The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

The second public hearing for comments on the new comprehensive plan will take place Wednesday March 10 from 1:30 - 4:30 pm. At the end of the public hearings comments will close so if you cannot make it to the meeting be sure and post your comments on the PlaniTulsa web page.

All comments will be reviewed. Your opinion matters.

Thank you -

Liz Wright

Liz,

Thank you for thinking of us and keeping everyone posted.  I'm sure I speak for many when I say it is appreciated.

Here's a fascinating document that everyone should review:
http://www.planitulsa.org/files/PLANiTULSA-TMAPC-PH-Memo-030510.pdf (http://www.planitulsa.org/files/PLANiTULSA-TMAPC-PH-Memo-030510.pdf)

It's basically a memo/summary of the most "contentious" elements in the plan (ie: INCOG or the Home Builders Association doesn't like something...), and how the consulting team has responded to these issues.  Each item includes clairifications, possible amendments for consideration, and various actions that the TMAPC may decide to take.

This one is also fascinating: 
http://www.planitulsa.org/files/PLANiTULSA-TMAPC-Discussion-Items-030510.pdf (http://www.planitulsa.org/files/PLANiTULSA-TMAPC-Discussion-Items-030510.pdf)

It's a log of all the comments that have been received during the public comment period (since the public hearings started).  The best part (I love the PLANITULSA process!!) is that you can see exactly who is challenging certain items (Joe Westervelt, INCOG, John Bumgarner, etc).  This is a reminder to all the "normal folks" out there to give your input.  Don't let a handful of people assume too much influence.  This is our plan.  Every citizen has an equal voice.

You can see links to all the feedback/input that has been received at:
http://www.planitulsa.org/tmapc-feedback (http://www.planitulsa.org/tmapc-feedback)

TAKE A MOMENT AND WEIGH IN!  MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!

It's disappointing that, even though the development lobby had seats at the table -- prominent developers and heads of development and real estate organizations were members of the citizens' advisory committee -- they didn't participate much in the give and take of plan development, and now they're coming at the last minute to get the TMAPC to dismember PLANiTULSA and remake it to their liking. They are operating under a legal theory that if the TMAPC takes out part of the plan, the City Council can't put it back in. That's why it's important for the TMAPC to hear from Tulsans that they want the plan left intact. Today is the last opportunity to submit comments to the TMAPC.

More here: http://www.batesline.com/archives/2010/03/dear-tmapc-please-dont-dismember.html

Shocked, I tell you.

Even our women's basketbal team is named Shock.

Streaming live now: http://www.tgovonline.org/ (http://www.tgovonline.org/)

I feel sorry for Mr Bumgarner. It's obvious that these "so called "neighborhood associations"" (his words)-henceforth referred to as "customers"  are a bunch of loud, unwashed, uneducated, mouth-breathers that can't see his impeccable vision for Tulsa with all of its dryvit Italianate grandeur. These customers sit in their out dated (or historic) houses and dream up ways to prevent him from turning the houses into parking lots. They get together in unruly mobs to tell the PT folks how they want to live and shop without the benefit of his superior knowledge of development...which as he knows needs to be as spread out as possible and accessible only by car.

Poor guy. Its hard to be the only one with the vision.

Well, the development community lobbied for a delay, so there's going to be an additional public hearing on Tues, March 23 @ 6:00 PM.  (I agree with Michael Bates.  It's totally bogus, considering how many people from the development, real estate, and business community were invited to participate at every level of the process, and given every opportunity to be a part of PLANiTULSA from day one.  As someone who's attended almost every PLANiTULSA meeting and event, I can state that a lot of folks who are now complaining couldn't be bothered to attend meetings during the past two years...even after they were personally invited.)   

I'm glad the TMAPC scheduled an evening start time, so more working people could come show their support.

If you've been meaning to write a letter, or show up and speak, you've got another chance.  Do it.  It matters.

more info at: http://www.planitulsa.org/ (http://www.planitulsa.org/)

Ponder.... I have read and agree with the fact that the entities that are attacking the "PlaniTulsa" project at the last minute are doing so as an organized attempt to "minimize" it's impact.

That being said....

I have a hard time understanding the actions that some "Okies" find logical and acceptable.

In the Bates article he quotes a portion of a letter from Jamie Jamison. Someone who's opinion and knowledge of "urban planning" I have long been a fan of.

**below is a portion of that letter.**

---

 
    It's starkly clear that the homebuilders, realtors and the Chamber, all of whom showed up to complain yesterday, are mounting a serious effort to torpedo key features of PLANiTULSA. They give the impression of having lain in wait for two years.

    It looks as if the strategy is to drag out, obfuscate, confuse, conflate, alienate, discredit and ultimately emasculate the Plan to suit a myopic view of their own narrow interests, at the expense of Tulsa and Tulsans. A tactic in this is (i) to show up at the tail-end of the process when normal people have made their contribution to the process, and are at their day jobs, (ii) to gradually wear everyone else out to a point where no one else shows up except them, and (iii) to connive and lobby behind closed doors. They are now variously asking for a 60 or more days delay for their 'members' to consider PLANiTULSA's 200 pages. Never mind that everyone else has already read it. Perhaps - being charitable - they're just slow readers.

    The Chamber, of which I am a long-time and slightly embarrassed member in particular made itself look hopelessly out of touch: it sent a new and floundering employee along to ask for a delay with the flimsiest of rationales. It seemed pretty clear that it's been 'got at' by the Home Builders, who merely succeeded in making the Chamber look stupid - to the extent that the audience laughed at the Chamber's first utterances. Their representative left early. 'Mission accomplished'. Engagement Over.

   
    This is, sadly, a fight that in my view will determine whether Tulsa has much of a future.

---

So let's see if I can just begin to wrap my tiny little brain around yhese facts....

a. The Tulsa Metro Chamber has taken a more than slightly vocal stance of opposition to the "PlaniTulsa".

b. We the taxpayers of Tulsa ie the City of Tulsa, Pay the Tulsa Metro Chamber to lobby for economic development in Tulsa$

c. The Tulsa Metro Chamber, possibly using funds from the "Hotel Motel Tax" monies that they are paid with, has decided that irregardless of the opinion and position taken by the Citizenry of Tulsa that "PlaniTulsa" is not something that we need to have.
Well...... we pay them a lot of money$ for their expertise.
Maybe "The Metro Knows Best"$$
 Herein lies my confusion. And if someone can explain this as being either a rational or ethical agenda item for the "Chamber", I'm all ears.

This has to be one of those "Okie" things that just doesn't translate.

---

Of course I have the very same problem with the following action taken in OKC by a paid public representative.... So maybe I just try to find logic where there is none.

---

Oklahoma Republican says he switched Obama photo at Capitol

By Associated Press
Published: 3/16/2010  3:00 PM
Last Modified: 3/16/2010  3:00 PM

OKLAHOMA CITY — A Republican state lawmaker says he is responsible for moving a portrait of Democratic President Barack Obama that hangs in the state House chamber.

Rep. Lewis Moore of Arcadia issued a statement Tuesday in which he says he swapped Obama's portrait with a portrait of Democratic Gov. Brad Henry that also hangs in the chamber. Moore's seat in the House is near where Obama's portrait hangs on a wall.

The switch angered a Democratic lawmaker, Rep. Mike Shelton of Oklahoma City. Shelton, who is black, says he was offended and believes the act was childish.

Moore says he respects the office of president but disagrees with Obama's policies. Moore says his opposition to Obama's health care overhaul bill was his sole motivation for moving the photo.



rico

 

Today in the paper we read that the Chamber needs more time to study PLANiTULSA, so that they can "understand what [they're] endorsing."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100317_16_A1_TheTul517224 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100317_16_A1_TheTul517224)

This is a total joke.  Mike Neal was invited to participate as part of the PLANiTULSA Citizens Advisory Team over two years ago.  (Mission:  "To help guide the planning process, get Tulsans involved, and ensure that our new comprehensive plan reflects our community's shared vision.")

Had he chosen to actually ATTEND any of the Citizens Team meetings, which have occured monthly for the past two years, he might have a better grasp of what PLANiTULSA is and why it matters.

Out of the hundred or so folks who were invited to participate on the Citizens Team, there is a core group of about 25 who actually show up to every meeting.  Some folks  show up sporadically, but it's not a shock when they attend.  Then, there are many, like Mr. Neal, who showed up to the first one, and have never been seen since.

On the other hand, there are many people who were not officially named to the original Citizens Team, who cared enough to show up to the monthly meetings and participate.  Their insights and ideas have been welcomed, and they have worked hard to help keep Tulsans informed about the project as it moves forward.

Guess it just wasn't important enough to the Chamber.

PLANiTULSA Citizens Team:
Anna America
Chip Ard
Barbara Argabright
Stephanie Arnold de Verges
Dan Arthrell
Maria Barnes
Howard Barnett, Jr.
Michael Bates
Marquay Baul
Stacey Bayles
Jim Beach
Herb Beattie
David Bernstein
Michael Birkes
Bruce Bolzle
David Breed
Ken Busby
Ron Bussert
G.T. Bynum
Michelle Cantrell
Bill Cartright
David Conrad
Tom Cooper
Felicia Collins Correia
Jan Creveling
Patience Crowder
Katy Davis
Nancy Day
Phil Dessauer
Randy Dittmann
Dr. Kathy Dodd
Stephen Dow
Phil Eller
Dan Ellinor
Lanny Endicott
Todd Enlow
Shane Fernandez
Jan Figart
Linda Fitzgerald
Linda Frazier
Reuben Gant
Derek W. Gates
Darrell Gilbert
Jerry Goodwin
Jim Goodwin
Rudy Gordon
Thompson Gouge
Mark Graham
Robert Gregory
Sean Griffin
Shonday Harmon
Jack Henderson
Maxine Horner
Brian Hunt
Barney James
Jamie Jamieson
Dr. Sharlene Johnson
Stanton L. Johnson
Christine Kallenberger
Paul Kane
Karen Keith
Pat Kendall
Ken Klein
Sarah Kobos
Jim Lamb
Carol Lambert
Sandra Langenkamp
Bill Major
Jane Malone
Tom Maxwell
Marla Mayberry
Jeannie McDaniel
Judy Eason McIntyre
Jon McGrath
Matt Meyer
Jim Mishler
Ernesto Mondragon
Darick Morton
Shelby Navarro
Mike Neal
Jack Neely
Elliot Nelson
Janice Nicklas
Jim Norton
Esther Ogans
Brian O'Mahony
Bill Packard
Maria Carlota Palacios
Carlton Pearson
Julius Pegues
Kay Price
Michael Reed
Shawn Schaefer
Ed Schermerhorn
Seneca Scott
John Selph
Jabar Shumate
John Smaligo
J. D. Smith
Scott Smith
Bob Sober
Janet Stearns
Rand Suffolk
Paul Thomas
Wendy Thomas
Pat Treadway
Dr. Gary Trennepohl
Roscoe Turner
Donald Tyler
Al Unser
Margarita Vega-Trevino
Tom Wallace
Rose Washington-Rentie
Corey Williams
Paul Wilson
Larry Wofford

So what do we have?  A plan that is about to be thrown out the window?

Do we have any strong champions that are actually able to persuade for our side or is it all now going to be pushed to side with the builder's groups?

I think the TMAPC should be able to see through the Chamber's bogus claims.  Anyone who's read the plan can see that it incorporates data that was provided by the Chamber (especially in the Economic Development section).  That data didn't materialize out of thin air...I think the Chamber must have known they were providing it!  Also, every time the Frego team is in town, they spend hours meeting with various groups and organizations--including the Chamber--basically giving presentations and meeting with anyone who wants to sit down and talk.  I know that they've met with Chamber leadership on more than one occasion (in addition to the Home Builders, commercial developers, etc.)

Having said that, I can't stress how important it is for the TMAPC to hear from Tulsa citizens who support PLANiTULSA, and don't want to see it eviscerated by "surgical strikes" to various elements of the plan.  So be sure to read the comment logs so you can understand where the plan is under attack and by whom.  Then provide your own input on those issues.

Al Unser? Like the driver?

PlaniTulsa had a 90% shot if it had come up for approval under the last administration. Now we have a mayor and some councilors who don't understand it.

No.  Al Unser like the CEO of the "Greater Tulsa Association of Realtors."

I don't know about the Mayor, but I think the current council is likely to be favorable to PLANiTULSA and certainly won't be inclined to kowtow to the Chamber or the homebuilders. Seven of the nine members of the council won their seats over a candidate backed by the development industry. That's why the homebuilders are trying to gut the plan at the TMAPC.

Hi all -
On Tuesday March 23 from 6-9 pm at City Hall, TMAPC will hold its third public hearing regarding the comp plan. Between the PlaniTulsa logs and the public input we have much to consider and are honored to be entering our review in the near future.

Hopefully on Tuesday we will hear from those who have been unable to attend previously. What is helpful is to bring to our attention issues we haven't heard before. While public comment will soon close so we can begin review, the process is far from over. We will be sending the plan back to Fregonese for editing, wordsmithing, and it will come back to use for further examination. There may be one more public hearing at that stage. Once the Plan is perfect we will recommend it to City Council.

I personally would like to hear whether sections make sense. For example, the housing section had a rather dreadful run-on sentence. The plan should be a source of pride for Tulsans and readability is a must. I will be reviewing comments on Tulsa now this week-end so please add your two cents.

Also - I was scouting around the web and found this rather succinct site that discusses comp plans and their components. So if you are interested ..

http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/1269.html

Best to all -
Liz Wright

It's very encouraging that these are being taken seriously, so Im hoping the opportunity hasnt been misused.
Ill ask forgiveness in advance for my run-ons, but since my work schedule has limited my participation, Ill take one last shot at input.


My open letter to PLANiTULSA:

May I congratulate all on the months of work and public participation
that has gone into PLANiTULSA, and express my desire that this body of
work remain intact and inclusive of all that input.

I am very enthusiastic about the PLANiTULSA process to update our
blueprint for progress, but I'm concerned that a vitally important
detail of our city's growth was overlooked.

Streetlights are among a city's most important and expensive assets,
accounting for almost 40 percent of many city's electricity bills.
Yet for years Tulsa has invested in street lighting that is not only
unnecessarily expensive, but counter to growth and safety.

Good street lighting not only sets the tone of a city's image, but can
be instrumental in maintaining a vibrant, safer environment after dark.
...but not just any street lighting can be considered "good" or
accomplish these desirable goals.

Any municipal street lighting system must be designed to improve one's
ability to see at night.  All other concerns are secondary.
Street lighting should be as free from glare as possible, with
illumination levels and uniformity that compliment human vision and the
environment.
Streetlight systems should not be designed to "burn" a minimum amount of
energy, but rather provide the appropriate amount of light given the
task and surroundings.  That may mean lower-wattage, yet better focused
light.

I call upon PLANiTULSA to include a concise, written plan for street and
municipal outdoor lighting to be a part of the city's new Comprehensive
Plan.
Tulsa should require, by ordinance, that street lights purchased,
installed or maintained with public finds meet minimum efficiency
standards (such as the new EnergyStar rating for streetlights), and that
any streetlight be warranted by demonstrating that such installation is
needed to (and actually will) benefit nighttime vision.

The use of quality-of-living and vision-conscious tools like the
"Kennebunkport Formula" for avoiding waste and light trespass should
also be a de-facto step in this process.

Many communities throughout the country have re-examined their street
lighting and have corrected many of the mistakes we are currently
making.  Some lighting ordinances have stood the test of time for
decades, and provide many models we could study.  The American Medical
Association has even gone on record with a resolution calling for better
designed streetlighting.

Thank you once again for this monumental opportunity to better the
growth of Tulsa, and for your sincere attention to the needs of all of
it's citizens.
I would like to close with the words of the AMA, in their resolution:


RESOLVED That our AMA advocate that all future outdoor lighting be of
energy efficient designs to reduce waste of energy and production of
greenhouse gasses that result from this wasted energy use, and be it
further

RESOLVED That our AMA develop and enact a policy that supports light
pollution reduction efforts and glare reduction efforts at both the
national and state levels; and be it further

RESOLVED That our AMA support that all future streetlights will be of a
fully shielded design or similar non-glare design to improve the safety
of our roadways for all, but especially vision impaired and older
drivers.





     

I was unable to pull up the Ethics Code for the Planning Commission.

Will any of the members of the Planning Commission need to recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest?

Is that in writing in the code of ethics for the Planning Commission?

And if so how does the average citizen bring this issue up?

Here is the link to the TMAPC web site.  It has a link in which you can download the Code of Ethics:

http://www.tmapc.org/

Thanks for the link to the TMAPC but I still can't get it open.

Is it operator error?

Councilor Bynum recused himself from 2 votes on the city council last session due to a conflict of interest. Should we expect the Planning Commissioners will do the same?

Here is the actual code of ethics-downloaded and attached below as a pdf.

Phil Marshall is also a builder and member of the HBA:

http://www.philmarshallproperties.com/

Marshall was or is a member of the board of the Brookside NA.

I have heard a rumor that Marshall may likely be renominated by Bartlett after his replacement, John Judd, former Brookside NA Pres. and McGraw realtor, was turned down by the council on March 3rd:

http://www.mcgrawdavissonstewart.com/photo/agents/3979.htm

http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=12087707

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20100304_11_0_Tulsas104138

Judd is a registered Republican, but is listed as a supporter of Karen Keith's CC Dist. 2 race (http://www.karenkeith.org/supporters.php) as is Marshall and myself.  Marshall is a Democrat.

Commissioners continue to serve until their replacements are appointed.  If the Mayor does not nominate a replacement within 60 days after a term expires the council can make the appointment:

"All mayoral appointments to boards, commissions, authorities, and
agencies created by this amended Charter, ordinance, agreement, or pursuant to
law and requiring Council confirmation shall be made within sixty (60) days from
the creation of the vacancy or expiration of an existing term, or within such
additional time as may be authorized by the Council, for good cause shown.
Upon omission of the Mayor to timely appoint any such member, such
appointment shall be made by the Council." Tulsa City Charter, Art. XII, Sec. 11(B).

Marshall's term expired on 1/18/10

funny.....funny.........very funny..........!

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100331_11_0_ThePla893813 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100331_11_0_ThePla893813)

Anyone know an outcome?  Were they all winking at the developers?

  Anyone know an outcome? 

Were they all winking at the developers? 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
With the hope that I will be corrected by someone more literate in the  overall definition of the meeting results ; I will take a stab at what appears to have happened so far and what it will mean to the overall plan...
Please excuse my sarcasm..


The plan's two defined areas.. "stability and growth" are to be softened in what they are to be called.?
resulting impact on plan= negligible

The City of Tulsa will maintain it's working relationship with INCOG.
resulting impact on plan=Dwayne Alberty retains the title of "Capo dei capi". The plan will be assigned to the very group that through the leadership of Mr Alberty.. and jurisdiction assigned them.. have been an ongoing problem with bringing about any substantive change in recent years.

This news would make me extremely happy if I were wanting to run by essentially the same basic rulebook that I had been using for 30 years or so.

This part is just an assumption on my behalf...." INCOG more than likely would assemble the "code" using it's planning department."

Then would have the authority to determine whether or not future development met the new criteria of the "Plan".

With the absence of a new governing and planning structure..., to set a new plan and future planning and development in place, I fear the results will be akin to having Charles Norman write a new zoning code.
Not that I disliked Charles Norman, or lacked respect for his work, but this New "PlaniTulsa" should sound (alien) to the previous crew.
Either that, or the resulting impact of PlaniTulsa will be quite predictable, IMO.

Possibly " p m" or someone else can show me how I am very, very, very, wrong. I hope they can!


 

No decision was made concerning the role of INCOG in the future of Tulsa (planning, zoning, PLANiTULSA, transportation, etc.).

What actually happened during the meeting?

In the vision document, the language recommending a role change for INCOG was made less specific. The organizational structure should be reviewed and changes that would aid the implementation of PLANiTULSA considered. This is the language found in the first publication of the Vision.

In the five chapters of the Comp plan similar language changes were made so that a specific organizational change is not identified.

This seems appropriate. The first step is to create and adopt a new comp plan, the second step is to evaluate the organization and its structure to determine if changes are necessary to facilitate efficient and effective implementation. Comments concerning outside influence of individuals and/or departments would be helpful during the second step.

(From the Tulsa World Article regarding the TMAPC meeting to produce a "Clean" document to be considered.)

---

"The current plan's strategies, outlined in its accompanying Vision summary, include a consultant's recommendation that the city take over the local planning services that it now pays the Indian Nations Council of Governments to perform.

But commissioners stepped back from that idea, voting instead that the less-prescriptive language in an earlier draft be restored to the strategies section of the Vision summary. "

---

From the Tulsa World article...   

I guess I just read something into this that would allow INCOG to continue it's role.

The City had some very good planners in the past. It would be a very huge step in the direction of change to allow our local talent to put this in play.

Like I said.... just my opinion. INCOG is riddled with loopholes. This plan will not re manufacture INCOG.

Enforcing a new law with the same lawyer, judge, and jury might not be the way to go.

Tulsa's got a plan??


Are they really letting Carlton Pearson on the board?  He is a good guy, but am surprised he hasn't been shunned.

                              ^               ^                   ^

                                     ?

Due to his epiphany a few years ago (and being declared heretic by his church).  I happen to agree with him to the extent of what little I have heard about his Gospel of Inclusion.  Most of Tulsa isn't quite as "understanding".

New Thought movement sounds like there is a lot of Plato involved....



 

Too liberal minded.  If it is, he's been brainwashed.  FB posts over at the World as Webmeister (or at least last I checked he was still allowed there).

Friendly Bear??  Not me.  There is only one other fake name I use and it is inspired by Metallica.  And never seen here.  Besides, do I seem that friendly?  Will have to work on that a little harder, I guess.

Liberal??  Hmmm...well, I guess that depends.  You all have heard my thoughts on DUI, DWI, etc.  Goes hand in hand with my absolute belief in the death penalty (except in Texas - they have no self control - killing the innocent with equal enthusiasm as the guilty.) 

And I didn't wait until last year to start bitching about the deficit, out of control federal spending, and federal debt - if you knew me, you would have been sick to death of hearing about it for at least the last 40 years.  Yes, since at least 1970.  And as a very proud Lifetime Member of the NRA, who will NEVER resign my membership like George H.W. Bush did,...well, I guess if all that makes me a liberal, so be it.

I have set right here in the middle where I always was and have watched the country swing to the far left, then back to the far right, and then kind of shudder a couple times and move a little bit toward the middle.  I am a Moderate Wing Reactionary Extremist (WMRE).  As opposed to Left Wing Reactionary Extremist (LWRE).  Or Right Wing Reactionary Extremist (RWRE).

Meds??  Because I like what I have heard about Carlton Pearson??  Or because you don't like Plato??
Have never had the chance to go to one of his services.  May have to try that sometime. 

Are you an anti-fan of his?  (That would be what I was alluding to when mentioning Tulsa as not quite so understanding.)

Meeting today to further discuss Tulsa's new comprehensive plan

By KEVIN CANFIELD World Staff Writer
Published: 4/14/2010  3:27 AM
Last Modified: 4/14/2010  7:42 AM

The Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission will meet today to continue discussing possible changes to the final draft of the city’s new comprehensive plan.

The plan provides guidelines for the city’s physical development. It was completed Jan. 12. Since then, the city has taken comments on the plan online and the Planning Commission has held two public hearings.

The commission is now considering what changes to made to the final draft.

Commissioners hope to have those modifications in place and a clean version of the plan available to residents well in advance of April 28, the date they have set to continue public discussion of the plan.

However, that date could change if the Planning Commission needs more time to do its work.

Wednesday’ meeting is at 1:30 p.m. at the City Council Committee Room on the fourth floor of City Hall.

The public is invited to attend, but no public comments will be taken.
By KEVIN CANFIELD World Staff Writer

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100414_11_0_TheTul234230



Anybody going to meeting today?  I'd love to go but I have a job.

That's what I like about you inteller you are realistic.

But don't tell Dana it doesn't matter. For all you know they have a really good real estate attorney and it can be whatever they want it to be.

And from all the noise, shrill screeching and dubious propaganda, I thought Vision 2025 was the be-all and end-all of Tulsa planning.  And supposed to last until 2025.

So that previous "Tulsa's new comprehensive plan" is now supplanted by the latest "Tulsa's new comprehensive plan"??

Vision 2025 was a Tulsa County Tax. PlaniTulsa is an update to a decades old comprehensive plan for the City of Tulsa.

The merging of Tulsa with Tulsa is way overdue.  Get rid of Tulsa county government and let City of Tulsa be it.  Talk about some efficiencies of scale.  Tulsa County is one of those anachronistic leftovers from the age of dinosaurs...or at least the '60s.

Given the level of "mis-pent resources" by county government throughout the state, we probably should get rid of 77 of them.

COT can't seem to balance it's budget and has a penchant for over-spending.

The county doesn't seem to have quite as much an issue with that based on recent years financials.  If anything, I'd reverse it...

Ok.  Either way, avoid the duplication of efforts.

Come on Conan... The cot could do just fine if they had a reliable source of income like the county does (property taxes in addition to sales taxes).    I think if we could get our share of sales taxes from Internet sales that would solve it too.  As it is, the city has to rely totally on ever decreasing sales taxes and we have to spend it all on sprawling infrastructure (potholes) and cops.

But let's not hijack this thread.

Here's an amusing tidbit from today's TMAPC mtg:

After one commissioner was reminding everyone about the vast public input that went into planitulsa, John Dix scoffed at "a few hundred people with clickers" (I'm paraphrasing but he said something like that).  Then he boldly proclaimed, " I represent 400,000 people."

I know his term is already expired.  Perhaps he could be replaced with someone who isn't delusional?    

Vision 2025 was in no way a comprehensive plan and didnt look , walk, or talk anything like one.  Do you know what a comprehensive plan is and does?

If if'ns & buts were candy & nuts...it'd be Christmas every day.  ;)

With all due respect, let's face it, internet sales tax collection is a pipe dream.  I'm aware that on-line retailers like Target, Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc. who have brick and mortar stores in the area do collect sales tax when you purchase an item on line and they ship it to your residence.  However, sellers on eBay and other out of state mail order houses are not compelled to report nor pay sales tax to OTC, unless an eBay seller resides in Oklahoma and has an OTC sales tax permit.  It falls on the taxpayer to properly calculate and pay their use tax for these purchases.  Short of auditing every citizen every year, there is simply no mechanism (nor manpower) in place to make sure use taxes are properly reported and paid.

We spend money maintaining infrastructure and improvements so people can drive out to Million Dollar Elm, Hard Rock, and River Spirit to gamble away discretionary income, eat sales tax-free meals, and purchase sales-tax free items in their gift shops.

COT has also squandered one opportunity after another for new retail development along the Arkansas River.  The only concerted effort they ever made toward this was backing a county initiative to jack up, get this, sales tax rates.  Retail development could have been done for years without asking tax payers to pony up for more than some simple infrastructure improvements, but there's been a mind block at COT that other towns haven't seemed to had much trouble with.  How much revenue is Jenks getting from Riverwalk Crossing these days?

Time to face that COT needs other forms of revenue streams aside from sales tax and lose it's exclusive dependence on sales tax, or get some legislators in OKC who will fight a lot harder to get more of the revenue pie.

Maybe it's time for the city to cede some duties to the county or contract out certain services to save on payroll and retirement costs.

Just when i think you're a lost cause, you make some sense. :)

There is much duplication between the two entities but it shouldn't all default to the county just because they can meet their budgets. They do that by paying their employees with such low pay they have to apply for welfare to make ends meet.

You know my pet peeve is two, count them, two Parks Departments. RPA has worked hard to justify their existence and are friendlier with the county but don't expect them to have the city's interest at heart.

Back to the topic at hand:

Did y'all see that Bumgarner and St. Johns and Hilcrest want to re-write the Areas of Stability map to suit their desires?  (Oh, by the way, that means they want to destroy more of the historic neighborhoods that surround them...for more parking, among other things.)

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100415_16_A9_Hillcr26149 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100415_16_A9_Hillcr26149)

Yorktown and Swan Lake neighborhoods are both listed on the National Register of Historic Places.  They both have HP zoning overlays.  And they're both considered "areas of stability" not "areas of change."

As usual, the hospitals and developers have been buying up properties on the "fringes" of the historic neighborhood.  (Ever notice how today's "heart" becomes tomorrow's "fringe" as the fringe keeps creeping inward, year by year, demolition by demolition?)

For the thousands of you who attended the PLANiTULSA workshops: what was the first thing you did to your maps?  Remember?  You drew a line around areas that should not change.  This included historic districts as well as healthy neighborhoods.  Let's not forget that concept.

TheArtist
You mean there is something comprehensive beyond the corporate welfare of Tulsa politics??

I probably don't actually know what a comprehensive plan is since there have been none to see for the last 50 years ago or so.

What would it be?

Recieved via email:

"Please note the following important announcement:

Procedurally, the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (TMAPC) must reconvene the public hearing scheduled for April 28th, however, there remains a large volume of items for them to discuss and resolve from the February and March hearings.

In order to allow the TMAPC time to consider and decide on these items, the Commission will not take additional testimony at the April 28th hearing.

Instead, the TMAPC will reconvene at 1:30 pm, as scheduled, but will then immediately move to continue the public hearing at a specified date, time and place, and adjourn the session. Immediately following the adjournment of the public hearing, the Commission will move to Room 411 (Council Committee Room) to continue their review of comments and recommendations received to date, together with other outstanding issues.

There will be a 10 minute intermission to accommodate video-related technical issues as TMAPC moves from the City Council Chambers to Room 411.

This process will allow the TMAPC to keep the public hearing open while they continue to address the list of items already before them. Upon finishing their review and consideration of the items, the TMAPC will again accept public testimony on the plan at a specified date, time and place.

All proceedings of TMAPC on April 28th will be televised live on Cable Channel 24, TGOV Tulsa Government Access Television, with streaming at http://www.tgovonline.org.

If you have any questions regarding this schedule or PLANiTULSA please contact one of the following:

Theron Warlick twarlick@cityoftulsa.org
Phone: 576-5677

Martha Schultz mschultz@cityoftulsa.org
Phone: 576-5674"