more cops.

I am sorry that I cannot see the point in increasing taxes on the working poor to reduce the cost of a blotted governing body.  There surely must be some other way to reduce the cost than rushing out with a dump truck full of money to dump on the budget/cost ratio of providing the necessities needed for normal operations of a functioning city.  The plan to take from the captive working poor and give to blotted governmental bureaucracies should have been left in the dark age area don’t you think? 

“….in order to provide for a more representative, efficient, and economical administration of municipal government,” Those are the words taken from the preamble (page 3)of the amended charter.  What happened in the last twenty years or was that only to be used to program the voters?  ;D ;D ;D

Sorry, I was sure the Bixby tax was more than Tulsa's and thought it totaled about 9.5% as I said.  Appears I was in error.

Great post, Inteller.

BTW, a representative of a local band big internationally was recently placing posters in L.A. and was cuffed and taken to jail by a private enforcement force. Weird. But that's what we are headed into....the privatization of portions the city can no longer afford. Except, in this case PWD code enforcers can still be paid out of that departments funds....it's the police and fire outsourcing that concerns me.

This devil has few suggestions to cover the permanent deficit....he wishes he could offer something constructive other than "move." Tulsa is a large Muskogee.

Thanks for the research, Inteller.

I really don't think people are going to change their purchase locations based on less than half a penny sales tax very often. I see that Tulsa is among the lowest city sales tax in the area and isn't making enough to cover some items that I think are crucial to the quality of life I want.

I am only talking about adding an additional 47 cents per hundred dollars purchased.

Nobody wants to pay more anything, I understand that. But even in a difficult economy it seems affordable to me.

I keep hearing a consistent rumor of deannexing portions of Tulsa in an effort to cut costs associated with public safety and public works.  Has anyone else heard this rummor?  Anyone have any thoughts about it?

Free ride on Tulsa'a back?
 
Electric: the big power plant is in Jenks.  There is a peaking station near the Jenks plant.  I think there is another big plant around Oologah and I know there is one near Chouteau. The last I heard, the PSO plant near downtown is not generating electricity.  I don't know how much the City of Tulsa paid for the wires to my house in Bixby.

Water: COT may own Spavinaw and Eucha but they are hardly in the city proper.  COT sells water to the suburbs. I believe water to the burbs from Tulsa costs more than water to COT residents. I assume the local government(s) around the reservoirs is(are) properly compensated for the loss of use of the land where the reservoirs are.  I assume the property owners where the two waterlines go to get the water to Tulsa from Spavinaw are properly compensated. I remember reading they cannot even store hay on the ROW.  Same thing for the property owners from Oologah to AB Jewell. I suspect that COT is freeloading off the Corps of Engineers in the case of water from Oologah and Lake Hudson.

Sanitary sewer:  I believe Bixby has it's own.  I know sanitary sewers were installed a few years ago here where septic tanks have been working since the 60s. There were some low areas that definitely needed them.

Storm sewers:  Clean up your act.  I don't want Tulsa street run-off polluting the river water in Bixby.

Trash: We have to pay a private trash hauler. They only take common household trash, not much else.  I once put out an old metal lawn chair and they wouldn't take it because it was metal.  They probably go to the same landfill as COT trucks but I am not familiar with the dumping fees.  On free dump day, I  am not allowed to participate (for free) unless City of Bixby participates (I assume at some cost).  Then I only get to dump one load, not as many as I can.  While the landfills may be in the city corporate limits, they are certainly not in the desirable living areas.

Fire: Bixby has its own fire department.  Chances are you won't need their services unless your car catches fire.

EMSA:  I pay directly each March, even though I believe my health insurance will cover the ambulance ride.

Police: Bixby has its own police force too, with patrol cars.  For the one time in your life that you may come to Bixby, be sure to have a fake ID showing Bixby residency or our police will not help you if you need it. (NOT)

Sales Tax:  I actually do most of my shopping in Tulsa, not Bixby.  Walmart, Food Pyramid, my favorite liquor store, Quik Trip for car gas..... all in Tulsa City limits. I will admit to going to Lowe's at 111th and Memorial which is in Bixby and Aldi's and Schlotsky's both in Bixby.  I rarely go to any of the new stuff on the east side of Memorial between 101st and 111th. I sometimes go to the Reasors in Jenks since I work at R.L. Jones Jr/Riverside Airport.  I sometimes go to the Reasors at 71st and Sheridan (and use COT roads to get there) because they have Campbell's Pepper Pot soup there but not at Jenks.  You are correct that I am not going to make an everyday purchase based on less than 1% difference in sales tax.  It wouldn't pay for the gas to get there.  Some jurisdictions get grabby about sales tax.  Presently most states want "use" tax on stuff bought in other states. How long until it gets to the city level?  Oh, you bought those peaches in Porter?  You owe Tulsa "use" tax for bringing them into the city limits.

Fresh Produce:  Here's an area that some of you seem to like.  What have you done to help pay for the farm land and roads to get that fresh produce to the Tulsa city line before they get to the "farmer's markets" in Tulsa?  That is, above and beyond buying the products?  Does Tulsa charge sales tax that Bixby or the local growing areas don't get? Maybe Bixby should charge a special export tax for produce going to Tulsa.

Other goods and services:  How much of the stuff you buy is actually grown, manufactured, etc within the city limits, or even Oklahoma?  Probably not much (except for Marshall's beer).  Is Tulsa getting a free ride on the infrastructure outside the city limits?  Roads, police, fire, free toilets on the interstate outside of Oklahoma,......

BOK Center: County project?  Should it have been located in Jenks, Owasso, somewhere else?  Is Tulsa getting a free ride on the county?

City income taxes:  

The best I could find on the internet is that Houston and Dallas have no city income tax.  The max sales tax allowed is 8.25%, including the state sales tax.  Texas is clever though and I'm sure they make up for it somehow.

I did some checking on my old nearby stomping grounds (pre 1971) of Philadelphia, PA.  It appears they have some sales tax devoted to the city.  They do not have a personal "income" tax.  A funny quirk in PA law a long time ago didn't allow them to tax unearned (interest, investment) income.  They do have a wage tax on compensation.  If you live in the Phila city limits, for Jan - June 2010 you pay 3.9296%, regardless of where you earn that money.  Suburban companies are required by state law to withhold that for Phila.  If you pay an income/wage tax in the place where you work outside of Phila, OK, you still owe the whole 3.9296% to Philadelphia.  Non-residents who work in Phila pay 3.4997% for the first six months of 2010.  Doesn't matter what other income taxes you pay, including your home town. The rates for the 2nd half of 2010 aren't posted.

I'm glad I don't live or work there.  For more info: www.phila.gov/Revenue/FAQs.html  (And other pages within the site.)

I agree a company won't choose a location based only on taxes on its employees.  It may be a contributing factor in order to pay competitive salaries/wages. Look at the few (advertised) percent the Tulsa police and firemen got caught up with, the reason for this thread.

My point is that no place is a stand-alone sustainable entity.  Not the city, not the suburbs, not the rural areas.  
 

You make a lot of assumptions. Fine. Obviously Tulsa is such a drag on the burbs. Cut yourselves loose and be prepared to do battle on your own. Higher water prices, toll booths at the city limits and perhaps, surcharge taxes for non residents only. Maybe you can depend on those county employees to take care of you. The ones who have to apply for welfare to augment their low pay. No sharing of our river rescue operations either and after paying for your own, don't forget to budget for training. Lots of other shared responsibilities unmentioned. Power? Its owned by an out of state company anyway.

No one in the city will miss your cookie cutter shopping, your snout houses, your single lane traffic jams, your stifling, elitist conformity and your condescending attitudes. So for heavens sake, do your own thing so we don't have to hear you whine about how corrupt, criminal, inept, expensive and politically inbred we all are here cause we endeavored to have a professional police force for a cosmopolitan community. Or how stupid we are to want to improve the core of the city instead of surge madly into the surrounding farmland. But beware, we just lost 10 dozen police officers and since the wealth and brains are obviously moving to the burbs, I expect the criminals will follow the money. At least they won't have a high speed rail system to help them get there.

Yea Redskins! Yea Spartans! Yea Tigers! Yea Trojans et al. Boo stinky midtown elite! Boo downtown dregs! That's the spirit! Seriously, I agree with you, we are all in this together and I so tire of hearing complaints about how the poor and overtaxed middle class (there ain't one anymore) are being raped by greedy townies who just don't understand that the answer to our problems is lower wages, less opportunity and the re-location of government offices into abandoned shopping centers.

During the worst recession in my lifetime, including the Reagan debacle of the early 80's when crime also skyrocketed, my city decides its a good time to break the police union and geld the firemen. No negotiation, no search for alternatives. Just take it or leave it. And now, the rumor that merging with the hated county government, long rumored to be just as inept and maybe even more criminal is a possible solution? That, my friends, is a city with problems living in a fairy tale.

I have been under the impression that since Vision 2025 passed, our ability to raise sales taxes inside Tulsa has been maxed out.   We have a good 4 years before any sales tax revenue will be freed up and put up for grabs.  2014 is when the 3rd penny and the 4-to-fix 1/6th cent have been stretched out to by the 2008 streets tax.  2016 is when Vision2025's 6/10th comes up for grabs.  We are pretty much SOL until those dates.  The city might make a pre-emptive grab at V2025 in 2013 or 2014 to head off the county, as well as combine it with the other freed up tax streams.  We have 4 years until then to either come up with something else or just wait it out.

By that time, streets will be a pressing issue again.  Fire and police, we can only imagine.

When that time comes, we will have essentially 1 and 2/3rds cents to possibly allocate to the city between the 3rd penny, streets tax, and V2025 expiring.

As someone on the inside at the police dept. you would probably know better than others which areas would be classified as "drags" on the city budget. 

(http://www.tulsacouncil.org/pdfs/R&PD/maps/2008%20City%20of%20Tulsa%20Urbanization.jpg)

My first guess is just about everything east of 145th east ave (Or at least 193rd) -  Why is that part of Tulsa?  Did the city planners that annexed that portion at the time think the area was about to explode with growth ala 71st & Memorial, Owasso, or Broken Arrow?  What revenue producing value is out there?  Are there some factories / industry I'm not thinking of?  The only thing I can imagine is the reservoir being part of Tulsa proper.

The way it sticks out so far, and the relative low population density would immediately make me think it is a drain on TPD to respond out there.

It was probably annexed thinking that industrial (and jobs) growth would materialize from the Port of Catoosa.  Why do you think 244 was built as an eight lane highway when the rest of the major highways in town weren't?

Actually some of the assumptions I made, such as proper compensation for land owners by the water lines from Spavinaw, are in Tulsa's favor (even though I intentionally made them sound like Tulsa is not paying).  Maybe you know how much they are compensated.  On the other side, perhaps you know how much COT paid for the development of Lake Hudson and Lake Oologah.  I don't.  Toll booths entering the city can also be met by toll booths exiting the city. Oops, I forgot, none of you ever leave the city. All of your goods come in like the Berlin Airlift so there is no need for any roads leaving the city. We will put a toll booth on the railroads leaving Tulsa too.  I don't believe I have seen "Tulsa County" as the primary sponsor on the Bixby or Jenks police cars or fire trucks.  I don't get to BA or Owasso much so I can't speak for them.  What county employees am I counting on? I guess maybe the tax assessor. Bixby has City of Bixby police and fire. I'll give you river rescue. Power by an out of state company... you are the one who implied Tulsa provided the power grids.


I agreed that we pay for Tulsa water with an implied profit to Tulsa although up until a few years ago Bixby had its own water supply from the lake near Leonard. Bixby has a municipal court. We even have a Post Office and our very own zip code.  I know, all the mail goes through Tulsa.

As boring as it may be, most of my shopping is satisfied by cookie cutter shopping.  Do you spend all your money in boutique shops?  Never in your life been to a WalMart, Target, Albertsons, Food Pyramid, Sears, McDonald's.....?  Where do you classify Dillards, JC Penny, and Sears?  They have shops in the despicable Woodland Hills Mall which, like it or not, is in the COT limits and pays sales tax to Tulsa. Sears has a store at 21st and Yale.  Pennys has a store at 41st and Yale.  Does that count as Tulsa?  Specialty shops is why I want to live near but not in a city. I hope that downtown can retrieve some of these kind of businesses.  I have said that long before this.  I don't know what a "snout" house is. Ours is part of an addition with similar styles, mostly single floor ranch houses with medium pitch roofs (I can walk on it) but not like the California burbs just after WWII where you could make a legitimate excuse that they all look alike.  Most of the single lane traffic jams are part of COT outer reaches but I'll agree a significant portion of the traffic is leaving Tulsa. Remember that Memorial is US 64 south of the Creek Turnpike so Tulsa is not the sole funder of maintenance.   I don't believe I said anything about
I did agree that maybe the police and fire personnel may need to compromise due to the financial situation. In general, I support them. I think there is too much missing information to make an informed decision on whether the city or the police/firemen have the better case.

Just as you  
I tire of hearing complaints that suburbanites should support you in a style to which you would like to become accustomed.

Actually, they did expect Tulsa to explode in that direction. Real estate development in the late 60's to the mid 70's was expanding in several directions- south, southeast towards BA and east. Eastward seemed promising because of the navigation channel, the airport expansion and its easily developable gently rolling land. Thats why Eastland was so promising. Several things happened that screwed that movement. The underlying geology was shale which shifted and broke up the slab foundations. Expensive to repair and builders didn't stand behind them. A few tornadoes practically cleared a few new developments in the mid 70's then the economy soured. Many builders moved to more profitable southeast and BA development but some stayed and made heavy use of 235(?) low income funding to build less than desirable neighborhoods. Then Eastgate floundered and the area stagnated. So, yes there were high expectations.

That is either one of the most insightful things ever written or complete nonsense.

Either way, it needs it's own poster:

I was actually coming here to post exactly this (raising taxes), but it appears somebody else had the same idea. Here are the current sales taxes for Tulsa as well as some suburbs and other large Oklahoma cities:

(these figures have been provides by others in the thread, but I had already typed them up before I saw them)
Tulsa: 3%
Oklahoma City: 3.875%
Broken Arrow: 3%
Sand Springs: 3.5%
Jenks: 3%
Bixby: 3.5%
Glenpool: 4%
Norman: 3.5%
Owasso: 3%
(source: http://www.tax.ok.gov/publicat/copos/copo1Q10.pdf)

Tulsa had $15.8M in sales tax revenue in 12/09, 14.5% lower than the 12/08, or $2.7M. My math may be simplified or off, but a .5% increase should get us to about $18.4M, <$.1M short of 12/08's revenue.

I would propose that the City raises the sales tax to 3.5% for ONE YEAR. At the end of that one year, hopefully the economy will have recovered mostly and the sales tax will be dropped back to 3%. However, I have another provision. Any revenue greater than the previous period goes into a rainy day fund. So for instance, (I'm making up numbers here) if the revenue for 7/10 (after the .5% increase) is $19M and the revenue for 7/09 was $18.2M, that $.8M difference goes into the rainy day fund. The rainy day fund could be used if the economy hasn't fully recovered after the sales tax expiration and still forces the Tulsa government to live within the budgets that were used to and gives the city more time to correct any wasteful spending.

That's too far west from where I'd put the boundaries. I'd say definately include 129th, and very likely include up to 145th. The Eastgate area is too far away from Broken Arrow, but there is continuous development linking the area to Tulsa.

We must close the sales tax gap!
(http://static.squidoo.com/resize/squidoo_images/250/draft_lens7309292module60630192photo_1256341043Dr._Strangelove_Scott.jpg)

Sgizzle:

Sorry to offended you on the facts of history only sustain that technology is the dominating factor in the rise and fall of the nations before us.  As we are a captivate in a globe that limits our access to space by the aging process.   We search for the technology used to build the great pyramids of Asia, Central and South America.  Records assume that it was technology that created poverty among the inhabits that led for them not to be able to sustain the quality of life demanded by their supposed superiors. 

Roosevelt created jobs by building roads and bridges by the shovel not technology of the machines.   At present we have focused on technology to reproduce the jobs that it has eliminated in a trickle down economy, already in a declining market. 

Many of the intelligent analyst are warning that the situation has no way of improving until we address the thorn that created it.  It reported that those cities that are just waiting to hire the laid off policemen are also in trouble with their budgets.

Tulsa, if operating under the statute budgeting act them they could have included an extra 10% to the last budget in anticipating increase income.  If that is being done then the shortage can run as much as 20% figured from last year budget.  Even the Abacus would not be needed to see where reductions would be needed in a maxed out taxing structure. 

Show us a sketch of the city being operated with robots.       

I thought they did an audit after the Martinez scandal and the report was supposed to be delivered around city election time.  I asked the question at my neighborhood forum with then Councilor Gomez and current Councilor Barnes and was told the results would be available soon.  No, I wasn't skunked on Marshall's that night, but I'm certain I was told there was a result of an audit of PW which was due soon.

I don't think I ever saw my question answered on another topic where I posted it.  Does anyone know if any of the three large casinos in the Tulsa area collects any sales tax on food, liquor, or merchandise sales?

Are they required by any sort of public record to provide how much they take in gambling revenue?  I'm quite certain money lost gambling doesn't get spent at Reasor's (and therefore finally absorbed as sales tax), except as being diluted payroll of the people who work at the casino.

Bingo.....How much of a drain do you think these Casino's are on Tulsa's public safety departments.......

Why don’t we just slap a tax on new home sales? 

Since we are all getting thousands of dollars from our fellow tax payers to buy a new home, why don’t we divert say $1,000 of that to pay for our city shortcomings.  I certainly wouldn’t mind diverting money from a misguided program to fix Tulsa. 

Any objections or reasons why this would not work?

There’s $3 million right there.

(http://tomgpalmer.com/wp-content/uploads/legacy-images/Money%20Down%20the%20Drain.jpg)

(http://static.soxfirst.com/soxfirst.com/imgname--aig_money_down_the_drain---50226711--drain.jpeg)

I have never seen such yapping about the actions of the voters that voted overwhelming to change the charter where the mayor would be the only authority to hire and fire within the police department.  The court suggested that it had not passed but if it passed it could be brought back before the court.  Now they are yapping about sovereign nations not contributing to us because we cannot handle our own money. Its again “don’t tax me tax that fellow behind the tree”.  We are 145 years in the time cycle and in complete disarray.   

Impact fees are bullshit.......How bout they learn to live within their respective budgets......

How about we offer the cops the same deal as they had the first time....

Except up the pay cut from 5.2% to 6%.


Other than that...   I don't see why we should pay more for less.    (How about they sell the old city hall and quit spending a quarter million dollars a year maintaining an empty building?    Or just move back into it and default on the ice cube?)

How bout we have an a public endowment just like the university's do,for the city of Tulsa.....That way people can dictate when and how much they donate.....It sounds simple but I can forsee many questions on how...when and to whom this money is distributed....But I really don't see how this can't work......

The stormwater fee is an impact fee but PWD steals from that account to cover other deficits.

Developers should be paying for infrastructure like their adjacent roads, turn lanes etc., in which they impact traffic.

No, I don't propose an impact fee. 

I would just like to see a system in place where the city is able to siphon a small percentage of money from stupid federal hand-outs to pay for the economic disaster that will follow.

When the “I’m sorry you lost your job, here’s a cookie” policies go away, so shall the fees.

If the federal government has no interest in taking measures to release the economy, than why shouldn’t local governments tap into the electricity from the cattle prods?

The best solution would be let BOK pigeon hole the city’s overdrawn checks until those better times become a current event.  I would assume that the unborn great grand children would be paying them on the revenue bonds used to buy the glass cube.  I could be wrong but heard a rumor that fistfights were happening between developers on who was first in line to buy the prime property the ole city hall sits on.  ;D ;D ;D

Never came across anyone that was interested in that spot.  Many looked at it, but when they figured in the demo costs, parking problems, proximity to the courthouse and library, the attractiveness faded.  I would think the spot would make a good class B/C office building for lawyers or other related businesses. 

Time to cut bait, don’t you think?

Thats a load of bullshit......Impact are nothing more than a way to bilk more money out of everyone.....Not to mention the fact they charge impact fees for existing projects that already have water and sewer to them......

Had an opportunity to talk with a "big wig" from one of Tulsa's competitive suburb cities.  Brought up the idea of Impact Fees and learned a lot.  He said our surrounding cities would love to see us impose more impact fees on development.  He offered several examples of how that causes surrounding competitive markets to explode.  Bixby, BA, Jenks, Glenpool, Owasso, and others would all welcome the boom. 

He said that most of their Tulsa transplants and local developers cite better schools, lower taxes, and less red tape as reasons for investment in his community. 

So for the sake of Tulsa, I have to change my initial suggestion.  Even a temporary impact fee would most likely prove damaging.  He gave several examples such as Ft.Worth, Arlington, Denver, Houston and most of the large cities in California.  Fees in some areas add as much as $10,000 to the cost of a home and the result is massive sprawl and minimal increases in density.  He said they also create a "Ring of Decay" around the city in the highest impact zones.

Appartently they got off to a good start in the 70’s and 80’s but have since spiraled out of control, as is natural for government programs. He said he thinks about 70% of large cities have some form of impact fee and according to the NHBA they are on the rise nationwide. 

Developers and realtors in surrounding cities use the fees as strong marketing platforms.

Exactly and thank you.....Anyone thats thinks any kind of tax/impact fee as progressive is a dingle-berry.......

It is time to cut bait as the fish are not biting.

In citing the reasons why the former city hall has not created any interest for redevelopment.  

The glass cube is in the most inconvenient location that could be selected as a core to the governing departments of a supposed progressive city.  It seem it was selected to be inaccessible to the general public which it is to serve and incorporates all negatives on the redevelopment of the former city hall.  

One could believe that it is a product of a trust established by the public works department to place a distance from public interference.      

Planers shoud be cutting the bait.

I would be interested in your examples.  Would make a good discussion and exploration.  Perhaps we can learn how to do or not do it correctly.

Please give an example of leveraging them correctly, I'm just not seeing how there's a correct way to do it without increasing flight to the suburbs. 

Sooner or later, someone building a house at 121st & Sheridan is going to call me an infrastructure mooch since I live in mid-town in a 55 year old house and I didn't pay a dime other than my annual property taxes and sales taxes to support the infrastructure to maintain the nicely poured concrete street and driveway entrance that was done at some point in the last few years, sanitary sewer lines which they recently came through and tested, and the arterial streets surrounding my neighborhood (which aren't being maintained worth crap).  Ostensibly, I'd make more use of our infrastructure shopping and eating within a few miles of my house and the 8 or 9 miles I commute to work and back every day than the person living at 121st & Sheridan, especially if they work and shop primarily in Bixby.

I simply don't see where it's equitable or progressive.

+1

It's equitable because you live in the chosen land. All others in the outlands should tithe to the Great Ones.  The Great Ones live the only sustainable lifestyle, even though they get their food, water, and power from the outlands, mostly still require the vile automobile to get to their place of providing productive output to society, and ultimately dump their waste in the outlands.   :P

Oh, wait a minute.... (approximately) 50 years ago your home (midtown) was suburban sprawl.  You are not one of the Great Ones and will be required to tithe as an outlander. 

Nevermind.

Oh hell, one more thing I forgot, my share of the infrastructure that pipes water in from Spavinaw or Oologah.

I guess it will be bottled water for you.  No dumping the bottles either.

Edit:
I knew a family (20 or so years ago) that lived along Lynn Lane (or thereabouts) and had to truck in their household water.  They owned a small tank truck and a few times a month had to go buy their water.  I don't remember the details of why they couldn't (afford?) get rural water service or dig a well.

I might be able to support an impact fee on new construction commensurate with the density of that construction.  If housing in northern Bixby / SE Tulsa had remained at 1 house per acre, we wouldn't need a 6 lane Memorial Drive, maybe only 3 lanes (total) with the center lane for turns. Of course fees crossing city boundaries could be messy.  Should they be at the county level? If you want everyone in the area to pay the fee, then when it's repaving time in mid-town etc then they get to do the impact fee for their maintenance/improvements.

I think I remember reading on this forum that 21st St. was made into 4 lanes to encourage development.  How was that financed?  How about the 4 lane arterials in mid-town?  How were they initially financed.  Those were the areas of early suburban sprawl.

Same old arguments we had during the road rebuilding discussions before.  

That did not make any sense.....

Apparently snark is easy, explaining is hard.  :D

Yes, and you keep making these comments as though they have merit. The cost of repaving, road building and other infrastructure costs in the midtown area that you seem so bent on punishing, are reflected in the cost of our housing, our ad valorem taxes and our occassional special assessments. We paid extra to live in these homes in purchase price. Because our homes increased in value, (while suburbanites chased cheaper $/sq ft options in newer hoods whose homes did not reflect the true cost of developing them), our taxes were/are higher than yours. Our taxes also were used to build expressways and widen arterials that had no real benefit to us so that the new suburbanites could race back and forth from downtown. We fought hard to keep a good chunk of my neighborhood from being razed to make a Riverside expressway for the developers. We've subsidized your lifestyle for 50 years. Pay up.

Do you not remember when newly arrived Cities Service employees all bought expensive homes south on Sheridan Road which was a GRAVEL two lane because developers refused to pave it? The city had to wait for their property taxes and sales taxes to start rolling in before it could be paved. Yeah, that made sense.

I wish I had time to read the 51 page report from Fayetteville, if someone has the time and cares to summarize and explain how this could be a relevant benefit to Tulsa, I'm all ears and no, I'm not being a smart arse.

I assumed as it is now that the developer of a new housing addition is responsible for all costs from within the boundaries of their development for water and sewer lines, electric, gas, and all the asphalt and concrete for the streets and curbing, and that was accounted for in the per lot price for houses.  Is that not how it is being done now?  I can see a little better the point inteller is trying to make- that people who choose to live in newly-developed areas should be paying to widen the roads, and run the lines for municipal services (water and sewer).  I think proposing it as a per-house "fee" or "tax" on the homeowner is what everyone is getting stuck on here.  Does it make more sense put in the perspective that developers should be paying for main arterial improvements or at least a share and then passing that along as a part of the lot cost?

An addition I lived in at 105th & Yale had city water but all houses were on septic.  Seems like there was a proposal going around to tie in the houses to COT sanitary sewers and that each homeowner was to pay for a share of the tie in which also reflected a proportionate cost of the main sewer line we would all tap into.  This was very preliminary and we moved from that 'hood before it ever came to pass.  I have no idea if it ever did.

I have to admit planning and development is not one of my more passionate causes and I'm more of a casual observer on these threads unless it's something I'm really adamant for or against.

It's a study.  Done in 08'.  Arkansas impact fee enabling act is only a few years old.  Kind of verifies what I was talking about.  These programs start with good intension, and lofty goals, but the final product 10, 20, 30 years down the road is destructive.

Kind of reminds me of another government program, I just can't remember which one.  ::)

This tax-averse city is about to learn what it looks and feels like when budget cuts slash services most Americans consider part of the urban fabric.

More than a third of the streetlights in Colorado Springs will go dark Monday. The police helicopters are for sale on the Internet. The city is dumping firefighting jobs, a vice team, burglary investigators, beat cops — dozens of police and fire positions will go unfilled.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14303473

My favorite detail from the Colorado Springs budget cuts is that they took all the trash cans out of the city parks and put up signs saying to take your trash home with you.

Think that would work here?

Not a chance.  We are inhabited with pigs who think nothing of tossing empty happy meal sacks out of car windows.

When I used to spend about a week or two a month out on the front range of Colorado, I was always impressed with the pride people had in Colorado Springs.  I don't know if it was really tight code enforcement or people just take it more upon themselves to keep their houses tidy and pick up after themselves.

Well, we could remove the trash cans and put up the signs.  I think the trash would stay in the parks.  I see too much trash along the roads etc to think otherwise.

“A rose by any other name, would it not be a rose by smell?”

Is not a impact fee the same as any other tax?   

If it is call a fee does it make it any easer to pay? 

We have more government now than we can afford to buy. 

At what point does government become socialism? 

If we made all roads to out ling additions toll roads then the user could pay for the type of roads they wanted.   

We should follow everything Colorado Springs does...same mentality rules here. So, why not?

Once again, Inteller posts are accurate...especially with regards to Fayetteville.

Don't you know that only socialists believe in paying their own way?  :o

BTW, having lived in Fayetteville at the time they imposed impact fees, they had absolutely no effect on the continued boom in subdivision building, despite what some of the local construction firms were saying. Perhaps it's just an effect of my only getting business through word of mouth, but the developer I used to have as a client just considered himself lucky that the city had subsidized his projects until that point.

If the claims here were true, there would have been a huge shift of builders towards Springdale and Rogers which had no impact fees. That didn't really happen. There was a shift northward towards building in Bentonville and Rogers around that time, but that began as soon as they decided to locate the new airport up in Benton County.

I think you have that backwards.  Socialists believe in having the government (someone else) pay their way.

We obviously disagree on whether my comments have merit.

I was unable to find housing prices for midtown in 1971 to compare to the price of our house when our family moved here from near Philadelphia, PA.  I do know my parents wanted approximately 1 acre of land so we could have a big fenced in back yard for our German Shepherd dogs.  They also wanted more than the 25 or so feet between houses like the place we left behind.   They didn’t care about sidewalks.  Bixby City water service was here but the houses were on septic systems. Sound like mid-town yet?  The price of the new “cheap place in the suburbs” was about 30% more than the selling price of the home back east.  The new place was about 3 years old, at approximately 1500 ft^2 had a bit less living area than the old place by not having a basement, but did have an attached  garage.  By the way, it is not a snout house.  Among other things we have a side entry garage.  (The lot is wide enough.)  The front wall of the garage is even with the living and dining rooms and actually recessed a few feet from the bedroom area.  My parents bought this place because it is what they wanted.

I am not intent on punishing midtown.   You claim the price you paid for your house included the cost of the roads.  Unless you bought it new, the price you paid went into the pockets of the previous owners.  You brag about the high home values and taxes you pay but evidently they are not enough since your residential roads are also in bad shape even without paying to widen the roads down here.   My parents bought this house as second owners at a price that reflected adequate infrastructure at the time and probably would have remained adequate at 1 house per acre densities.   Future, higher density, additions caused the roads to be as packed as they are now.  Cut the traffic by 75% and the 2 lane roads down here would be busy but adequate.  Maybe an impact fee should have been charged to our addition for a few traffic lights and turn lanes.  Now we get to where we agree a bit.  I think the higher density new housing and businesses probably should have included an impact  fee to expand the infrastructure to what is now needed.  Where we differ is that I don’t think we (in our addition) should now pay for infrastructure levels to support at least 4 times the density housing any more than you believe you should pay for our problems down here.  I mentioned a county level impact fee.  You dismissed my previous points as being without merit.  What good would a City of Bixby (or Broken Arrow) impact fee do for Tulsa?  There are a lot of houses within the Tulsa city limits that weren’t here 39 years ago. Some of those additions are pretty pricey and their lot sizes are not that big. Their taxes should  pay for some widening even without a special assessment or impact tax.  Or should those taxes go to fix residential streets in midtown? Again, in the case of Memorial Drive, there are federal and Bixby dollars involved in the widening south of the Creek Turnpike.  I will admit to using Riverside/Delaware and 121st to drive home from work.  It has been widened already between Memorial and Sheridan. (Bixby territory)

Just as I am willing to support public transportation that I will probably never use because it might get some cars off the road and make driving easier for me, I believe the expressways have benefited you by keeping traffic off many of your major arterial streets.  I don’t believe all the traffic on the arterials is by suburbanites either.  By expressways I am thinking of Skelly (I-44), BA Expy (51, US64), I-244, US75, US169, US412.  Note that these have state or federal dollars involved which means I helped pay for them too.  The Creek Turnpike which I usually take to work is, of course, a toll road. 

The expressways also make it easier for the nasty suburbanites to come to the BOK center which doesn’t help Bixby, BA, Owasso, Jenks, Glenpool beyond a little county sales tax but we helped pay for it. Can/does downtown and midtown Tulsa completely support the PAC, Old Lady on Brady.  How about the new ball park?  What would happen if suburbia decided it wasn’t worth the drive downtown without the expressways or good arterial streets?  I expect the financial models for these entities depend somewhat on the dreaded tax leaching suburbanites. I also know of at least a few people that work downtown and stay for things like burger night at McNellies.  They are not the majority of the customers for sure but I doubt I'll see a "Suburbanites Keep Out" sign any time soon.

We moved here in August 1971. I believe Cities Service must have already been here since Sheridan was paved, as I remember, all the way to 121st. There wasn’t much there though.

It's getting late so I'd better stop for tonight.

I don't know about all that. Socialists aren't the ones constantly clamoring for tax breaks and refusing to pay for the infrastructure necessary to service their homes on the edge of town.

Counterintuitive, isn't it?

Also, I think waterboy's point is that all of the existing housing stock has had its infrastructure paid for through general taxes. New subdivisions out at 111th and Sheridan (or wherever) aren't paying for the cost of extending municipal services out there. Everybody else in Tulsa is subsidizing that development on the edge of town by paying the hundreds of thousands of dollars necessary to extend water and sewer.

If Oklahoma allows it, another way to recoup such costs (and the cost of rebuilding roads/sidewalks/whatever in older neighborhoods) would be through either a special assessment (which sucks because it's often a huge chunk of change all at once) or a temporary property tax surcharge. (better, since it allows the pain to be spread out over a few years)

The point isn't to make it more painful to buy a new house on the edge of town, the point is to recoup the cost of extending city services.

Of course, in places like Fayetteville, you get to pay the impact fees even in infill situations. I haven't thought enough about it to decide whether that's reasonable or not.

Most socialists are on the receiving end..   sooner care / welfare, etc..
System works well for them.. we get to pay for all their services.

It is only if I were to accept your perception, which I don’t.  Maybe you are having another senior moment.

Socialists are the ones that depend on the government to take care of their needs.  They pay taxes according to their ability and withdraw goods and services based on their needs.  Of course they don’t clamor for tax breaks.  The poor won’t be taxed and the rich (and usually powerful) have enough to satisfy their desires almost regardless of how much you take.  If not, they have a foundation set up to make sure they are not hurt. When I think of socialists, I think of Hugo Chavez and his kind.   US American socialists are rank amateurs by comparison.


If the area around waterboy can have its infrastructure paid through general taxes, it’s only fair to have new development extended the same treatment.  I have heard that some of the original close in areas were funded by special assessments but that much of Tulsa’s infrastructure has been funded by general revenue.  It sounds so much like “I’ve got mine but you can’t get yours”.  At one time, midtown was on the outer edges.  Maybe we went through the same stuff back then.

The way I understand the Roads package, it includes repairs to many residential streets at the expense of everyone in town.  Some of the arterials in mid town have “improvements” either planned or being done.  “Improvements” may be in the eye of the beholder but anything other than regular maintenance spits in the eye of SE Tulsans being told to pay up

If I may add your your well-put point, most subjects of socialism are not allowed to clamor for lower taxes, better working conditions, better living conditions, etc.  Complaints like that are usually met with a gun muzzle.

I think you are confusing socialism with authoritarianism. It's easy to conflate the two, but they are separable. See most of Europe for a good example of that. Generally not authoritarian, yet partly to mostly socialist.

Similarly, Red Arrow conflates socialism with communism.

And FWIW, there is a significant class of well off folks who buy into the whole socialism thing. It's called noblesse oblige. You know, taking care of the servants.

So did some communists.  Remember the CCCP, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

I do. I also remember how they eliminated most private property, so I see the lie right there in their name. Similar to the German Democratic Republic.

You don't have to buy into their nearly 20 years past disinformation, however.

Ouch. That's going to leave a mark.

Nor do I need to buy into your philosophy.

Back on the topic of finding funding for local public safety efforts...

This from today's Tulsa World...

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100205_16_A1_Tulsan82302

Poll backs tax for public safety
 
MAYOR
Dewey Bartlett: The mayor received mixed reviews for his handling of the situation.  
By RANDY KREHBIEL World Staff Writer
Published: 2/5/2010  4:10 AM
Last Modified: 2/5/2010  6:25 AM

Tulsans are open to the possibility of a tax increase to pay for police and fire protection, according to an Oklahoma Poll conducted this week. Fifty-two percent of the 318 voters surveyed Monday through Wednesday said they would "favor an additional tax dedicated to funding police and fire." The question did not specify what kind of tax or how much of one.

"If we really need 140-something police, we're going to have to find a way to fund it," said poll respondent Stephen Lee. "I guess that would be another city sales tax, but I don't know what's practical and what isn't."

Perhaps not surprisingly, poll participants approved of the firefighters union's decision to accept contract concessions rather than layoffs, and disapproved of the police union for turning down the concessions, leading to more than 120 layoffs. "I think the firefighters did fantastic," said Debra Jackson. "I think the police stink." Eighty-four percent said they approved of the firefighters' action, while only 27 percent backed the police's decision.

The questions were written before it was revealed the two proposals were somewhat different.  "I feel like the firemen basically are in everybody's heart," said Linda Lewis. "They did accept the pay cuts just to protect the citizens. That same feeling is not extended to the police."

Jackson, laid off more than a year ago, said, "If I'd had a chance to keep my job at less pay, believe me, I would have done it."

Firefighters union President Stan May said public support "mean a lot to us. We did what we did because we didn't believe we could stop providing the services we have been providing."  Fraternal Order of Police President Phil Evans said the city did not leave his membership much choice. "When you negotiate," Evans said, "you normally move to middle ground. In this case, the mayor kept moving farther and farther away. It's almost as if he wanted this proposal to fail."

Mayor Dewey Bartlett received mixed reviews for his handling of the situation brought on by a $10 million shortfall in city revenues. Forty-eight percent of those surveyed said they strongly or somewhat approved of Bartlett's performance during the crisis, while 38 percent disapproved. "This is just a point in time," Bartlett said. "What we need to do is to continue to look to the future."

Lee said he thought Bartlett "handled himself really well" in his dealings with the police and firefighters. "I thought he conducted himself real well in the media," Lee said. "He didn't get real adamant. He kept his emotions in check." Others were not so complimentary. "I voted for Bartlett, but, boy, I'll never vote for him again," said Cheryl Lundgren.

"It's not so much that (Bartlett's) been wrong," Lewis said. "It's not so much a black and white situation. But because he didn't come forth with his thoughts, even if they were kind of sketchy, he made everyone think he had an hidden agenda."

Bartlett was noncommittal about a public safety tax, saying he still hoped to reach an agreement to bring back some or all of the laid-off police. "If we can make a deal with the FOP, it will give us some breathing room so that we can start looking at some of these ideas," he said.

Lewis, whose husband recently returned to work after a seventh-month layoff, said a tax to pay for police and fire is pointless if people can't afford to buy anything.
If people are not spending money, (a tax increase) is not going to do any good," she said. "That remedy is useless."

I never said you had to. What I'm wondering is where this strong socialist streak is coming from. This is Oklahoma. People should be willing to pay their own way. Yet somehow, those who strongly identify as "not socialist" think it's a bad idea.

The poll confirms that the police union made a catastrophic decision in rejecting the mayor's offer. The public disapproved of the police's action by a 3-to-1 margin.

Meanwhile, the public wholeheartedly approved of the firefighters' concessions.

More mixed results for the mayor, but mostly positive. He's making difficult decisions, so he can't please everyone.

I suspect if crime stays on an even keel or goes down after the police layoffs, public support for an additional tax for public safety will go down. Support for it isn't even that strong now.

And I'm still waiting for an answer from Wilbur to my question ... tick tick tick ...

I think that most believe they are paying their own way through taxes.  Think of it as a loan.  The city puts out the up-front money and builds the infrastructure.  Then the homeowners pay it back through taxes.  About the time you get it paid off, it's time to fix it and the "loan" starts all over.

"Also, I think waterboy's point is that all of the existing housing stock has had its infrastructure paid for through general taxes."

Drive through mid town and it's obvious our infrastructure was paid for a VERY long time ago  ;)

And the city spent the money to fix your infrastructure on something else.

You know what worries me right now?  Precious little is being said or, more importantly being done with the road package voters approved.  Who wants to bet they will figure out a way to corral that money into something entirely unrelated.

Along those lines, I was totally dismayed driving north on the west leg of the IDL to discover that the bridge I-beams have not been re-coated as a part of the reconstruction project and that I can see re-bar sticking out of crumbling stanchions.  We have nice new decking, but what's holding it up looks like crap and in places, quite unsound.

But the drainage off it is perfect do doubt.

Did the thread on closed rec centers develop or are we ignoring one of our best park resources like our councilors and mayors?

Just got done driving from 81st to 11th and back. . .up Harvard, then down Sheridan.  Glad I have a large 4wd with good off-road suspension.  I felt like I knocked a few fillings loose by the time I got back to the office.

Yesterday I noticed that a young lady LOST A WHEEL on Harvard after hitting that rough series of pot holes between 81st and 71st.  If you hit those full on while trying to make that curve, you’re gonna die!

The hole dodging on I-244 north of the Broken Arrow split was scary this morning.  I won't be on that stretch of road again for awhile, sure as hell not on my motorcycle.

Homeowner's monthly payments go up (or exceed monthly loan payment) after paying off the loan?

The issue here is taxes only go up... never down.
Why is that?
Because government keeps bloating...
police and fire salaries are crazy high...there's outrage that we don't have more officers...

New Tulsa passtime. . . Pot Hole Diving.

(http://www.whatsodd.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/pothole-diver.jpg)

Because the tire dealerships are the one's profiting off this misery, FOTD is proposing a windfall profits tax on them.

Post of the day.

Don't forget the brake and alignment shops too.  :-\

They may believe that, but the city's budget proves that is not the case.

Regarding BKDotCom's complaint that taxes only ever go up, how about you look at inflation, eh? I'm not saying there's no waste in government in general, much less CoT in particular, but obviously the money needed to pay the (usually low by private standards) salaries of public employees will only increase over time, even if the number of employees remains the same.

There must be an error on the taxes increasing.  In every bond issue election it is published that the passage will not increase taxes as a previous bond issue will be paid off by the time the bonds are sold.   And the president has nixed the exploration of the moon for further taxable property to secure payment on future bond issues.   

I cannot argue against the case that the overall budget is not there beyond the fact that Oklahoma has a history of moving money from one "account" to another. I don't know if that was actually the case here.  That won't stop homeowners from believing they have paid their way.

Let me help you with those 1971 prices. My parents sold their 1920's era home near 5th & Lewis for about $12,000. It had sidewalks, covered storm sewers, city water and sewer. A park, grade school and shopping center were about six blocks away by sidewalk. Bus lines, grocery shopping, firestations and such all were within walking distance.

He built a 2800ft home sitting on 3/4 acre at 48th and Columbia that year. Sound Midtown to you? It had a septic tank but city water. There were open ditches for street runoff, no sidewalks and no park land. It was a developers dream except for the density. When that area was developed piecemeal through several decades, builders had to pay for city sewer lines to be built on their developments. This area opted to not do that. The services ran close to my parents home but the cost to hook up to it would have been prohibitive by the time they moved there. Around $300,000 if I remember. The cost to build that home was $30,000.

He was able to build it because, as a painting contractor, his income was fueled by the rush to the suburbs for cheap, insular housing whose infrastructure was being paid for up front by the community. The sales price he paid would have gotten him a much larger home with lower taxes. BTW, that price home was 3 times the starting pay of a college educated accountant at the time. Those executives were busy buying homes along the fringes of the city because they could get a home like my father's (on a bit less land) for about $22,000 and much lower real estate taxes. Dad paid $800 a year. What did you pay in Bixby? Much less because you got a lot less.

Soon, the city of Tulsa removed the requirement for infrastructure funded by developer/builders as well as any requirement for sidewalks, public parks and grid designed streets. I don't know exactly when that happened, but I assure you it was not because homebuyers stopped wanting those things.

This is just not accurate or logical. The purchase price of my home was higher per square foot than similar homes available outside of the center of the city at the time. Why? It wasn't because the sellers were greedier. It was because the sum total of factors used to determine livability were higher. Those factors: quality of craftsmanship, infrastructure, services, demographics, accessibility, security etc. were ALL available and paid for long before the rush to the burbs. As such, the purchase price of the home reflected those investments by those taxpayers. I paid the higher price because I perceived those factors were superior and worth the premium. Still do.

I'm sorry you perceived my comments as bragging. I am comfortable where I live. It sometimes sounds like puffery. Our perceptions of midtown are probably wildly differing. Let me be clear. My neighborhood is not suffering from bad roads. Our roads are underlaid with thick concrete. My sewer lines are old but the city has maintained them well. Until the last decade we seldom had power outages (coincided with the purchase of PSO by outside entity). Our real estate taxes are high, continue to rise and we see little positive change around here from those increases.

The areas of "midtown" that are suffering imo did not have the total of factors that my hood has. They suffer from poor planning during Tulsa's expansion period when builder/developers ran the city. The roads are inferior, and the maintenance is too.

Lastly, I'm not sure I do support impact fees. I just think that the expansion to the outlying areas has put a strain on local communities, including Tulsa, to pay for its support system. Strains that are not reflected in the cost of that housing or its tax base.

Lot size is a bit bigger
Wow! I didn't realize my parents saved so much money.  

They got a 3 year old 1500 ft^2 house (+attached 2 car garage) on about 1-1/4 acre.  Dad immediately added a fence around the back yard for the dogs.  One edge was already fenced by a neighbor for their dog.  Local services included Bixby city water which was nice because it kept the fire insurance rates down. We have natural gas for heating and cooking.  Mom hates to cook on an electric stove.  We too had (and still have) a septic tank.  No sidewalks (for which I am grateful, no shoveling), and a gravel driveway.  There were a few small trees but dad added several trees and a row of holly trees along the back border and a hedge partly along another. The city installed sanitary sewer lines a few years ago mostly because the houses in the lower elevations had septic tanks didn't always work.  High school for my sister was in downtown Bixby (we are a little southeast of 111th & Memorial).  There were a couple of small convenience stores within a mile that didn't have much in them. The nearest real grocery store was Bud's Thriftywise in downtown Bixby (4? mi south) or Warehouse market near 21st & Garnett.  Later, Skaggs Albertsons built at 51st & Memorial, only about 7 miles up Memorial.   Bud's had a captive market, knew it, and charged accordingly.  We did most of our grocery shopping in Tulsa.  Bixby had a $.01 local sales tax and Tulsa had $.02.  We still did most of our shopping in Tulsa; food, clothes, car gas. I bought gas at the Texaco station at 51st & Memorial for a few cents more per gallon than the closer DX station because DX gas gummed up my carburetor and got 11 mph instead of 12 to 13 on Texaco around town.  (1966 Buick Skylark GS, like a GTO or Olds 442) Some of dad's co-workers asked if it took forever to get there. He told them it was about 5 minutes more than their houses in the 51st-61st and Memorial-Yale area.  That was until Woodland Hills Mall came along a few years later.

So, summing up.  Significantly smaller house but somewhat bigger lot.  Nearest anything was 4 miles away, more car/transportation expenses.   Had to make a few improvements to the property to make it the way dad wanted it.  Few if any city services.  There are a few other issues comparing life in suburban Philadelphia and Tulsa/Bixby that were disappointing but they are not relevant to the difference between Tulsa and Bixby.  Of the places that mom and dad had available, this place is what they wanted.  They didn't settle for it.  Over the years it became home and mom and dad cancelled their plans to retire in Florida.  Dad passed away about 9 years ago.  I live here and help mom take care of the place because we both like it here and mom would not be happy in a small yard without the dogs.

AND, compared to your parents, they saved a whopping, DRUM ROLL PLEASE....... about $1500.  The place was $28,500.


Edit:
I couldn't find the receipt for the fence. It is about 470 ft of 4 ft high galvanized chain link including 2 people gates 4 ft wide and one double gate 12 ft wide at the end of the driveway.

Well, here's the thing. I lived in near downtown, near midtown, near everything neighborhoods before all the so called improvements like the interdispersal loop, the BA expway, the arena and, ball park etc. were built. In balance, they have NOT been beneficial to my hoods. Their design, regardless of who currently uses them, are to facilitate movement of populations FROM the burbs to the properties downtown owned by private interests. Nothing about that benefits me. We were quite comfortable at 4th place and Lewis when I grew up without any of those things. I was quite comfortable where I am now without a new arena, a new ball park and the massacre of interdispersal loop properties. They did nothing for us but cause increases in our taxes without increasing our home values.

I do wonder how the city would have progressed had we not caved into these false assumptions that intercity expressways were absolutely the answer to our problems of growth. Perhaps it would have collapsed the downtown core. Not likely because there was already enough business to substantiate its existence when Bixby and BA were just farm towns. Nonetheless, we're here and we need to figure out more equitable ways to pay for our existence. Like I said, I'm not convinced impact fees would do that. However, solutions are not going to come from the existing players who devised the current system of expansion.

edit: Oh, yeah. When I worked for Cities back in 1974-1976, Sheridan road was still not paved south of 61st. I remember specifically giving a coworker a ride to his new home in the area and being quite peeved that my 69 Chevelle was getting rocks thrown on the finish. He was anxious for the city to get it paved too.

Don't get me wrong. I love Bixby, especially its large lot homes just south of 101st. But those aren't comps for my dads home. It was twice the size and located within the city. Also, that $1500 difference indexed to the same accountants salary today equates to about $7500. Along with the lower taxes, that is enough to sway a homebuyer even today.

The point is that the difference was only 5% for a smaller house and other noted differences.  Since the house is a significant part of the cost of the house/lot, at least out here, the concept that my parents moved here to save money over a midtown house just isn't true.  If anything, it was more expensive for what they got.  One of the arguments for living closer to the city is the cost of running a car.  My parents were well aware of that and still chose to live out here.  Within reason, money was not the issue.

Edit:
I don't know if the higher density housing has been a plus for Bixby or not. There are the very same trade-offs you talk about concerning tax base and services required.  My personal opinion is that if you want to live in housing so close you cannot drive a car between the houses to put your boat in the back yard, you should live in the city.  Just being selfish.

If your hood was in the path of the expressway, it was certainly not beneficial to you.  Maybe it has affected your opinion a bit.  We were here when the BA ended before downtown and 13th and 14th streets were used for the rest of the trip (according to my well worn 1971 Phillips 66 Tulsa and OK City street map).  I will agree that the IDL was probably not well thought out.  I do think that the relatively fast transportation to the suburbs was necessary.  Too bad it wasn't light rail.  That was one thing we had in suburban Philly.  In fact, my parents' first home was about 100 yards from a (real) trolley stop that would get you into Philly, in about the same time as driving your car.  There is probably a majority of TNF posters that prefer the urban life.  I think that is skewed somewhat from the population in general.  True, most of the suburbanites going downtown were going to private properties.  Can you say that Tulsa is better now that most of those private oil companies have moved to Houston or elsewhere?  The expressways were certainly not a direct benefit to you but I think overall the expressways are a benefit, excluding the IDL design.  Not having the expressways would not have stopped growth of the suburbs.

Tulsa is obviously in need of more money.  To some extent, it would be nice if Tulsa were self supporting for its necessities.  This would raise prices for all Tulsans but that could be considered the price of all the goodies mentioned as a benefit of urban life.  Unfortunately that would be tooooo expensive and some (like my parents) wouldn't want to live in the city anyway.  Making it illegal for private businesses to employ anyone living outside the COT limits probably wouldn't fly either.  I can see a case for it for city paid employees.  The easiest way to get money from the suburbanites is to make spending money in Tulsa as attractive as possible.  That supports the businesses that employ Tulsans (hopefully) and since there is a city sales tax, creates instant revenue from the visitors.  "You" aren't going to do that by b*tching about the leaches from the burbs.  Make it easy to get to Tulsa destinations.  Don't try to squeeze visitors for every penny you can get.  My wallet squeaks loudly but most people are willing to pay a reasonable price for reasonable service. 

As much as I want a quick drive to wherever I go, bigger, better roads don't solve a city's traffic problem if you still have too many cars in too small a place.  Once you get to the end of the expressway, traffic stops.  We have all debated whether Tulsa is suitable for rail transportation.  I think some routes, like to BA, are potentially a winner.  Even if some subsidy is necessary, think about the subsidy for the roads that even 10% wouldn't be using.  You could get rid of maybe 10% of the surface parking with no impact on parking.  Up front money is always the problem and I don't have an instant answer to that beyond being a socialist and asking the Feds for some.  ;D

'69 Chevelle, SS396?  That was the first muscle car I got to drive. A friend at a summer job got one and let me do a test drive (with him in the right seat) back when they were brand new.  Dark blue with a black vinyl top, 4 speed.   I think 68/69 GM intermediates were the first year that the width of the tire wasn't completely hidden by the lower part of the body work.  Lots of owners put rock deflectors behind the tires to keep the stones off the paint.  I won't insist that Sheridan was paved before I got out of the Navy in Nov 76.  I remember driving down Sheridan because it wasn't posted and Memorial was at 55.  I would not have beat up my car at 65 on a gravel road.

5% is a lot of money. My dad's house today is about $250,000. In whole dollars, not accounting for inflation, that's 12,500. Enough to influence first home decisions. Your dad probably didn't move there for economics, but other people moved to the burbs for that 5% I assure you because I sold them some of their homes. I sold real estate after I left Cities Service up to 1980.

You add in the extra monthly savings in lower taxes that the burbs offered and it meant the ability to buy much more home in BA than you could in Tulsa. Of course there wasn't much in the way of schools but my buyer's didn't have children. There wasn't much in the way of entertainment either (couldn't buy a mixed drink in BA!) but that was always available in nearby sin city. There were no large employers in BA or Bixby either till Ford Glass moved in, but not to worry, Tulsa had employment at AA and....downtown.

No, I'm afraid there was very little benefit from the BA expressway to those of us who chose instead to buy existing housing and work to build up our hoods. Even its path was an obvious and expensive route. Rather than take an existing arterial such as 11th street, Admiral or 41st and simply widen and streamline them to reach east Tulsa quickly, then tie in to a 169 type highway, the planners slashed right across the heart of existing neighborhoods separating them and creating more havoc with exits and entrances. Saved us little time except when we were going to the lake for the weekend.

And, I agree that the outlying communities would have continued to grow because of the economic benefit, the fear of minorities and perceived crime in the city. That's not an idle statement. I know what was in their hearts when they asked me as a realtor to show them homes. They often told me bluntly. Geez. Even my parents eventually moved to Bixby for some of those same reasons. But I seriously wonder if we would now have better mass transit, including inner city rail and better maintained arterials had we not suckered in to the exprway rage.

The suckling from the Tulsa breast still continues today. The lady who manages Supercuts and cuts my hair lives in Sapulpa and commutes to Brookside. Several of my co-workers do too. They travel from BA, Bixby, Owasso and Sand Springs just to work here in midtown. How dismal must the employment picture be in those areas? It doesn't hurt Tulsa to receive the sales taxes on their lunches, their fuel or the revenue from their traffic tickets, but the rest of their income including groceries, rent, banking etc. goes to their hometowns. The truth is, housing is cheaper there. Tulsa is indeed self sufficient.

1969 Chevelle Malibu. 300hp 350v8. Turbo-hydramatic with 3:73 rear end. Nassau Blue with fawn interior. Burned rubber in all three gears! Bought it from a little old child nursery care owner. I miss that car.

Up to that time, most vendors officed in Fayetteville. There just wasn't enough space in Bentonville and Rogers in the late 90s-early 2000s. They've almost all moved to Bentonville or Rogers now, though. I think the last one on Millsap moved away sometime last year.

Fayetteville has done a lot of good things, development-wise, and it hasn't really hampered growth.. Before impact fees, they required the developer of a subdivision to dedicate a certain amount of land for neighborhood parks. (or funds in lieu) I think that started in 94 or 95. Believe me when I say there was much gnashing of teeth over that one. Being the pointy end of the wedge, the screaming over that was probably louder than the screaming over impact fees.

And taxes, being percentage based, automatically match inflation...

Sales taxes match inflation in certain areas, like food and consumer goods, but not in many other areas, where inflation is actually taking place. Moreover, with a cap on sales tax amounts, big ticket items that have already surpassed the maximum sales tax amount will produce zero extra sales tax no matter how much the price of that thing increases.

The point being that a truly across the board uncapped sales tax would be indexed to inflation, but the sales tax as currently implemented is not so indexed.

Lets give it all back to the Indians and casinos, apologize for taking it away from them and accept they are wining it back thus it will take the burden off the others to find a way to finance an ever expanding bureaucracy.  Boren is trying to expand teaching the children history but in no parts of history has the citizens been able to muster the amount of money that the bloating bureaucracies demand from the citizens.  All of the problems to fix the city funding will be accomplished with a pair scissors working in the glass cube. 

When will the citizenry realize there is no other solution? 

January 27, 2013

Where, in $, is this cap?   From personal experience, it's above $75000 in Oklahoma for state "use" tax.

I don't know about Oklahoma, but in Arkansas cities and counties can only tax the first $3000 or so (I forget the specific figure) of a sale. The state, of course, gets paid on the whole amount.

If Oklahoma doesn't do that, sorry for generalizing.

The “only 5%” is mostly due the size of a 2800 ft^2 house vs a 1500 ft^2 house. As you noted, we are not really comparing similar houses.   I agree that $1500 was a chunk of change then.  Dad had to take a couple of deep breaths when mom spent $1000 on a washer, dryer, refrigerator, and freezer.   My parents didn’t want a big (2800 ft^2) house.  Neither mom nor dad enjoy(ed) house cleaning.   Looking at Google maps, I wouldn’t really call 48th & Columbia the spirit of midtown that people here seem to wax philosophically over.  I would call it the edge of suburban sprawl in its time but inside the COT limits.  I think of Cherry St as midtown. I won’t argue with a definition though.

I won’t argue either that a lot of people going to the suburbs got more square feet of house for less money, probably at less quality on a smaller lot, than many midtown locations.  I cannot see the cost of construction varying that much for a few miles except  perhaps by city fees and regulations.  Sometimes you may want a Lexus, can only afford a Corolla but you still need a car.  Evidently Tulsa didn’t have enough Corollas.  Not everyone is interested in a fixer-upper. Flight from crime etc, perceived or real, would make any place unattractive at any price. 

The SE suburbs within Tulsa city limits are frequently declared to be undeserving of infrastructure improvements on general tax dollars.   Do the houses south of say 71st St pay lower tax rates than other areas?  Some of the new homes in SE Tulsa have price tags in the mid to upper 6 digit and lower 7 digit (all left of the decimal point) prices.  The tax revenue from them should be significant. People with the amount of money required to buy such homes will probably spend more (generating sales tax revenue) than people with 5 digit incomes too.

It’s fashionable to hate everything that Woodland Hills Mall and the 71st St corridor stand for but it’s (mostly?) within the city limits and has to generate a lot of revenue.  Want to donate it to Broken Arrow?

The BA Expy west of Sheridan runs for a good distance along the RR tracks.  Did the tracks have grade crossings at every residential street before the BA?  How close were the houses to the tracks? I don’t have an appropriately dated map to find that.  RRs frequently separate neighborhoods.  Running an expressway between already separated neighborhoods makes sense to me.  I don’t know what  the choices were where the BA heads west between 13th and 14th. I don’t remember much development in 1971 east of where the BA and the RR part company.  Connection to the Muskogee Turnpike and I-40 is probably good for Tulsa’s businesses.  Where should the Turnpike have ended?  Memorial Drive?  Where it does now but with only surface streets to connect to Tulsa?  How many homes and businesses would have been disturbed by significantly widening one or more of the E-W arterials to be like today’s 71st St?

I-44 is for thru traffic.  Exits at the major arterials present business opportunities.  Maybe having interstate traffic go through downtown on 11th St was fine in 1950.  I remember going through many  towns between PA and FL on vacation in the 60s without doing anything except spending time helping to clog their streets.  I-95 was wonderful.  If we needed something in a town like dinner, we would go into town.  We were not the type to stop by the roadside attractions that so many lament the passing of.  We were going from point A to point B.   If the trip is the object and not the destination, many of the old roads still exist.

Light rail probably would have been a better commuter choice than the BA Expy.  Skelly was probably a good choice although I won’t argue for or against the exact route.  Tulsa had a reasonable (real) trolley system until about the mid 30s.  Then GM, Firestone, and Standard Oil set about to increase their sales by increasing the use of buses all over the US. The trolley systems frequently had their own problems and replacing them was not a hard sell in many cases.

A case could probably be made against any of the expressways.  A case could probably be made against the entire Interstate system too.  I’m sure the RRs would have liked for the Interstates to have never been made.

The surrounding towns have grown over the years.  I see them as having similar services as Tulsa.  In the surrounding communities we have police and fire protection.  Good, better, worse than Tulsa? I don’t know.  Schools have expanded with the population. Good, better, worse than Tulsa? I don’t know.   We buy water from Tulsa.  Thank you. I hope you are not losing money on the deal.   Sewer/septic tank.  Depends on  the housing density and soil conditions.   Is your dad’s house still on the septic system?  (I have no problem with it if it is.) Jobs have developed all over the area, making light rail more difficult to plan or implement. 

What does the COT offer anymore that is not available in the surrounding suburbs?  There is the prestige of a Tulsa address.  At one time a Sapulpa address was better.  There are the quality of life things that typically any small town cannot support alone like the BOK center, the Fairgrounds, specialty businesses,  the PAC, the ball park.  The COT should be the collection point for these venues.  Making them easily accessible to as many people as possible, including the suburbs, will help insure their success.   You contend that Tulsa is self supporting.  I say not so,  based on the current financial crisis and the cry that the suburbs are draining the city and therefore must directly help support  the city.  The COT must find a way to provide more actual and perceived value for the dollar than the suburbs if it expects to grow at the suburbs expense.  It must also be affordable to avoid  the Lexus vs Corolla scenario. 

South of 111th between Memorial and Mingo.  South of 101st east of Memorial is not large lots.  South of 101st W of Memorial is COT.

Rambling a bit there, Red.

I know little of PA. But I speak from experience in Tulsa. I grew up around the area that the BA bifurcated. Went to Jr. High at Wilson. Had friends that lived on both sides of the tracks. Played on those tracks with my friends from that area. They didn't cause the separation the exprwy did. The neighborhoods were built around them as the tracks have been there a long time. They were healthy hoods with solid middle class to upper lower class residents. Lots of older folks who built the homes and retired there. The expressway was a catastrophe for those hoods both business wise and socially. Third street, 6th street and 11th street all became irrelevant. Fifteenth was a cut through till it became "Cherry". Twenty first survived because of Utica Square, Monte Cassino and established oil wealth over there. The fairgrounds area suffered for years and was mercilessly cut in half. I specifically didn't mention I-44 or 244 since they are interstates and useful on a national level. Nonetheless, 244 is one of the poorest planned interstates I've driven and should have been located further north.

Then I sold real estate throughout the city. That was an education for me. Most realtors actively swayed first time buyers away from any home north of the BA expway, then anything north of 44 and finally, anything in Tulsa School District. Why? The builders they represented were building south of those described areas. The banks were loaning to the builders and working with the realtors and finally, it was too darn hard to learn about an older neighborhood when all you had to do was steer them to where low priced new construction listings were. Listings as easy to get as a low cut dress wiggled in front of a low brow builder. It became even easier to move them out of Tulsa when you threw in the wild cards......MINORITIES, Urban Renewal and Crime! Thats right folks, you don't want your kids going on busses to those crime infested slums where the darkies are with guns and drugs! When you are new to a city like tons of Cities Service and AA employees were, you depend on your realtor because you know you could be transferred at any time and have to sell. You don't take chances. Truth be damned.

I counter punched. I bought into some of those leapfrogged hoods, waited and worked for their renewal and did alright for myself. Some realtors did too. But you can't tell me that these were wise decisions by forward thinking planners or that they didn't have adverse results for our city. It was all driven by the need to keep builders, developers and bankers, fat and happy.

And, just because the city screwed up and padded their payrolls without making sure we had good revenue sources, don't for a minute think Tulsa is not self-sufficient. We'll adjust. You should hope so. If we don't, the little bergs around us end up as casualties too. We'll all be on the History channel 'splainin our versions of how it happened!

Noted. I get the two confused. In my day it tended to often be under a foot or so of water each spring. Made great sod and vegetables!

I caught the tail end of the news. Did I hear a councilor is going to propose a 1 cent sales tax increase? I think a .5 cent increase would get more support. I still like my idea. :)

There is a fairly good elevation increase between 111th and 121st on Memorial.  I would be surprised if 111th and Memorial was anything but local puddles. The sod farms start south of 121st.  Still there just west of Memorial.  I think your memory is a mile off, otherwise OK.

My uncle had a Rambler station wagon.  We were a GM family.   :)

I wanted to address a few things that were getting scattered.

When I was a kid, we played on the trolley tracks when our parents weren't looking.  We put pennies on them and hoped we could find them after the trolley smashed them. The trolley had its own ROW in our area so crossing the tracks wasn't like crossing the street like in Philly where the trolleys mostly ran on the street.  We weren't next to the Pennsylvania or Reading (pronounced like Redding) commuter lines but they weren't something you wanted to mess around on.   

I'm sure the BA Expy encouraged development around it. I believe the areas near 51st and Memorial were developed in the 60s. At least my brother's house, just north of the Falls Apartments (or whatever they are called now) was built in the mid 60s. Several of my dad's coworkers lived in that area. Not everyone went to Broken Arrow and Bixby. Development to the south and east was going to happen.  The BA Expy probably sped it up a bit.  I do remember the trip to downtown before the BA Expy was done along 13th and 14th.  The houses didn't look too appealing to me.  They may have been the unoccupied ones slated for demolition for the expressway. Too crowded for me even if the houses had been brand new. I think there was a moving company warehouse too.

I agree that I-244 could have been better.  Those left lane exits and entrances are terrible.

I expect my parents were steered in this direction.  There may have been something else within the COT limits but maybe not with the lot size and house size they wanted during the week they had to find something. 

Be sure that I don't want Tulsa to fail.  That would not help me at all. Since Tulsa is self sufficient, all the talk about COT income tax for outsiders, making every road entering Tulsa a toll road and a few other wild ideas can cease because you don't need my money.  Any money I spend with Tulsa businesses is gravy for Tulsa.  Thank you.   

Thread hijack.

Public safety --> Suburban sprawl, water, sewer, roads, impact fees? --> Where stuff was 40 years ago

I'll admit to drift but not hijack.  The suburbs stuff came about from the "suburbs must pay" to keep Tulsa afloat concept.

If you don't know how you got somewhere, its doubtful you'll know how to get back.

I took the liberty of sending this idea to Councilor Henderson since it sounds like he will be proposing a sales tax increase.

I believe "South of 111th between Memorial and Mingo" is only one side of Memorial, the east side.  West side is Lowes and then some newer housing with smaller lots.

Edit:  add link to Google map

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=74008&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=59.769082,118.476563&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Bixby,+Tulsa,+Oklahoma+74008&ll=35.996219,-95.87863&spn=0.015156,0.028925&t=h&z=16

Note: Aerial view was taken before the new WalMart was built.

Shhhhh! Red, just don't bring up the Target at 101st & Memorial.  There's a history there.  ;)

South of 111th, isn't it all Bixby on both sides of Memorial? (That Arvest would be the farthest corner of Tulsa in that spot, I guess)

But yes, between 101st and 111th, the east side is Bixby and the west side is Tulsa.

I know.  More traffic for Memorial.

South side of 111th west of Memorial (I believe to Sheridan) is Bixby.  The lot sizes are not so big as on the east side of Memorial. The area description started off as "I love Bixby, especially its large lot homes just south of 101st."  I was making a one mile correction to south of 111th and we experienced confusion after that.

OK, I get it. Thanks for clarifying.  :D